Lee Is this criticism of Lee valid?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's a far cry from voicing a political opinion, or championing a cause publicly, or through the periods social media.


Again, I just can't agree with that (bold). Not even a little bit. I really think, that is a very subjective interpretation of his actions & personal feelings that, to my knowledge have never been expressed by Lee. That Grant interpreted it the way he did, doesn't make it valid, or a fair representation of his actions. I think previous actions, are better examples of future, & or perceived actions. I view Grant's comments as upset Lee was acting the way, he wanted him to. If he knew the man better, he might have had a different interpretation.
I agree that Grant definitely had an expectation of Lee after the war that Lee did not meet.

My opinion is that Lee could have done more to smooth the country's reconciliation. And this may have reversed some of the stigma of violating his oath and turning on his country.
 
There is a story, I'm not sure if it's true or apocryphal, that after the war a black man went to the communion rail in a church (Lee Chapel?) In which Lee was worshipping. Only Lee amongst the white congregation joined him there. Was he showing solidarity with him? Or contempt? I don't know. We don't know. History does not record as far as I'm aware.
There are several accounts of this story out there. The actual sources of the story come from being reported to the, Richmond Times Dispatch 16 April 1905, & also printed in. Confederate Veteran August 1905.

Several bloggers, & other sites have put their spin on it. Some folks telling the story from an "anti-Lee" point of view, & some from a magnanimous Lee perspective. I prefer what's published on the Lee Family Digital Archive. They present the most comprehensive dive into the issue, I've seen. It is presented pretty fairly in my opinion. From their page:

The story of Robert E. Lee and a black man kneeling together at the communion table in St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, in June 1865, is open to various interpretations. Some see it as an example of Lee's humility and humanity and his desire to bring about healing in the aftermath of war. Others doubt that it really happened. What follows is a presentation on the subject that Professor Schwarz made to the Stratford Hall Plantation Seminar on Slavery on 4 August 2000. This revision, dated December 2006, is presented here with his kind permission.

I suggest reading the entire piece, & making up your own mind. It's lengthy but, very informative, taking a deeper dive into the subject than any other presentation on the subject, I've read.

 
I agree that Grant definitely had an expectation of Lee after the war that Lee did not meet.

My opinion is that Lee could have done more to smooth the country's reconciliation. And this may have reversed some of the stigma of violating his oath and turning on his country.
I've seen the following quote attributed to Lee many times: "Before and during the War Between the States I was a Virginian. After the war I became an American."
 
"Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State? " Lee to Francis Preston Blair after Blair delivered Lincoln's offer of command to Lee.
 
There are several accounts of this story out there. The actual sources of the story come from being reported to the, Richmond Times Dispatch 16 April 1905, & also printed in. Confederate Veteran August 1905.

Several bloggers, & other sites have put their spin on it. Some folks telling the story from an "anti-Lee" point of view, & some from a magnanimous Lee perspective. I prefer what's published on the Lee Family Digital Archive. They present the most comprehensive dive into the issue, I've seen. It is presented pretty fairly in my opinion. From their page:

The story of Robert E. Lee and a black man kneeling together at the communion table in St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, in June 1865, is open to various interpretations. Some see it as an example of Lee's humility and humanity and his desire to bring about healing in the aftermath of war. Others doubt that it really happened. What follows is a presentation on the subject that Professor Schwarz made to the Stratford Hall Plantation Seminar on Slavery on 4 August 2000. This revision, dated December 2006, is presented here with his kind permission.

I suggest reading the entire piece, & making up your own mind. It's lengthy but, very informative, taking a deeper dive into the subject than any other presentation on the subject, I've read.

Thanks for that general. I hope, as it was the communion rail, Lee had 1 Corinthians in mind & was fellowshipping with his brother. Lee was a devout man.
 
Thanks for that general. I hope, as it was the communion rail, Lee had 1 Corinthians in mind & was fellowshipping with his brother. Lee was a devout man.

If he was a devout man he would not taken a career in the Army nor would he have gone to war with his fellow man or kept his fellow man in chains.

Lee was hypocrite as were many wealthy men of power and still are nothing has changed.

