Lee Myth of a kindly General Lee

That's not an answer to my question.

It is. I was agreeing with you that slavery, while legal, was morally reprehensible, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the law of the land. And sometimes even today people face that situation of legality vs. morality and have to make a choice.

"Legal" sometimes does not translate to "right."

I completely agree.

Wasn't there a bit of a debate over making slavery "legal" because it did not seem "right" to some? And where did the main opposition come from when trying to rid the new nation of this "legal" institution?

Don't put legal in quotes as though slavery wasn't truly legal. It was Constitutionally protected. Yes, that was done through a compromise, but the fact remains: the Founders established a legal framework for government that the majority agreed to which included protection of slavery, and the Confederates were not wrong in making the complaint that the Northern states weren't living up to their end of the agreement. They were legally correct while being morally wrong.

As much as we hate to admit it, slavery was an American institution, protected by the Constitution and the courts until the passage of the 13th amendment changed that. It was a national sin, not a regional one.
 
the Founders established a legal framework for government that the majority agreed to which included protection of slavery, and the Confederates were not wrong in making the complaint that the Northern states weren't living up to their end of the agreement.
The real threat posed by "the Northern states" was twofold: First, reluctance to obey the Fugitive Slave Law; second, the desire to limit slavery to those States where it then existed.
The perceived threat was that Northern abolitionists would foment slave rebellion. This fear became almost pathological following Brown's Raid.
Were these complaints sufficient to warrant secession? Southerners- at least Southern slaveholders- thought so. But in trying to 'preserve the Southern way of life', they guaranteed its demise.
 
He wanted to be a doctor, actually, but the family had only enough money to send one kid to Harvard. Guess he could thank his wastrel father for his ending up a general! (Actually, I like Light Horse Harry a lot but father of the year he wasn't...:redface:) However, way later down the road, Lee had the opportunity to make some changes in education. When he was president of Washington College, he added classes and subtracted useless classes as his goal was to diversify opportunities available to graduates. When he went to West Point it was engineering or the noble cavalry - period!

I know "Light Horse" had a wild reputation. But later in life he was nearly beaten to death by a mob in Baltimore. He & his companions had protected a friend who owned an unpopular political newspaper. Fighting had broken out and a virtual siege had taken place of Harry Lee & friends. Officials arrest him & his constituents under the pretext of protecting them. Then the mob broke in the jail late at night & assaulted Harry & his friends. He was beaten so bad that the only thing saving his life was a local doctor vowing to the assailants that he was dead! Reportedly Light Horse was never the same. Always wondered how much this near death experience & head trauma assisted in Light Horse Harry's astronomical fall from grace!? Like I said, I know he had issues before this event but dang he went from hero & eulogist of Washington to being left for dead by a rampaging mob!

Robert E. Lee is such an interesting figure in Civil War & American history. I tend to admire him greatly. I realize that's not always popular anymore, but I don't believe he made decisions lightly. He followed his conscious for good or bad.... it was a time when very Virginian was a traitor to one side or the other depending on their sympathies.

Having said that he was just a man. I think those who have idolized him & those who now despise him both miss the make, IMHO.
 
There are laws today that some of us find morally reprehensible. Are we free to just disobey them without expecting any consequences? Our conscience may well dictate that we must do what's right regardless of the law, but the fact that something is legal is not a trivial thing to be disregarded when considering the issue.
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." --- Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968), Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963. Emphasis added.
 
Skilled engineer at that. I always thought he could read ground better because of this skill and other talents. It's a reason scott used him as a scout.
His talents extended to ambiguous orders that could backfire. That ambiguity tho can be very motivating to the one receiving these orders as it allows tactical discretion to the man on the scene.
He dealt with heart disease. He could be temperamental. At gettysburg he ate cherries as they have similar properties as aspirin. They also are high fiber and acidic. Coupled with the stress of position the man could be grumpy.
Any leader any time any where would welcome lee into their army.

WestPoint was an engineering school. All the able graduates went into the corps of engineers.
Fort Carrol in Baltimore was designed & largely built by Lee. Hopefully someday it will be more accessible to the public.

IMG_4512.JPG
 
Last edited:
Robert E. Lee is such an interesting figure in Civil War & American history. I tend to admire him greatly. I realize that's not always popular anymore, but I don't believe he made decisions lightly. He followed his conscious for good or bad.... it was a time when very Virginian was a traitor to one side or the other depending on their sympathies.
Having said that he was just a man. I think those who have idolized him & those who now despise him both miss the make, IMHO.
I agree. One need not 'worship' a person, ignoring all faults, to admire him/her. Lee is, indeed, worthy of our admiration.
 
