Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

That's really something not much mentioned as directly as that. We like to think our civil war was unusual and different from everybody else's in that it ended civilly. True, didn't round up the rebels and hang them all and everything that is normal in everybody else's civil wars...but the freedmen got a regular beating every time they turned around, and frustrations could always be taken out on whatever renegade band was running loose out West!
 
C. Kelp said:
while i appreciate what you are saying, i am not sure it is entirely true. Did the entire country choose reconciliation ? it seems to me that part of the country did, parts did not, some never have accepted it. the confederate military and governments had no choice. 20,000 confederates went to brazil, others went to mexico, and some went to ground. i believe it is because of Republicans, reconstruction and reconciliation that these things happened. others just bought vanity plates that declare their memory.
Click to expand...

Of course it is not entirely true: the minute my opinions become the standard, I change professions ;) With such division and destruction, and diversity, (one must not overlook the newly freed slaves), there is definitely no way that everyone was going get on board with any of post-war actions.
 
cash said:
Read the freaking book instead of what people write about the book. She bases the account on Norris' testimony. She only uses the newspaper accounts to show the story had been picked up by others and sensationalized.

"Wesley Norris's testament was given to an antislavery newspaper in 1866 and is one of several accounts of this incident. The story created some uncomfortable negative publicity for Robert E. Lee when it first surfaced in 1859 and continued to haunt him after the war. Its veracity has been questioned by generations of Lee aficionados and we might be tempted to dismiss it as the exaggerated ranting of a bitter ex-slave. Except for one thing: all of its facts are verifiable." [p. 261]

"Over the years George Washington Parke Custis had grown more and more lax with his servants, particularly at Arlington. Finally he had asked little of them but to cultivate their gardens and raise the food they would eat. Now they encountered a master who believed that it was their duty to work and, moreover, was accustomed to the disciplined structure of the army. From his arrival at Arlington, Lee found himself 'endeavoring to urge unwilling hands to work' and trying to reorganize his human resources in a rational fashion. Already disgruntled with the taxing new demands, the slaves were further dismayed when Lee began hiring hands to other plantations. With no means of communication, they had no idea where they were being sent, how long they would be there, or what the conditions would be. In addition, Lee rented out so many hands that the black community at Arlington was badly fragmented. The youngest and strongest were chosen to be hired away because they brought in the greatest revenue. By 1859 old men and little boys were the only workers left at Arlington. Worst of all, Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families. By 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days. There was singular distress among the slaves, and the community's opinion that Lee was a 'hard taskmaster' and 'the worst man I ever see' was sharpened. Their response was to withhold cooperation, and finally to protest openly.

"Many of the slaves Lee hired away were extremely unhappy. They felt exiled from their friends and families at Arlington and thought the measure a degrading punishment. Three men who were hired off the estate returned after one day 'on account of the work being too hard.' Lee reprimanded them and sent them to work for an even more demanding master. Some of the hiring does appear as a kind of punishment, calculated to give difficult workers the discipline of a seasoned overseer, or keep sullen blacks away from the Arlington workforce. This was the case for several slaves whom Lee 'could not recommend for honesty'--he hired them in Richmond, where, he noted to Custis, they were 'put to your service and mine and much to your mother's relief.' The next year, he advised his son, 'it may be better to hire them all out. Their presence seems to be of no advantage.' Even faced with a near epidemic of runaways, and with other resistance from the slaves, he turned a deaf ear. His wife, in denial about the social dislocation taking place at her home, could only complain: 'The ingratitude & bad conduct of these slaves ... has wounded me sorely, some of them now whom I least expected such conduct have done worst of all.' One of those Lee hired out against his will was Wesley Norris." [pp. 263-264]

