Lee Can Gen. Robert E. Lee still be considered "A great general and honorable man"?

Well, I suppose the gentleman in the article can change his name if that's the way he feels about uncle!

I can't see why Robert E Lee would not be an honorable man and a great general. The cause he fought for wasn't really what most believe - he was fighting for his family. He was a Virginian. Everything he and his had or ever would have was in Virginia. And, come right down to it, that's what men fight to protect.


Well said Diane. Today we all pledge loyalty to the United States of America, and America is my nation, I love my nation, but would we remain loyal to the United States of America if they told us to turn against our family, turn our guns on them, our sons, daughters, mother, and fathers. I know where I stand. I will defend my nation until death, BUT..............I will defend my family against ALL.

Lee could not and would not turn his back on his family, on his state. Lee was not only honorable, he was brave!!!

I hope I never have to make the decision he had to make, nor sacrifice all he did in defending his family and state.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation, two countries

Confed-American Flag.jpg
 
Lee was a great General. Ironically he was asked to put down John Browns Raid by the US and he did so. Then he was eventually asked to lead the Federals but he refused and remained loyal to Virginia. Unquestionably a man of character he was. He was already going to release his slaves by 1865 and it was Lee who quelled some Southerners desire to continue a guerilla war after they had stacked arms at Appomattox.
 
What was Lee doing specifically for Grant to say that?

Chapters 24 and 25 of Elizabeth Brown Pryor's book, Reading the Man, looks at Lee in the postwar/Reconstruction years.

Soon after the war, Thomas Cook, a reporter with the New York Herald, secured an interview with Lee. “Lee took care to present himself as confident, robust, and anxious for reconciliation. He was quick to point out, however, that ‘should arbitrary, or vindictive, or revengeful policies be adopted, the end was not yet.’ He stated that the issue of states’ rights had been decided by military power, not philosophical justice, then trivialized the entire conflict as a difference of political opinion–hardly grounds for accusations of treason. He excused Jefferson Davis’s actions and proposed that Davis should be shown leniency because he had been a late and reluctant convert to secession. He explained his own actions in the same way. Lee further stated that the ‘best men of the South’ were pleased to see the end of slavery, and they had only continued the institution because of their Christian concern for black people. According to the reporter, Lee then showed his hand a bit more and said: ‘The negroes must be disposed of, and if their disposition can be marked out, the matter of freeing them is at once settled,’ suggesting that without such a ‘disposal’ the former Confederate states would work to undermine emancipation. Lee’s main message, however, was that the South had waged a ‘half earnest’ rebellion, that every Southerner had overcome his moment of passion, and that no one should ‘be judged harshly for contending for that which he honestly believed to be right.’ Above all, Lee argued that the former Confederate states be treated with moderation so that the sons who were the country’s ‘bone and sinew, its intelligence and enterprise’ might stay and work for its future.” [p. 431] As we can see, Lee was not above prevarication and outright fabrication if it served his purposes. Lee also was not afraid to issue demands to the victors. Lee’s words were met with scathing criticism in the loyal states. Lee would eventually accept an offer to be president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, where he took a hands-on approach, making a number of changes, such as using Sylvanus Thayer’s running of West Point as a model for his own direction of Washington College. While he made a number of improvements, it wasn’t easy on those at the college. “Lee was known for his ‘fierce and violent temper, prone to intense expression,’ and his administrative staff, as well as the students and faculty, learned to be wary, especially as the explosion often carried over to those not responsible for annoying the president. Some were concerned that nothing seemed to impress him; that he never apologized when clearly in error; that he had a way of testing the youths and their teachers to prove his superiority.” [p. 439]

