What's the Big Deal About Robert E. Lee?

None of this absolves Jefferson of ordering brutalization and torture. It really is okay to judge him for that – he didn’t have to order brutalization and torture. That would not have caused him to lose “his farm, his home, everything” (which is bullshit hyperbole anyway – he could have freed his slaves, sold his property, and lived quite comfortably on the proceeds, or freed his slaves and paid them a small wage to work on his property, like Clay did, and had a slightly less profitable plantation then before).

If he truly recognized how evil slavery was, he wouldn’t have tortured and brutalized his slaves. He didn’t have to do that, but he chose to do so. It really is reasonable to say “Jefferson should have known better”. He chose to brutalize and torture and it wasn’t necessary.

These are fair things to say. Jefferson wasn’t a perfect man and it’s fair to say that he made some mistakes, and how he treated the human beings he owned is one of those mistakes.

This doesn’t excuse brutalization and torture. Some slave owners didn’t brutalize and torture their slaves. Jefferson chose to, and it’s fair to criticize him for it.

Look, you can call it “torture” all you want, but beating runaways was just what was done back then. They beat white apprentices that ran away, they beat white indentured servants who ran away, they beat soldiers and sailors, Judges had petty criminals whipped, and they beat children.

Pretty much the vast majority of congress owned slaves and they all beat runaways slaves- and servants, and apprentices. General whipped soldiers. captains whipped sailors. It was a different time.

I’ve explained it enough and we’re going in circles. Thanks for revealing some things about what kind of human you are. I’ll keep this in mind for future discussions.

It’d be different if you said “Jefferson should have been a less brutal slave owner, or found a way to free his slaves, but I still think the good he did outweighed the bad”, but you’re insisting that he didn’t do a single thing wrong, or that it’s not fair to criticize him in any way at all for how he treated other humans. That’s unreasonable and reprehensible.

Did you know that schoolboys were routinely whipped until well into the 20th century?

Until 1879 up to 1200 lashes were administered to military offenders- this in the rather forward thinking Britain. **1200. **

Every member of the 1776 congress who owned slaves (40 out of 60), or indentured servants, or apprentices or was a military officer or a Magistrate or a ships captain had at one time ordered a flogging. That is pretty much all of them, except perhaps a Minister or two.

John Adams, who you idealize- was a member of the War Board of Congress, *which authorized flogging as a routine punishment. * Adams had no issue with flogging men- or as you call it “torture”.

You just don’t understand history.

None of this disputes anything I’ve said at all, even assuming all these cite-free claims are true (and I’m well aware flogging existed as a military punishment). It’s okay to criticize Jefferson. It doesn’t mean he’s history’s worst monster. It just means that he’s an imperfect human being who, unlike Adams, Franklin, Clay, and many others, were unable to rise above the mediocre (at best) moral standards of the day with regards to slavery.

It’s okay to admit that. Jefferson wasn’t a saint or a perfect person. It’s okay to criticize him.

I don’t want to discount the presence of racism in this whole discussion, but I think we’re missing the point of the south’s current fascination with the Confederacy. It’s not about what the war was really about or even the agendas of those who erected the monuments. It’s about the “Rebel Spirit.” I think many southerners see it as their kin standing up for what they believed. No matter that what they believed was wrong. It wasn’t the govt’s place to tell them they were wrong; it was their right to decide for themselves.

And this belief is not relegated to just the south. I believe it’s the same thinking that spurs the militia movement in the north, and the State of Jefferson movement in the west. Indeed many see it as the one truly American right. The right to decide for ourselves; even if that decision is wrong.
It’s kinda what we’re taught in school:
The puritans left England because they wouldn’t be told how to worship.
The colonists left the King because they wouldn’t be told how to run their own country.

It doesn’t matter that they lost. It doesn’t even matter that what they were standing up for was wrong (almost everybody now agrees slavery was wrong). And it certainly doesn’t matter that most of the monuments were erected to further a racist agenda. They only thing that matters to many who want to keep the monuments and the flag is that the people who these things represent (their direct kin) stood up for what they believed and wouldn’t let anyone “tell them what they should believe.” And that gives them hope that they too would stand up and not be pushed around.