Unfortunately, had they not compromised on the slavery issue, there would have been no United States of America.

That's what people neglect to remember or even contemplate. Without our very real growing pains as a nation & a people (because we are, rest of the world sees us as Americans no matter how we see ourselves) we would not be where we are today, for better or worse. Our history is the story of our juorney. One of the most remarkable journeys in human history, IMHO.
 
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." --- Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968), Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963. Emphasis added.

Dr. King said it much better than I did.
 
I know "Light Horse" had a wild reputation. But later in life he was nearly beaten to death by a mob in Baltimore. He & his companions had protected a friend who owned an unpopular political newspaper. Fighting had broken out and a virtual siege had taken place of Harry Lee & friends. Officials arrest him & his constituents under the pretext of protecting them. Then the mob broke in the jail late at night & assaulted Harry & his friends. He was beaten so bad that the only thing saving his life was a local doctor vowing to the assailants that he was dead! Reportedly Light Horse was never the same. Always wondered how much this near death experience & head trauma assisted in Light Horse Harry's astronomical fall from grace!? Like I said, I know he had issues before this event but dang he went from hero & eulogist of Washington to being left for dead by a rampaging mob!

Robert E. Lee is such an interesting figure in Civil War & American history. I tend to admire him greatly. I realize that's not always popular anymore, but I don't believe he made decisions lightly. He followed his conscious for good or bad.... it was a time when very Virginian was a traitor to one side or the other depending on their sympathies.

Having said that he was just a man. I think those who have idolized him & those who now despise him both miss the make, IMHO.

Yes, poor Harry took a lickin' and kept on tickin'! The editor of the paper in question had specifically wanted Harry there because he was a military man and he did do a good job of fortifying the man's house. He and a half dozen others were well armed and well covered. The big mistake was in believing the sheriff - who left Barney Fife to stand between them and a very, very ugly mob. That sure didn't last long... Harry, as you say, never recovered and probably had some serious internal injuries from getting stomped. He left for the Caribbean when Robert was six, so neither one had much memory of the other. Harry wrote often to Carter, his oldest by Anne, but only once mentioned his youngest son - didn't seem to remember his name, either! There's a lot of interesting speculation in how Harry influenced his son, that's for sure. Robert never visited his father's grave until 1862 - he spent some time alone there and picked a flower. It seems that he substituted Washington for his father, but there was definitely a lot of Harry in his youngest son.

Then...we have the whole unsavory saga of Black Horse Harry, Lee's older half-brother, who...was colorful...! Lee sure inherited a pile of other people's baggage to unpack in his living room. Kind of seems to be the story of his life when you think about it - always having to clean up somebody else's mess.
 
It might have been possible at the time Jackson suggested it. The North was not ready for all out war - in fact, the berry picking at Bull Run shows nobody was ready for it. Jackson, who had been in a war already, knew the North would catch on quick and, as a manufacturing center, it would be unstoppable then. The South couldn't match them there.
We have had previous threads that stated that after the Union defeat at Bull Run substantial Union reinforcements were arriving in Washington DC. At no time was a successful invasion of the North likely to succeed.
Leftyhunter
 
He and a half dozen others were well armed and well covered. The big mistake was in believing the sheriff - who left Barney Fife to stand between them and a very, very ugly mob.

Well ya gotta remember poor Fife only had one bullet. And in this case literally! Lol

But it seems as if it was a set up. The mob was let in with very little resistance & on purpose from the little I know. It was totally political & very ugly. Politics was an uglier thing then if you can believe it!

In Baltimore political gangs controlled entire neighborhoods during elections. People were kidnapped & cooped (like birds) just before Election Day. Then they were forced to drink & then vote at several different locations. Voting corruption was rife across the entire city!

Our Fire Department was born because of these shenanigans. Every volunteer house was also a political club. Two opposing fire houses meeting each other to put out a fire would argue & often break out into open warfare... Thos as the house on fire burned down!
 
What 'it'? :unsure: Since I don't know how to explain a moot point any mooter, I'll let you have it!

Didn't lie. I don't think we're ever going to make headway on that! Ain't giving it to you, though. :wink:

True enough, there were Lees on the Union side. A cousin was a Union admiral - not a bad job, either - a nephew who took a potshot at Uncle Robert. But where did his sons fight? Cousins and nephews might be one thing, but shooting at your sons is another. No, Lee really didn't have a decision to make but it was a very hard one anyway.

Had Lee gone with the Union, would his sons have been shooting at him or would they have gone with the Union as well?
 