“Lee’s progressive stance toward education, and his belief that Southerners should stay with their homes as they faced uncertain prospects, was an exceptional moment of foresight–justly admired and still resonant after fifteen decades. This long-range outlook, however, seems to have been relegated to one compartment of his mind. Lee’s political precepts, as well as his efforts to accept the tragic events of the war (and his part in them), would be far more myopic. … [H]e planted himself in his favorite aggressively defensive position, denying any positive outcome to the conflict and balking at social change. [In the letter that opened the chapter] His struggle is quickly visible in this draft, for Lee stumbles over nearly every word, trying to reformulate his thoughts in a gently defiant fashion. He is anxious to state his opinion on the war’s outcome, and do a little revisionist history on the reasons for his participation in it.” [p. 445] Although he denied in public that he read the newspapers, he assiduously followed the press in both the North and the South. “Most of his opinions sought to justify the preeminence of states’ rights, and he expressed an overt dislike–even fear–of majority politics and strong federal government.” [p. 450] Lee portrayed himself outwardly as accepting the results of the war, yet inside he seethed with anger. “In private he penned political treatises that throb with controlled rage, containing harsh words about ‘a national civilization which rots the life of a people to the core’; ‘the gaol [sic] to which our progress in civilization is guiding us’; or ‘unprincipled men who look for nothing but the retention of place & power in their hands.’ This and several other draft essays he wrote were never published, but their cross-hatched and unfinished pages are like the smoke from a roiling volcano.” [p. 450] The biggest political issue of Reconstruction was the status of African-Americans. “Lee had never been comfortable with the idea of intermingling with blacks, and the issue of race and power was one that seemed to jar his most fundamental assumptions. … Like others of his region, he persisted in truly believing that blacks were incapable of functioning on their own, that they had no inclination to work, and aspired to nothing beyond daily comfort and amusement. Such attitudes not only justified the adherence to slavery in the first place, they calmed the unspeakable worry that the freed blacks might succeed, thereby becoming a threat to status, economy, and pride. Lee’s worldview was still strongly hierarchical–even within his enlightened vision of widespread education, he could not see beyond offering only as much ‘knowledge & high mental culture as the limited means of the humble can command.’ From the end of the war he took care to distance himself from the ex-slaves as much as possible, maintaining his control by aloofness. He tried to employ white rather than black servants in his household, though in the end the family acquiesced to hiring three or four ‘tolerable … respectable, but not energetic’ freedmen. As before the war, his expectations fulfilled long-honed stereotypes. He told Congress he thought the ex-slaves less able than whites to acquire knowledge and inclined only to work sporadically on ‘very short jobs … they like their ease and comfort, and I think, look more to their present than to their future condition.’ He advised his planter friends to shun black labor, for he felt the freedmen would work against their former owners and destroy property values. ‘I have always observed that wherever you find the negro, everything is going down around him,’ he told one cousin, ‘and wherever you find the white man, you see everything around him improving.’ Although he did not always state it so starkly, he continued to think, as he had told the Herald, that the blacks had best be ‘disposed of’ and endorsed the idea of importing European workers to replace them. Lee particularly hoped that English immigration could be increased so that the South would benefit from ‘good citizens whose interests & feelings would be in unison with our own.’ … Lee’s vision did not include granting African-Americans the same option of productive citizenship that he wished to offer to immigrants. He explained to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that ‘at this time,t hey cannot vote intelligently’ and that he opposed black enfranchisement on the grounds that it would ‘excite unfriendly feelings between the two races.’ He was also concerned about the educational opportunities being provided to the blacks by the Freedmen’s Bureau and private northern charities, preferring they be taught by white Southerners, who were ‘acquainted with their characters and wants.’ Most of all he feared that blacks might procure enough political leverage to offset white control.” [pp. 452-453]
 
Lee doesn't fit in any box with a specific label.

Like anyone else, he was not all one or the other. Some things he did were honorable, others not.

Some things he did might be either.

Yep.

He followed his conscience at any rate.

And that was his own definition of what was honorable. That definition may not coincide with the definitions others have.

He did what he thought right by the lights he had, and I can't see any condemnation in that.

Oh, certainly there can be condemnation. Most villains are doing what they think is right by the lights they have. We have no trouble condemning them. I'm not saying Lee is a villain, but only the fact that he did what he thought was right is not something that would prevent condemnation.
 
On March 30, 1861 Lee took an oath in which he swore to support the United States against any enemies or opposers whatsoever, knowing beforehand that if one of those opposers was Virginia he wouldn't support the United States.

I maintain it is not honorable to take an oath you know you will violate. If he couldn't raise his sword against Virginia, the honorable thing to do on March 30 would be to either refuse promotion or submit his resignation at that point because he couldn't honestly take that oath.
 
Can Gen. Robert E. Lee still be considered "A great general and honorable man"?

Yes. I think it’s a waste of time to apply current standards to Robert E. Lee’s life and pretend his accomplishments do not meet the standards we should now regard as meritorious.

Robert E. Lee was flawed and his flaws have been extensively noted and discussed on this site and many others. If we judge him through the prism of his flaws, we minimize his accomplishments and engage in historical "presentism," the application of today's standards to those that prevailed long ago.