"Almost immediately the slaves began to test Lee, and at an early stage he lost control of the situation. Only three months after he returned to Arlington, his wife wrote in some alarm that the slaves were uniting to demand their freedom and that only 'the merciful Hand of Kind Providence & their own ineptness I suppose prevented an outbreak.' Four months after that a number of the slaves did rise up against Lee. 'I have had some trouble with some of the people,' he wrote to Rooney in May 1858. 'Reuben, Parks & Edward, in the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority--refused to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, &c, &c--I suceeded in capturing them however, tied them and lodged them in jail. They resisted until overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them.' Lee kept the three in jail for two months, until they could be hired through a slave trader. He also specified that they were not to be sent back to Arlington at Christmastime, though it was customary for hired servants to be reunited with their families at this season. Several other slaves tried to assert the freedom they believed to be theirs, and it appears from Mary Lee's diary that those who remained continued to resist their master, causing 'constant trouble in our domestic affairs.' Lee had to physically 'overpower' the rebels, narrowly avoiding a dangerous revolt at Arlington, and he and the whole household were shaken. Soon thereafter, Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and their cousin George Parks ran away." [pp. 266-267]

But run they did, in the late spring of 1859. We know that the incident took place, not only from the account by Norris but from Lee's own description, as well as court and newspaper records. As Lee describes it, the three 'absconded some months ago, were captured in Maryland making their way to Pennsylvania, brought back and are now hired out in lower Virginia.' Records from Westminster, Maryland, show that they were held there just as Norris relates, and that they may have added a guide or additional runaway to the party en route. Exactly what happened after they were returned to Arlington is more difficult to determine. The abolitionist press picked up on the story, probably recounted by the slaves, and immediately printed it in sensationalist style. Like Norris, they described a scene of punishment, with the runaways being taken to the barn and whipped. In the newspaper accounts, the events are more dramatic than those later described by Norris, with Lee himself taking the whip when the overseer refused to wield it against the girl, lashing the bare-breasted woman thirty-nine times. Another version, printed about the same time, also has Lee personally administering the blows." [pp. 269-270]

"Did Robert E. Lee indulge in this kind of tyrannical behavior? Generations of Lee-revering biographers have rejected the idea. 'It is needless to remark,' said a typical curt commentary, 'that while Lee on occasion was a firm disciplinarian, he was never brutal.' Historians have long used care in relying on the abolitionist press, geared as it was to passion and propaganda. There are also many questions about the credibility of slave narratives, which were often filtered through antislavery forces, or retold many years later through the subjective pens of white interviewers. The two contemporary versions in the New York Tribune, with a furious Lee seizing the black girl, do seem exaggerated. But Wesley Norris's more sober account rings true. He was, after all, one of the protagonists, and the tale, though told to an antislavery paper, was given straightforwardly, only a few years after the incident. Moreover, every detail of it can be verified, from the time he ran away (after seventeen months) and the number of slaves at Arlington, from the names of the jail and the overseer (Norris says 'Mr. Gwin,' a corruption of his actual name, "McQuinn') to the place they were taken after the punishment (Hanover County) and their subsequent employment after the war. We know a whipping post stood at Arlington. The added sting of washing the bloodied backs with brine is corroborated by another eyewitness, who also mentions that the whipping was done by the county constable. Even the constable's name is right--Dick Williams. Lee's account book for June 1859 carries this item: 'To Richard Williams, arrest, &c of fugitive slaves--$321.14.' The sum, which did not include the transport of the slaves to Hanover County--Lee paid another $50.53 for that--is exceptionally large. We know that Lee's standard reward for returning runaways was ten dollars per slave. The previous year Lee's acounts show that he paid Williams only $57.25 to arrest and detain three other fugitives, and another $37.12 to transport them to Richmond. The services rendered by Williams in relation to the Norris party must have been extraordinary to command a fee nearly six times as high as those paid the year before." [p. 270]

"There seems to be no obvious reason that Norris's description of his treatment, corroborated by five different witnesses, and substantiated by Lee's own records, should be discounted." [p. 272]

This is from the account in the Cincinnati Commercial. A correspondent interviewed one of the former Custis slaves:

"Is this one of General Lee's cabins?"
"Yes sir."
"Are you one of General Lee's servants?"
"Yes sir, I am. Will you come in, gentlemen?"
" ... I suppose, Aunty, that these are sad times compared to the good old days up at Arlington, yonder?"
"Dese days are a great deal better, sir."
"Why, was not General Lee a good master?"
" 'He was the worst man I ever see,' said the old woman. 'He used to have po' souls cut most to pieces by de constable out here, and afterward he made his oversee' wash dere backs wi' brine.' "
"... But Mrs. Lee, everybody thinks to be a good woman."
" 'I don't call no woman good, gentlemen,' said the old lady, 'who cheats po' souls out of dere time. Mr. Custis leff all us people on the place $50, and sot us free. General Lee an' his wife keep our money. Dey sold all my children away off Souf, and dey keep five years of my time and my old man's.' " [Cincinnati Commercial narrative, reported in the New York Independent, 4 June 1868, quoted in Walter Creigh Preson, Lee: West Point and Lexington, pp. 76-77]

