Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

[Waterloo50]

I have always wondered what exactly the Confederate envisioned as their future. Their whole existence was during a war mentality, although they had thoughts about living in peace-time, they didn't. There were already growing pains in the new government and dis-satisfaction with their leaders, I'm not sure how this have worked out. I believe General Grant's surrender terms to General Lee was the right tone for healing, but things changed rapidly 5 days later and the rest is history.

I have always believed that slavery under the confederacy would have eventually been abolished, it would have to have been in order for the Confederacy to be recognised and taken seriously by the vast majority of European countries.

 

[DBF]

I have always believed that slavery under the confederacy would have eventually been abolished, it would have to have been in order for the Confederacy to be recognised and taken seriously by the vast majority of European countries.

I agree with the fact that slavery would have died out in the South, then I ask what then for the government in Richmond?

 

[rpkennedy]

I have always believed that slavery under the confederacy would have eventually been abolished, it would have to have been in order for the Confederacy to be recognised and taken seriously by the vast majority of European countries.

Considering that many Confederates were all but willing to let the CSA die rather than give up slavery, I'm not so sure that that belief stands up on its own.

Ryan

 

[Waterloo50]

Considering that many Confederates were all but willing to let the CSA die rather than give up slavery, I'm not so sure that that belief stands up on its own.

Ryan

I can't argue with that.
However, I think it wouldn't be an immediate collapse of the Confederacy, I would imagine that some States would have withdrawn, the Confederacy becomes fragmented and some States go off and do their own thing. The option would have been abolish slavery or fall apart. Who knows!

 

[diane]

Waterloo,

Lee, in my view, did not fight to shape the future. He fought to preserve the past. At the very least, he fought to freeze his present and stop any future by stopping change.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

That was what the South was fighting about - Lee really did represent it. The dedication to family and family name, both establishing it and cleaning it up! - the honor code, the women who were so dedicated to preserving their plantations and their society. Mary was as much a driving force behind Lee's decision as could be. (They should have recruited the women - there'd be a Confederacy now!)

That was also a big difference between him and Grant - Julia was not into preserving her society even though she was part of that culture - she didn't remind her husband he was beholden to Washington, for example. He deeply respected Washington and what he had done but he did not worship him in the way the Lees and Custises did. He didn't have an illustrious name shared by literally thousands of others - just his own good name to keep clean. (And he had to rub his elbow over it a few times later down the road...) There was no obligation to the state of Illinois or Ohio - those states didn't occupy the position Virginia did even though we've had just as many presidents from the Buckeyes as from the Old Dominion. One might consider the deification of George Washington in the course of examining the deification of Robert E Lee.

 

[DBF]

Are not all wars fought with past/future ideologies, and to the Victor - goes the vision?

 

[Waterloo50]

Are not all wars fought with past/future ideologies, and to the Victor - goes the vision?

They do say that history is written by the victors but I think history is re-written by the internet.

 

[Tin cup]

I think that your response is valid but Lee's reasons for fighting/shaping the future are far more complex. I don't recall ever reading that Lee fought to preserve slavery, his views on slavery and secession are well known and have been debated a great deal and will probably always be debated, clearly, I'm no expert on Lee but even I understand that Lee would never raise arms against his native state, '"If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence will draw my sword on none.''

Brooks D Simpson said it best when he wrote 'It's time to try to understand Lee as he was and to gain some insight into how he understood himself and the world around him. That would be the best way to honor him, by viewing him as the man he was rather than the icon some need him to be.'

As I have always maintained, when it comes to debating historical figures, they should only be examined in the context of their time, if we place modern values and ethics on men like Lee, we run the risk of making huge assumptions and the end result will nearly always be a negative outcome.

I think that the context of his winning would be that slavery would be well entrenched for all time in the Confederate States. I look to examining the consequences of their time had they won independence...I'm glad they lost.

Kevin Dally

 

[Waterloo50]

I think that the context of his winning would be that slavery would be well entrenched for all time in the Confederate States. I look to examining the consequences of their time had they won independence...I'm glad they lost.

Kevin Dally

I'm sure that in examining the consequences you will come across many articles that will discuss apartheid as being part of a confederate future.

 

[unionblue]

Isn't that the peculiar doom of men, that we always hark back to some golden age? The Romans regarded the days of the Republic as one such. Even though history teaches us it was often the scene of internecine strife between powerful families & the plebs.

I think such thoughts are a sign of cowardice, a huge reluctance to face today's problems and issues that we fear will require such huge efforts on our part to try and solve them.