Personally I think "presentism" always distorts history because it transfers today's social mores, beliefs and assumptions back into a very different time. It presumes that the decisions we are making today, as individuals and as a nation, take into account how the world will want and expect such decisions to have been made a century or more from now.

While this approach is popular with folks who like to read their particular narratives into the past, I don’t think it is fair. Unless we judge people within the context of their times, everyone will likely seem racist or sexist to future generations.


 
Yes and yes.

I'm not a fan of what Lee ultimately fought for. I also think choosing your State (while fighting under a different Nation's banner ultimately) was a cop out, if one he had every right to do. I personally lean towards his cousin Samuel Phillips Lee who stayed loyal to the US and served in the Union Navy who said

----
When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy.
----

With all that said clearly he was a great general and within his own code and that of many others he was honorable. I think it's futile to deny that and does a disservice to the many good things the man did and said (including his pre-Civil War service which shouldn't be dismissed). If anything Lee should be honored by many with a certain viewpoint due to him saying

----
I think it well, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
----

He didn't predict the War's outcome correctly but he predicted that when many others didn't see it.
 
The question of "can he" is pointless and a waste of time. Obviously he can, just as Pol Pot, Abraham Lincoln, and any other man or woman throughout history can be.

A better question would be "should he", with the follow - up of "Why should he".
 
Is a traitor ever honorable???? Bobby Lee was nothing but a traitor, he took his best shot to win the war, ended up surrendering his army and losing the war. So personally I wouldn't say he was a great General either. Tell me boys how these great Generals get beat so bad they have to surrender their whole **** Army???? And.....lose the War???? Looking like Mr. Lee was a traitor and a loser. Truth.
 
There are many shocking things many might not believe until exposed. US History is a grab bag of such things and plenty more I'm sure will come.
The moment I lost my respect for the idea of the confederacy and it's sympathisers was when I found a newspaper reporting on the first lynchings of the year as though it were Christmas. Iirc the event occurred in Florida, and the paper was dated to the 1920s. After WW1 I am quite sure of.
I believe the answer to your question is simple. Yes general Robert E. Lee is one of the great generals of the American Civil War and probably one of the best in history. Honorable man? Absolutely. He didn't turn traitor to the United States, as he resigned his commission in the United States Army, and went with his state. He became a citizen of the Confederate States of America. To commit treason one has to be a citizen of the country he wages war against. Before he lost, he did more with less than any other general in the Civil War. Now was he perfect? No...................God bless Robert E. Lee, the man, the husband, the son, the father, the brother, and the general.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation, tow countries

View attachment 207271
One of the best in history? I doubt that very much. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Hannibal, Frederick the Great, to name only 4 of the hundreds. I doubt Lee is even the best general in the 19th century. He did after all lose the war, and that only after losing a number of men on a retreat.

He did indeed turn traitor. He brought up arms against his mother nation and fought for the cause that wanted to declare itself a separate nation. Not a traitor? Under his command well over 286,000 men, both Northern and Southern were killed. All Americans as well.

To be a citizen of a country one must first find that country to be a real entity. The CSA was not and is not, nor will it ever be a real country. It was a region in revolt, which doesn't constitute being an independent country.


Did he commit treason? It seems as though the trial of Aaron Burr may give us some insight.
"Aaron Burr was tried for treason after a failed conspiracy to set up his own political empire in the Mississippi Valley, but he eluded conviction because, as Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned, “war must actually be levied against the United States.”"

Not only was Lee part of a conspiracy (and one could argue partially successful) to set up a separate political entity within the United States, he also did in fact levy war against the United States. So yes, he did commit treason.


You can hero worship your dead idol all you wish to. But for your own sake don't romanticize him and lie to yourself.
 
A great general certainly. He rarely lost battles and won some remarkable victories. He inspired his men and was respected even by his opponents. His side ultimately lost, but that's true of many great commanders, German generals, Napoleon's marshals, etc.

As for honor and treason, we might keep in mind that most of our Founding Fathers had taken oaths to the King when serving in the government or military. Any movement seeking independence is likely to be considered treasonous by the existing regime.
 
I believe the answer to your question is simple. Yes general Robert E. Lee is one of the great generals of the American Civil War and probably one of the best in history. Honorable man? Absolutely. He didn't turn traitor to the United States, as he resigned his commission in the United States Army, and went with his state. He became a citizen of the Confederate States of America. To commit treason one has to be a citizen of the country he wages war against. Before he lost, he did more with less than any other general in the Civil War. Now was he perfect? No...................God bless Robert E. Lee, the man, the husband, the son, the father, the brother, and the general.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation, tow countries

View attachment 207271
With all due respect, William, I would like to see the document whereby Lee renounced his U.S. citizenship and another showing his accepting CSA citizenship. A resignation from the army is not a renunciation of citizenship. There is proof he took an oath to "support and defend" the U.S. Constitution and his own written words vowing not to take up arms against the Union. He dishonored both of these beginning in 1861 - that is incontrovertible.
 