Pryor discusses this account: "This is a particularly interesting version because it indicates the way slave information traveled, and how it could be at once factual and distorted. The witness stated that she knew she had been freed but confuses the conditions with slaves on the Fitzhugh estate, who had also been promised freedom, and a start-up payment of $50 each. Custis had not provided for such a payment, but the story had gotten round that he had done so, adding to the disgruntlement. The witness in this case was one whose family had been broken up, and she does not distinguish between having her children 'sold' South or hired out, another indication of the uncertainty hiring caused." [Elizabeth Pryor, Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, p. 560, Note 19].

The June 2, 1859 issue of the Carroll County Democrat [Maryland] has a story on page 2 that says:

"Four negroes, two men and two women, were arrested near Westminster and committed to jail. They say they are from Fairfax County Va., owned by Robert Lee, Esq."

This newspaper came out on a weekly basis, so the capture could have been anywhere from June 1 back to May 26. Highly unlikely it was June 2, since the paper had to be typeset and printed for people to read it on June 2.

Westminster is about 12 miles from the Maryland/PA border. One of the letters to the NY Tribune that Freeman claims were false said the slaves were captured about 9 miles from the border. This confirms that detail, since they were captured "near Westminster." No idea who the extra woman is. She may have been another Arlington slave not related to Norris, and in his testimony he only talked about himself, his cousin, and his sister Mary.

Pryor tells us the newspaper accounts seem exaggerated:

"The two contemporary versions in the New York Tribune, with a furious Lee seizing the black girl, do seem exaggerated. But Wesley Norris's more sober account rings true. He was, after all, one of the protagonists, and the tale, though told to an antislavery paper, was given straightforwardly, only a few years after the incident. Moreover, every detail of it can be verified, from the time he ran away (after seventeen months) and the number of slaves at Arlington, from the names of the jail and the overseer (Norris says 'Mr. Gwin,' a corruption of his actual name, 'McQuinn') to the place they were taken after punishment (Hanover County) and their subsequent employment after the war. We know a whipping post stood at Arlington. The added sting of washing the bloodied backs with brine is corroborated by another eyewitness, who also mentions the whipping was done by the county constable. Even the constable's name is right--Dick Williams. Lee's account book for June 1859 carries this item: 'to Richard Williams, arrest, &c of fugitive slaves--$321.14.' This sum, which did not include the transport of the slaves to Hanover County--Lee paid another $50.53 for that--is exceptionally large. We know that Lee's standard reward for returning runaways was ten dollars per slave. The previous year Lee's accounts show that he paid Williams only $57.25 to arrest and detain three other fugitives and another $37.12 to transport them to Richmond. The costs for the earlier capture had also been inflated by the need to keep them in jail two months. The services rendered by Williams in relation to the Norris party must have been extraordinary to command a fee nearly six times as high as those paid the year before." [Elizabeth Brown Pryor, Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, p. 270]

The Cincinnati Commercial account is from a woman slave who witnessed the whippings and the brine. Lee's account book shows a payment to Richard Williams for the "arrest &c of fugitive slaves." REL to GWC Lee, 2 Jul 1859, establishes that three slaves ran away by Lee's own writing.

So his treatment of being arrested as a fugitive slave is corroborated by the Commercial, the two letters to the newspaper, the Carroll County Paper, and Lee's own account book.

His treatment of being whipped is corroborated by the two letters to the Herald, the story in the Commercial, and the increased payments to Williams in Lee's accounts.

His treatment of being transported to Hanover County is verified by Lee's account book.

The physical fact of at least one whipping post is established by the Union soldier.

Pryor does not claim Lee himself whipped slaves. She supports Norris' account that Lee had the constable whip the slaves for running away. Whipping would be a standard punishment for slaves who ran away and were recaptured, so in that Lee was acting as a typical slave owner.
Click to expand...

