Lee How I Learned to Hate Robert E. Lee

[huskerblitz]

This is related to a new book which CM Winkler made a post about. But this article isn't the same and worthy I thought of its own thread.

How I Learned to Hate Robert E. Lee
Michael Korda's superb new biography of the Confederate general, Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, chisels away at the myth. You may not like what's underneath.

All the time I was growing up in Atlanta, the face of Robert E. Lee was taking shape on the side of an enormous granite mountain just outside town. He loomed like a god above us, as much a presence as any deity, and God knows he was accepted as such. It was only much later that I began to question his sanctity, and then to hate what he stood for.

When I was in elementary school, the face of Lee on Stone Mountain was a rough-cut thing, weathering and wasting as the generation that began it in 1912—a generation that still included veterans of the Civil War 50 years before—gave way to generations with other wars to focus their attention.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

 

[huskerblitz]

And to cut some of you off at the pass, yes the author incorrectly confuses casualties with the actual number of battle deaths in the article.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

And to cut some of you off at the pass, yes the author incorrectly confuses casualties with the actual number of battle deaths in the article.

 

[cash]

Korda's book on Grant was horrible. I suspect this one is horrible as well.

 

[Nathanb1]

Korda's book on Grant was horrible. I suspect this one is horrible as well.

Good point. One I hadn't considered. But then I was distracted by Vanderbilt sawing 'em off! LOL. Now I'm in a very good mood again.

 

[huskerblitz]

Note: I'm not promoting the book, but stumbled across the article and shared it here.

 

[cash]

Note: I'm not promoting the book, but stumbled across the article and shared it here.

Understood. The fact that the author of the article loved Korda's book makes me highly suspicious of the author of the article, though. I've read at least one review by a historian who panned Korda's book on Lee.

 

[Nathanb1]

Note: I'm not promoting the book, but stumbled across the article and shared it here.

Yeah, I get that. I'm commenting on the article. Not that Robert E. Lee gives a rat's patootie what some dweeb who can't write thinks. He's above all that now, isn't he? Like Grant. And Sherman. And Forrest.

Sometimes I'm so disgusted by the lengths people go to. If that title wasn't designed to draw gasps and be sensational.....you could call it the Dr. Oz of reviews.

 

[Tumbleweed]

The firestorm in the comments of the DB article made me look for another review. This one is a bit more fair minded I think. It looks to be a very good book.

 

[huskerblitz]

Understood. The fact that the author of the article loved Korda's book makes me highly suspicious of the author of the article, though. I've read at least one review by a historian who panned Korda's book on Lee.

Wow....and this guy was the Editor-in-Chief at Simon & Schuster? Looking at his bibliography his books are all over the place in topics though. And the publications dates are fairly close together which makes one wonder about the amount of research put into them. But honestly, I've not read any of his works.

 

[cash]

Eric Foner's review. So far a Lee specialist hasn't reviewed the book to my knowledge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a1d004-c973-11e3-95f7-7ecdde72d2ea_story.html

 

[cash]

Wow....and this guy was the Editor-in-Chief at Simon & Schuster? Looking at his bibliography his books are all over the place in topics though. And the publications dates are fairly close together which makes one wonder about the amount of research put into them. But honestly, I've not read any of his works.

I'm sure he was a wonderful editor. He's not a historian.

 

[Nathanb1]

Huskerblitz, you did a good deed here. I missed the earlier article/review, so without this one being so silly, we probably wouldn't have taken the time to research this. Who knows, I might have misspent my hard-earned money. The last two reviews have convinced me I can do much better waiting for Eric Wittenberg's Buford book in the fall. Or a comic book.

 

[Nathanb1]

I'm sure he was a wonderful editor. He's not a historian.

Well, apparently he missed the Kansas-Nebraska Act boo-boo (1845 rather than 1854). Shoulda stuck to editing.

 

[huskerblitz]

Huskerblitz, you did a good deed here. I missed the earlier article/review, so without this one being so silly, we probably wouldn't have taken the time to research this. Who knows, I might have misspent my hard-earned money. The last two reviews have convinced me I can do much better waiting for Eric Wittenberg's Buford book in the fall. Or a comic book.

At your service, ma'am.

 

[JPinta]

I read this entire article (it's on the front page of Yahoo right now) , got on here to post about it, and noticed this thread already existed!