The worship pf God while ordering the destruction of thousands of men is something I cant get my head around and never will.

I really don't understand the adulation for Lee maybe it stems from the fact that Lee was a close as you can get to American Aristocracy therefore is beyond reproach , It was never in doubt that Lee was going to fight for his state he was virtually a King within it unlike George Thomas.

Here is a quote from Robert E Lee written in 1856 in a letter.

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy".

End quote.

And yet Bobby Lee managed to split up slave family's to such and extent.

Pryor writes:

“Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

End quote:

Like I said Lee is hard to judge in a previous post because he never really had anything to say after the War , However I cant understand people trying to turn Lee into some Godley angel who really cared , Fact is he didn't and while he was loved by his own army and put on this persona of a refined and kind Gentleman he was just another slave owning southern gentleman who thought the black-man was inferior.

He was basically a snob of the worst sort.

In my own opinion of course.
 
If he was a devout man he would not taken a career in the Army nor would he have gone to war with his fellow man or kept his fellow man in chains.

Lee was hypocrite as were many wealthy men of power and still are nothing has changed.

The worship pf God while ordering the destruction of thousands of men is something I cant get my head around and never will.

I really don't understand the adulation for Lee maybe it stems from the fact that Lee was a close as you can get to American Aristocracy therefore is beyond reproach , It was never in doubt that Lee was going to fight for his state he was virtually a King within it unlike George Thomas.

Here is a quote from Robert E Lee written in 1856 in a letter.

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy".

End quote.

And yet Bobby Lee managed to split up slave family's to such and extent.

Pryor writes:

“Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

End quote:

Like I said Lee is hard to judge in a previous post because he never really had anything to say after the War , However I cant understand people trying to turn Lee into some Godley angel who really cared , Fact is he didn't and while he was loved by his own army and put on this persona of a refined and kind Gentleman he was just another slave owning southern gentleman who thought the black-man was inferior.

He was basically a snob of the worst sort.

In my own opinion of course.
I'm familiar with that letter & Lee's somewhat ambiguous take on slavery. I don't defend him for owning slaves, but to be fair to the man he was never wealthy. An aristocrat yes. Wealthy, no. Arlington belonged to his wife's family. The terms of his father-in-law's will were next to impossible to fulfill before the war began, much less after. So much so that Lee took extended leave from the army just to sort out Parke Custis's estate. And let's be quite clear, Parke Custis owned many people. He isn't rowed out because he provided for their manumission within 5 years of his death - which took Lee into the civil war. It also stopped the Custis slaves from working, as they believed Custis had freed them already, which in turn made it harder for Lee to execute the terms of the will, which called for a number of cash settlements. None of this is meant to defend the owning of people. Much less placing the value of their families below the value of Lee's own. That is indefensible.

Lee, whether you believe it or not was a Christian man. He became a Christian after his marriage. There was nothing prima facie incompatible with Lee seeing a black man as both a slave & a brother in Christ. The new testament doesn't condemn slavery as an institution so much as abolish the difference between slave & free in Christ. Or, male & female in Christ. It is a short step from that to the abolition of slavery as a Christian imperative, but not one that all Christians had taken by the 1860s. I have no doubt vested interest played a part in that. But in the letter you quote Lee makes the point that his sympathies were strongly enlisted for the blacks.

Lee like many conservative evangelicals of his time Lee believed that slavery should & would come to an end - in God's time. Like the man who drowns waiting for God to save him & missing the boats & helicopters that try, Lee just didn't see the hand of God in the civil war.

Lee wasn't an angel. He enjoyed combat. He struggled with his temper. He couldn't bring himself to visit Jackson as he lay dying, he lacked the emotional courage. But he was much more than just another rich aristocrat. He cared for his men. Read his wartime despatches. He was the man his soldiers loved.
 
Last edited:
If he was a devout man he would not taken a career in the Army nor would he have gone to war with his fellow man or kept his fellow man in chains.

Lee was hypocrite as were many wealthy men of power and still are nothing has changed.

The worship pf God while ordering the destruction of thousands of men is something I cant get my head around and never will.