Growing up in the north, I have no love for these symbols and recognize that they represent a sad chapter in our nation, and I would be fine with them being removed from public places - and I think they should be. But I do understand wanting to not be completely ashamed of where you came from and what they have done in the past and so you cling to the one admirable trait you can salvage from that wreckage. “The Rebel Spirit”

Just a thought

mc

Back to the OP, I really cannot think of any norther/Union leaders beside Abraham Lincoln that get the same admiration as Lee. Very few statues to Grant, Sherman, Meade or others. Nor is there the equivalent pride in being from the North.

Then the music:

The Night they Drove Old Dixie down. IMO, Joan Baez best song.

Johnny Reb by Johnny Horton

Are you Irish? Check out The Irish Brigade Song.

I know you’re making a point, here. But I’d totally pay to see this.

Dude. DUDE. Don’t reinvent the wheel. There’s a petition that’s objectively speaking the best thing ever.

Throw in Chloe Grace Moretz and I’ll sign.

In all seriousness, has anyone ever suggested adding Union figures?

There’s at least one monument to Robert E. Lee in Ohio. Nothing even happened where it sits. It was just plopped down arbitrarily in 1927, because it was along the route of the Dixie Highway and, uhhhh, Robert E. Lee was from Dixie? And when it was removed in 2017, there were people who rallied to save their history from being erased. :rolleyes: It’s since been moved to another location.

I’ve seen Confederate flags being flown at houses in New York. Obviously, the Confederacy is not part of New York’s “heritage”.

I won’t argue that there aren’t some Confederate displays that are sincere memorials to history. But any truthful person has to acknowledge that some people have co-opted Confederate displays to symbolize other things - many of them repugnant.

United Daughters of the Confederacy. They were/are quite the busy little momument erectors, it’s pretty much what they were founded to do. Probably not coincidental that the KKK were very well-established in 1920’s Ohio.

Like the Confederacy?

Same way Germans fly Nazi flags all the time? Because they don’t want anyone to tell them what to do?

Oh, wait, they don’t do that? Because they’re actually decent and thoughtful human beings who know certain symbols have no redeeming value whatsoever? Hm.

Well that and there’s a law against that sort of thing. I’m sure there are plenty of assholes living in Germany too. Assholery is universal.

I know this is long, longer than I intended when I began, but I for those of you who really want an answer to the OP, I hope you will read it.

There’s an often-missed angle as to why there are so many monuments and why so many of them are to Robert E. Lee.

Does anybody ever wonder why these women who lived through the war and the Reconstruction aftermath dedicated themselves so wholly and completely to the memories of “Our Boys”? Why would they be raising money for monuments when often times didn’t even have enough money for food?

It is very likely because many, many Southern women were survivors of sexual violence at the hands of Union soldiers, and their coping mechanism was to build up the idea that a Southern Gentleman would never have behaved in such vulgar way. In the social decorum of the time, the notion of Gentlemen and Ladies was very real, and aristocratic Southern Belles admired nothing more in a man than his manners. So when you are set upon by bands of marauding and pillaging enemy soldiers, it has a way of causing moderate to severe psychological stress.

If you study Sherman’s March to the Sea, we do know that elite white women we specific targets for violence, humiliation and sexual assault. Lisa Tendrich Frank’s book called The Civilian War describes this. We also know that the real numbers of sexual assault are hugely underreported, for many reasons. I have read so many books on the subject, and I used to have a copy of a book called “I Had Rather Die” by Kim Murphy, and in it she describes these kinds of scenarios and the psychological reaction to rape by an enemy soldier in Southern society. I recall a passage where a woman actually was trying to report during Reconstruction being essentially gang-raped (although they did not use those terms then) by 5 Union soldiers, and she was dismissed (by a Union Officer of course) and told that if the really was a Lady, she wouldn’t be talking about such things. Most of the women just turned to each other for comfort and/or suffered in silence.