As for honor and treason, we might keep in mind that most of our Founding Fathers had taken oaths to the King when serving in the government or military
I'd like to see those. The whole point of the American Revolution was "no taxation without representation" - i.e. we are not even treated as real British subjects. None of the founding fathers was in service to Britain except Washington briefly in the 1750's when he was a militia colonel attached to the Braddock expedition. He never received a commission into the British Army - that was one of his personal bones of contention with the British government. No, the founding fathers violated no actual sworn oaths as did Lee.
 
Fun.
Colonel Lee joined a rebellion against a government that provided him with an engineering degree, and a military career.
The capital was just across the river. Virginia was represented in that government, and the white people also had the representation apportioned to slaves, who could never vote.
Moreover, the United States in 1860 was one of 4 or 5 modernizing industrial economies. Britain in 1776 and the United States in 1860 were significantly different countries. Steam engines do make a difference and Virginians knew that, they had railroads and an iron works.
The consequences of the political and military decisions made by Colonel and General Lee were devastating, but not that different from what people in the western counties anticipated.
The information necessary to make a conservative decision to oppose secession and advocate patience existed. Some people in comparable circumstances made the right choice, as judged by the consequences.
 
The moment I lost my respect for the idea of the confederacy and it's sympathisers was when I found a newspaper reporting on the first lynchings of the year as though it were Christmas. Iirc the event occurred in Florida, and the paper was dated to the 1920s. After WW1 I am quite sure of.

One of the best in history? I doubt that very much. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Hannibal, Frederick the Great, to name only 4 of the hundreds. I doubt Lee is even the best general in the 19th century. He did after all lose the war, and that only after losing a number of men on a retreat.

He did indeed turn traitor. He brought up arms against his mother nation and fought for the cause that wanted to declare itself a separate nation. Not a traitor? Under his command well over 286,000 men, both Northern and Southern were killed. All Americans as well.

To be a citizen of a country one must first find that country to be a real entity. The CSA was not and is not, nor will it ever be a real country. It was a region in revolt, which doesn't constitute being an independent country.


Did he commit treason? It seems as though the trial of Aaron Burr may give us some insight.
"Aaron Burr was tried for treason after a failed conspiracy to set up his own political empire in the Mississippi Valley, but he eluded conviction because, as Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned, “war must actually be levied against the United States.”"

Not only was Lee part of a conspiracy (and one could argue partially successful) to set up a separate political entity within the United States, he also did in fact levy war against the United States. So yes, he did commit treason.


You can hero worship your dead idol all you wish to. But for your own sake don't romanticize him and lie to yourself.
Lee was
Same reason you give accolades for your choices.

Yes and people fail to put themselves in Lee’s and other commander’s shoes. It is an inhumane choice no matter which way you slice it. Take up arms against your friends and family or defend your state.
 
Fun.
Colonel Lee joined a rebellion against a government that provided him with an engineering degree, and a military career.
The capital was just across the river. Virginia was represented in that government, and the white people also had the representation apportioned to slaves, who could never vote.
Moreover, the United States in 1860 was one of 4 or 5 modernizing industrial economies. Britain in 1776 and the United States in 1860 were significantly different countries. Steam engines do make a difference and Virginians knew that, they had railroads and an iron works.
The consequences of the political and military decisions made by Colonel and General Lee were devastating, but not that different from what people in the western counties anticipated.
The information necessary to make a conservative decision to oppose secession and advocate patience existed. Some people in comparable circumstances made the right choice, as judged by the consequences.
I think @wausaubob is right on the money. I also think all the "defend my home state" talk was mere rationalization for participating in a rebellion. Lee's own personal idol, George Washington, had declared at the time of the constitutional ratification that he was no longer a Virginian, but an American. No better role model could be found.
 
I think @wausaubob is right on the money. I also think all the "defend my home state" talk was mere rationalization for participating in a rebellion. Lee's own personal idol, George Washington, had declared at the time of the constitutional ratification that he was no longer a Virginian, but an American. No better role model could be found.
George Washington fought for independence same as General Robert E. Lee.
 
Back
Top