 

[unionblue]

Or, we have withdrawn from the European Union, thankfully we don't have the Union pointing guns at us and telling us that we are not allowed to make that choice, regardless of my opinions on the vote to leave, I would defend every British persons right to make that decision, 'ain't no Union gonna tell me or my countrymen what we can and Can't do', sounds familiar doesn't it.

Sounds familiar but truly different circumstances.

 

[Martini-Henry]

I think such thoughts are a sign of cowardice, a huge reluctance to face today's problems and issues that we fear will require such huge efforts on our part to try and solve them.

No I don't for a moment believe you should call anyone a coward that cannot let go of the past. There are good traditions & bad. Looking backwards doesn't make one any less of a human being.

 

[unionblue]

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that regardless of Lee's views on slavery or the legality of secession, he stood by his home state and their right to make a decision, of course people will argue that nobody had the right to enforce secession through war but like I keep saying, look at it in the context of its time, I think Lee had his principles and beliefs and stood by them, that is honourable.

In my view, Lee was used as a Poster Child, a grand illusion to divert the true cause of the Civil War and the wrongness of that cause, made into a Marble Man to plaster over those wrongs and make loss somehow more noble and bearable.

Not his fault, but just his luck to be used as such.

 

[unionblue]

No I don't for a moment believe you should call anyone a coward that cannot let go of the past. There are good traditions & bad. Looking backwards doesn't make one any less of a human being.

And I believe you can, in some cases. Looking at the past and trying to draw the best lessons one can from it, socially, morally and traditionally, is not an act of cowardice in the main.

But wishing to escape, to desire to go back and actually live in that past, strikes me as someone desperately wanting to surrender their own obligations to their time and place, to give up and let those of the past take up our own burdens.

The phrase, "the good old days," makes me want to smack the sayer of such, dead in the mouth.

 

[Tin cup]

.
The phrase, "the good old days," makes me want to smack the sayer of such, dead in the mouth.

As my Grandfather always said: "The good old days? We are living them NOW!"

Kevin Dally

 

[Martini-Henry]

And I believe you can, in some cases. Looking at the past and trying to draw the best lessons one can from it, socially, morally and traditionally, is not an act of cowardice in the main.

But wishing to escape, to desire to go back and actually live in that past, strikes me as someone desperately wanting to surrender their own obligations to their time and place, to give up and let those of the past take up our own burdens.

The phrase, "the good old days," makes me want to smack the sayer of such, dead in the mouth.

Perhaps a tad violent that response. No I agree it's not all days of wine & roses. Thinking about it, we are still drawing lessons from the past, everyone on this forum. As Cato said," if you don't know where you came from, you don't know where you're going." The good thing is that we are all beyond fighting Civil wars ...I fervently hope. England voted to leave Europe, Scotland did not, I cannot even forsee such a disaster, as a war to break up our union in the UK.

 

[CSA Today]

I can't argue with that.
However, I think it wouldn't be an immediate collapse of the Confederacy, I would imagine that some States would have withdrawn, the Confederacy becomes fragmented and some States go off and do their own thing. The option would have been abolish slavery or fall apart. Who knows!

More likely border states would have joined the Confederacy --especially Kentucky and a good chance Missouri and a possibility of Maryland.

 

[Bee]

Are not all wars fought with past/future ideologies, and to the Victor - goes the vision?

They do say that history is written by the victors but I think history is re-written by the internet.

In this case Jubal Early & Co. got an early start on that "vision", and it took almost another 100yrs to balance the narrative back into reality.

 

[matthew mckeon]

In reference to Robert E. Lee. During his generalship for the Confederacy, he was seen as their exemplar, the best realization of their ideals of manhood, aristocracy and Christianity. That image was strengthened in succeeding decades.

As an army commander, Lee is head and shoulders above any other Confederate general. Alone among the Confederates he seemed to grasp what it would take to win and was willing to make that effort.

This doesn't make him flawless, or means he never made any mistakes. It doesn't redeem his cause.

 

[Jamieva]

In reference to Robert E. Lee. During his generalship for the Confederacy, he was seen as their exemplar, the best realization of their ideals of manhood, aristocracy and Christianity. That image was strengthened in succeeding decades.

As an army commander, Lee is head and shoulders above any other Confederate general. Alone among the Confederates he seemed to grasp what it would take to win and was willing to make that effort.

This doesn't make him flawless, or means he never made any mistakes. It doesn't redeem his cause.

But Lee was perceived that way well before the civil war. He had no demerits at West Point, Scott was extremely fond of him as a soldier etc