I really don't understand the adulation for Lee maybe it stems from the fact that Lee was a close as you can get to American Aristocracy therefore is beyond reproach , It was never in doubt that Lee was going to fight for his state he was virtually a King within it unlike George Thomas.

Here is a quote from Robert E Lee written in 1856 in a letter.

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy".

End quote.

And yet Bobby Lee managed to split up slave family's to such and extent.

Pryor writes:

“Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

End quote:

Like I said Lee is hard to judge in a previous post because he never really had anything to say after the War , However I cant understand people trying to turn Lee into some Godley angel who really cared , Fact is he didn't and while he was loved by his own army and put on this persona of a refined and kind Gentleman he was just another slave owning southern gentleman who thought the black-man was inferior.

He was basically a snob of the worst sort.

In my own opinion of course.
Would you agree with the proposition" skills do not equate into morality"?
That is one can treat other badly but still not be moral person.".
I can think of many military leaders who were very popular with their men but fought for ideals that most Americans would find abhorrent.
Leftyhunter
 
I'm familiar with that letter & Lee's somewhat ambiguous take on slavery. I don't defend him for owning slaves, but to be fair to the man he was never wealthy. An aristocrat yes. Wealthy, no. Arlington belonged to his wife's family. The terms of his father-in-law's will were next to impossible to fulfill before the war began, much less after. So much so that Lee took extended leave from the army just to sort out Parke Custis's estate. And let's be quite clear, Parke Custis owned many people. He isn't rowed out because he provided for their manumission within 5 years of his death - which took Lee into the civil war. It also stopped the Custis slaves from working, as they believed Custis had freed them already, which in turn made it harder for Lee to execute the terms of the will, which called for a number of cash settlements. None of this is meant to defend the owning of people. Much less placing the value of their families below the value of Lee's own. That is indefensible.

Lee, whether you believe it or not was a Christian man. He became a Christian after his marriage. There was nothing prima facie incompatible with Lee seeing a black man as both a slave & a brother in Christ. The new testament doesn't condemn slavery as an institution so much as abolish the difference between slave & free in Christ. Or, male & female in Christ. It is a short step from that to the abolition of slavery as a Christianimperstive, but not one that all Christians had taken by the 1860s. I have no doubt vested interest played a part in that. But in the letter you quote Lee makes the point that his sympathies were strongly enlisted for the blacks.

Lee like many conservative evangelicals of his time Lee believed that slavery should & would come to an end - in God's time. Like the man who drowns waiting for God to save him & missing the boats & helicopters that try, Lee just didn't see the hand of God in the civil war.

Lee wasn't an angel. He enjoyed combat. He struggled with his temper. He couldn't bring himself to visit Jackson as he lay dying, he lacked the emotional courage. But he was much more than just another rich aristocrat. He cared for his men. Read his wartime despatches. He was the man his soldiers loved.

Define being a Christian in in 1860?.

Which ever way you dress it up Lee fought for the preservation of slavery and unlike some ex Confederate commanders after the war who did what they could to redeem themselves like Wofford , Nicholls , Longstreet , Lee had done nothing to heal the great divide that still existed.

You do know when Lee was the president of Washington College they had their own KKK chapter and their were at least two attempted lynching's but none of boys were punished ,Lees soldiers on both his campaigns in the North captured free and black fugitives and sent them south back into bondage.

I think Fredrick Douglass explains Christianity the best in the 19th century.

“between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference.” Fredrick Douglass.

Lee thought he was a Christian but as with many men of the era their idea of Christianity is nothing more than a mutation and mangling of what being a Christian was really about.
 
Would you agree with the proposition" skills do not equate into morality"?
That is one can treat other badly but still not be moral person.".
I can think of many military leaders who were very popular with their men but fought for ideals that most Americans would find abhorrent.
Leftyhunter

Very much so , In fact I would go further , Lee was popular because he was that very man an aristocrat and the common man sure do love to follow men of noble birth , Lee would have been already famous before he took control of the army on that fateful day back in 1862 after driving Mac off the peninsular and giving JP a good thrashing it almost made him into a godlike figure.

When you compare the leaders of the AoP to Lee their is no comparison until of course Grant arrives and puts the Union army on the front foot and then we see a very different AoP one full of confidence even with a grimy mud splattered common man in charge the total opposite the suave aristocratic Lee.
 