Lee said the following, and I think it's clear that the bottom line for him was not the Union, but Virginia. The phrase, with slight variations, "Save in defense of my native State, I have no desire ever again to draw my sword" occurs over and over.

Arlington, Virginia, April 20, 1861.
" My Dear Sister: I am grieved at my inability to see you. ... I have been waiting for a 'more convenient season,' which has brought to many before me deep and lasting regret. Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognise no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my
native State.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavoured to do what I thought right.

"To show you the feeling and struggle it has cost me, I send you a copy of my letter of resignation. I have no time for more. May God guard and protect you and yours, and shower upon you everlasting blessings, is the prayer of your devoted brother, R. E. Lee

---------------

Arlington, Virginia, April 20, 1860.
"My Dear Brother Smith: The question which was the subject of my earnest consultation with you on the 18th inst. has in my own mind been decided. After the most anxious inquiry as to the correct course for me to pursue, I concluded to resign, and sent in my resignation this morning. I wished to wait till the Ordinance of Secession should be acted on by the people of Virginia; but war seems to have commenced, and I am liable at any time to be ordered on duty which I could not conscientiously perform. To save me from such a position, and to prevent the necessity of resigning under orders, I had to act at once, and before I could see you again on the subject, as I had wished. I am now a private citizen, and have no other ambition than to remain at home. Save in defense of my native State, I have no desire ever again to draw my sword. I send you my warmest love.
"Your affectionate brother,
"R.E.Lee."

-----------------

Arlington, Virginia, April 20, 1861.
"General: Since my interview with you on the 18th inst. I have felt that I ought no longer to retain my commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation, which I request you will recommend for acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle it has cost me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted the best years of my life, and all the ability I possessed.

" During the whole of that time — more than a quarter of a century — I have experienced nothing but kindness
from my superiors and a most cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one, General, have I been as much
indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness and consideration, and it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration, and your name and fame shall always be dear to me.

" Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.

" Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continuance of your happiness and prosperity, and believe me most truly yours,

"(Signed)

"R. E. Lee."
I tend to question whether Lee would have said anything about not fighting the Union, because it would have been obvious to him if he had to "draw his sword", that it would be used against the Union. And he clearly expressed that he would defend Virginia by force. I think Lee did not want to fight against the Union, but was ready to do so if he felt it was necessary.

If the postwar account claiming he said he would never fight against the Union is true, then since it was obvious to him [I agree with you it would have been obvious to him] he would have drawn his sword against the Union, he lied.
 
Had Lee gone with the Union, would his sons have been shooting at him or would they have gone with the Union as well?

That's an interesting question, really. A lot of people followed Lee's lead - a lot of fence sitters might not have joined the Confederate cause. It does make one wonder how affairs would have turned out in Virginia if Lee had not left with the government of his state. Plenty of Unionists in West Virginia!

His sons - I don't think there was a choice there even if they wanted one. They'd inherited property from their grandpa and it was in Virginia. Didn't fare any better than their mother's but the old homestead is worth fighting about. While I haven't really studied up on what Lee's boys thought, I have a feeling their mother's influence on them was more than their father's. Mary Lee was as Confederate as they came and never got reconstructed!
 
Well ya gotta remember poor Fife only had one bullet. And in this case literally! Lol

But it seems as if it was a set up. The mob was let in with very little resistance & on purpose from the little I know. It was totally political & very ugly. Politics was an uglier thing then if you can believe it!

In Baltimore political gangs controlled entire neighborhoods during elections. People were kidnapped & cooped (like birds) just before Election Day. Then they were forced to drink & then vote at several different locations. Voting corruption was rife across the entire city!

Our Fire Department was born because of these shenanigans. Every volunteer house was also a political club. Two opposing fire houses meeting each other to put out a fire would argue & often break out into open warfare... Thos as the house on fire burned down!

I agree with you there, and so would Harry! He believed it was a political plot and a total set-up. He was a Federalist and the mob was put together by the opposition. Ironically, Harry was against the 1812 war - he wasn't against another war with Britain over their arrogant behavior toward the new US, but he didn't think this was the war to fight with them. However, he did believe in everybody's right to have their say even if it was lousy. He was, rather in a roundabout way, fighting for freedom of the press.
 
So did Lincoln lie when he stated he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed? Or did events change and cause him to rethink his earlier position on the matter?

False equivalence fallacy. The two situations were completely different. For one example, Lincoln didn't know for sure there would be a war, nor did he know he would be moving against slavery during that war.

Lee was almost certain Virginia would secede, was almost certain there would be a civil war, and was almost certain if there was a war, he would be fighting against the United States.
 
Back
Top