And yes, yes, I get it that Sherman’s aim was to break the back of the Confederacy, blah, blah, blah, I know that, and I know that he felt the women needed to be targeted because he believed they were a big source of the strength of the men who were fighting, but what he didn’t bargain for, and what so many people don’t get today, is that the backlash of all that was a generation of very damaged women who had no outlet for their grief and pain.

And I certainly hope I don’t need to make the argument that a woman does not necessarily have to be actually raped to be traumatized. Maybe just having your petticoat and skirts ripped off you and all your clothes stolen is enough. Or what about jewelry and other personal belongings stolen and sent away to Northern wives and sweethearts? Or your treasured letters burned and every household item of any usefulness destroyed? And what if they came again and again, taking all you need to produce more food, leaving you essentially naked and hungry with no way to replace what was taken? I would say that would jack you in the head a little bit. Women were left to whisper about it among themselves.

So they decided to erect monuments as a coping mechanism, and they built up the notion that their men had a special nobility, and would never, ever have allowed this to happen if only they had been there! Robert E. Lee became the archetype of this. It is a status even he, himself, would not have wanted.

One only has to read the diaries of a few Southern war widows to understand this. Dolly Sumner Lunt is a good one. Most of my particular interest has been in Georgia. There wasn’t a woman anywhere around that hadn’t lost a husband, son or brother, or possibly all 3. And then to suffer sexual violence on top of that? And then to have to report it to the very people that did it to you?

I think it is kind of understandable that they would take solace in building up legends.
Has anyone ever considered Mrs. DuBose in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird? For those of you who can’t recall, she is the bitter old lady who sits on the porch and yells at the children, all the while with a Confederate revolver in her lap for protection. Why is she like that? What has she been through that she is so threatened, even by small children? There is so much going on that novel that non-Southerners never pick up on. Harper Lee was writing from experience and she knew that in the 1930s these kinds of old ladies were everywhere. They had been traumatized in The War, and they were best left alone. She is the typical type of woman who would have been very involved in the late 1800s and early 1900s in organizations such as The Society of the Beautification of the Graves of Our Glorious Dead, probably a chapter of the UDC.

There was a huge need on the part of these women to legitimize their pain. Pain of grief, loss, violation. And putting their energy into the only acceptable avenue available to them at the time is a good explanation. Putting up obelisks, plaques, and headstones was a way of saying that “My fallen (Husband, Brother, Son) is JUST as legitimate as yours!”.

The Southern Lady: From Pedestal to Politics 1830-1930 by Anne Firor Scott is an excellent book to shed light on this.

The backstory of the Confederate monument in Savannah is perfect example. It was originally designed in 1875 with shrouded female figures on it, signifying grief and mourning, clearly a female statement. About a dozen or so years later, the female figures were removed and placed in Laurel Grove cemetery and the top figure was replaced with a typical soldier. I have argued we should restore it back to the Ladies’ original conception so people would understand better that the beginnings of the Monuments Movement came out of female grief and trauma. The glorified “generals on horses” statue types of monuments didn’t come until a little later once the politicians got involved and pretty much hijacked what the women had already started. This is where the whole “our women need protection” line came from so often spouted by the Dixiecrats that would come later.

Never underestimate the far-reaching power of a damaged War Widow.

Interesting hypothesis, but there’s no hard evidence presented, and it doesn’t really time out. People can be outraged by anything, not just thievery or sexual violence, and, indeed, from some letters we can see an absolutely outraged woman when a Union solider was commanded by his commanding officer not to steal her candlesticks.

Most importantly, though, my understanding is that the majority of the monuments were put created much later - after the deaths of the of soldiers, and really picking up in the 1900-1920 time period, long after most of the women directly affected were dead. Indeed, it sounds much more like revisionist history, lionizing their dead parents, and pretending slavery wasn’t the evil it was by people who either weren’t born or wern’t adults yet when the events occurred.

I am gonna have to ask for evidence Sherman advocated rape, or wanted his soldiers to rape civilians.