I take issue with this from the article:

While the dream of the Confederacy was kept alive, the men on the battlefield on both sides perished by the tens of thousands…It may be unfair to criticize a general for wanting to fight on against all odds. That is what we assume generals will try to do, and Lee often put himself in as much personal danger and daily discomfort as his faithful soldiers. But it's a plain fact that by prolonging a conflict he could not win, Lee's brilliance and the loyalty he inspired helped destroy what was left of the South.

One of the biggest pet peeves I have about the majority of the uninformed public that discuss the war is this notion that the south had to win the war. The author here seems to be saying that Lee was in a sense a butcher of southern men for leading them to the slaughter when it was clear the south would never conquer the north. And yes, everyone now and everyone at the time knew the south would never vanquish and conquer the north (at least after European intervention was denied them), but that was not what they were fighting for for the majority of the war!

I know this is no new news to anyone who is on this forum, but all they needed was the get the north to tire of the war and give up and let them be. This is not the same as conquest, or "winning". The south was fighting a war of independence, not a war of Yankee extermination.

Lee can't be faulted for "prolonging a conflict he could not win", when in reality the south's strategy wasn't to outright win! Again, they were trying to gain independence, and that would have been just as effectively done with the north saying "enough" as if they had slain every northern soldier on the battlefield. Why is this lost on so many people?

 

[Nathanb1]

I suppose he was to holler "uncle" and give up at some point. What would that be? My argument with the tripe above is that he was a soldier who was charged with protecting Richmond. No one told him he could abandon his duty and quit. As an honorable man, he had to hold out until there was no hope. It was still an unpopular decision in some quarters.

Silly. That would be like the USA quitting before they walk on the field today. I mean, Dempsey's nose is broken and Altidore is out with a hamstring....and they're playing the Portuguese....best player in the world. Shouldn't they give up? Let's ask Ghana.

This is like giving every kid in the track meet a ribbon for participating. Tish Bosh.

 

[Pvt.Shattuck]

He had me right up to "The fire-eaters were a minority then, as the Tea Partiers (their spiritual descendants) are today, but like today's Tea Party they promoted extremist agendas and pounded down on wedge issues that sundered the nation and very nearly destroyed it."
WHAT?!!
Please no modern politics folks, but puh-lease.

 

[cash]

I suppose he was to holler "uncle" and give up at some point. What would that be? My argument with the tripe above is that he was a soldier who was charged with protecting Richmond. No one told him he could abandon his duty and quit. As an honorable man, he had to hold out until there was no hope. It was still an unpopular decision in some quarters.

Silly. That would be like the USA quitting before they walk on the field today. I mean, Dempsey's nose is broken and Altidore is out with a hamstring....and they're playing the Portuguese....best player in the world. Shouldn't they give up? Let's ask Ghana.

This is like giving every kid in the track meet a ribbon for participating. Tish Bosh.

Here's a point that was made yesterday at CWI. Did Lee really say that if Grant got below the James River it was just a matter of time? Pete Carmichael questions that, because Grant got below the James River and Lee didn't act like it was just a matter of time. That to me is pretty persuasive. I've said before that if Lee thought things were lost he would be a criminal for continuing to waste his men's lives, and I don't think he was a criminal. That means I don't think he thought things were lost. I think it became clear to him at Appomattox when he saw the Union battle line between him and his escape route. That's when he decided to surrender. All that leads me to think that what Rev. Jones wrote, claiming that Lee said, "We must destroy this Army of Grant's before he gets to the James River. If he gets there it will become a siege and then it will be a mere question of time," is not quite as accurate as we've been told all these years.

Don't you love challenging what we've always believed to be true?

 

[Elennsar]

Here's a point that was made yesterday at CWI. Did Lee really say that if Grant got below the James River it was just a matter of time? Pete Carmichael questions that, because Grant got below the James River and Lee didn't act like it was just a matter of time. That to me is pretty persuasive.

I don't know if I agree with you on "and Lee wasn't a criminal" to explain his actions, but I do agree here.

I think that if he did fear that it would be a "mere question of time", I think that was more about being pinned to Richmond and Petersburg and unable to do more than play for time than the idea that there was nothing to do but surrender once Grant has crossed the James. The ANV besieged would have to react, not act proactively.