I happened across a comment in some history of slavery in Louisiana that may be enlightening about the whipping of the slaves. It wasn't important enough to bookmark at the time, so I'm sorry that I can't provide a source. The author mentioned that many slave owners simply sent their slaves to be whipped by the constable/sheriff. However, the owners felt that sometimes the constable was too lax in the whipping and opted to be present.

I only offer this as it might explain the discrepancy between Norris's account in which Lee does not whip the slaves himself and the newspaper accounts in which he whips the woman. Perhaps it was his very presence at the whipping that had a significance that later readers miss, and possibly the newspaper letter writers misunderstood as well.
 
Right. Lee never got to write his memoirs or for that matter, engage in recriminations about the war during his remaining lifetime, so his image was fostered by what others said and wrote.
 
Jamieva said:
Lee had reached out to his subordinates for documents/papers in preparation to write a history of the ANV before he died.
Click to expand...
even if he had written his bio, could we trust it anymore than anybody else's, like davis's ? i believe we can only judge him by his actions. confederate documents and even his quotes are suspect. some are not , just like other folks if it can be corroborated by impartial sources, or agreed to by witnesses from all parties.
he had time but he did very little yet he found time to turn a little school into a big school. i believe that is the extent of his contribution to reconciliation , but i could be lacking knowledge on this. he could be nominated for other reasons but i still don't think he is a winner.
 
C. Kelp said:
even if he had written his bio, could we trust it anymore than anybody else's, like davis's ? i believe we can only judge him by his actions. confederate documents and even his quotes are suspect. some are not , just like other folks if it can be corroborated by impartial sources, or agreed to by witnesses from all parties.
he had time but he did very little yet he found time to turn a little school into a big school. i believe that is the extent of his contribution to reconciliation , but i could be lacking knowledge on this. he could be nominated for other reasons but i still don't think he is a winner.
Click to expand...


Well since he never wrote it we really cant answer that
 
Jamieva said:
Well since he never wrote it we really cant answer that
Click to expand...
you are right. my comment was really meant for a previous comment. sorry. my issue was only that ...
jackt62 said:
Lee never got to write his memoirs
Click to expand...
he could have but chose not to, and did little else. i could be wrong but nobody has given any examples, nor have i found any. i agree with the rest of jack's post.
 
I believe Lee was deified by the South for another reason.

A lack of choices.

Lee was, without a doubt, a brave man and an excellent combat leader. None can deny his ability to lead his army to victories. His kindness had and his sense of justice was also an excellent quality for those who needed a hero to spring from the ashes of a bitter defeat.

Jefferson Davis could not measure up to those qualities immediately after the war, neither could any of the other Confederate generals or government officials.

The 'cause' of slavery could not be put forward, not in a world where it was fast being thought of undesirable and wrong.

No, Lee and Lee alone, stood head and shoulders above any other in the South and any cause that might bring reproach.

Even though he did not want such a burden, upon his death he made a perfect poster child for the South, and not without some merit.

Unionblue
 
diane said:
I've always thought it was curious - and maybe revealing - that Lee wrote and edited his father's memoirs but not his own.
Click to expand...
i'm not trying to be a smart-aleck , i'm sincere. do you think it may be that he was a broken man and preferred not to have to describe himself but leave it to others ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JSylvester
Gettysburg: Lee marches on Harrisburg after July 1
Replies
11
Views
215
Generic Username
Luke Freet
Nashville Lee's Corps during the Franklin-Nashville Campaign
2
Replies
33
Views
495
Luke Freet
C
Longstreet refuses to not go west after Chancellorsville
2
Replies
22
Views
93
13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf
damYankee
Lee How well known was Lee before the war?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
USS ALASKA
wausaubob
Lee Robert E. Lee's decisions in the 1850s.
Replies
2
Views
288
wausaubob

Similar threads

gary
NF Robert Gilchrist's The Confederate Defence of Morris Island
Replies
1
Views
2
NC43rd
KianGaf
Lee PBS Robert E Lee
Replies
0
Views
1
KianGaf
OldReliable1862
Lee 90 Minutes with Marse Robert
Replies
0
Views
1
OldReliable1862

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

      Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top