Define being a Christian in in 1860?.

Which ever way you dress it up Lee fought for the preservation of slavery and unlike some ex Confederate commanders after the war who did what they could to redeem themselves like Wofford , Nicholls , Longstreet , Lee had done nothing to heal the great divide that still existed.

You do know when Lee was the president of Washington College they had their own KKK chapter and their were at least two attempted lynching's but none of boys were punished ,Lees soldiers on both his campaigns in the North captured free and black fugitives and sent them south back into bondage.

I think Fredrick Douglass explains Christianity the best in the 19th century.

“between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference.” Fredrick Douglass.

Lee thought he was a Christian but as with many men of the era their idea of Christianity is nothing more than a mutation and mangling of what being a Christian was really about.
Much the same could be said of Christians today, here & in the states. We're a good 2000 years away from what the term initially meant. But that's another story. Lee believed that Jesus was Lord & that God raised him from the dead. That's what a Christian always had to believe.

I'm astounded, truly astounded, at just how divisive Lee is. He was a man with flaws, no doubt. Some of his views would be out of place in the 21st century, but the same is true of most people throughout history. You can't judge him by 21st century values, but by Victorian ones. His contemporaries, by & large saw him as a good man. Frederick Douglas is a minority voice even in the 1860s/70s. He fought for the wrong side, but for what he considered to be honourable reasons. Lee was a racist. But by modern standards so was Churchill. Both though, were great men.
 
Define being a Christian in in 1860?.

Which ever way you dress it up Lee fought for the preservation of slavery and unlike some ex Confederate commanders after the war who did what they could to redeem themselves like Wofford , Nicholls , Longstreet , Lee had done nothing to heal the great divide that still existed.

You do know when Lee was the president of Washington College they had their own KKK chapter and their were at least two attempted lynching's but none of boys were punished ,Lees soldiers on both his campaigns in the North captured free and black fugitives and sent them south back into bondage.

I think Fredrick Douglass explains Christianity the best in the 19th century.

“between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference.” Fredrick Douglass.

Lee thought he was a Christian but as with many men of the era their idea of Christianity is nothing more than a mutation and mangling of what being a Christian was really about.
In fact, let's be quite clear about this, George Washington & the rest of the founding fathers were racists & sexists. Sheridan was a genocidal racist. Lots of great men throughout history have been racist. I suspect that if Lincoln had gone yo war just to free the slaves he wouldn't have had an army big enough to defeat the Confederacy. Thank God that he did have army enough.
 
If he was a devout man he would not taken a career in the Army nor would he have gone to war with his fellow man or kept his fellow man in chains.

Since we're addressing Lee's religious belief, I'm going to indulge in some religious opinion here. We all have our own opinions of course, but any of us who are Christians are aware of sin in our lives, that we fall short of God's standard, and Lee was no different. He professed to be "nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation", and I take him at his word, but for whatever cultural or historical reasons, he missed the mark on slavery. I've struggled some to understand just how that could be, given how egregious a wrong slavery is to one's fellow man, but there are always issues in society where it's easy to rationalize a belief that may not be entirely biblical, from long before Lee's time to the present day. Slavery was perhaps the prevalent sin of Lee's day, there are others now. Sinful men still fall short of God's standard, even if they are devout. Lee was no different than the rest of us in that regard.

As for devout men not taking a career in the Army, why not?
 
Sheridan was ruthless in subjecting the Indians but was content with their subjection. Unlike the Germans who weren't content with the subjection of the Jews but wanted to kill them all. I think the current widening of the definition of genocide robs it of its horror.
Fair point. But the first step in genocide is always semantic. You have to dehumanise the underclass. Sheridan would have happily executed an executive order to murder Indians. I don't want to rob the word of it's horror but I do think Sheridan was as bad a man as any Edited. Really.

Which is odd, because I struggle to understand people who feel that way about Lee...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When people defend Lee by calling him a "Christian gentleman" I want to...never mind.
I think he was, in the Victorian sense, a gentleman. And I think he was a Christian. But that doesn't mean he was either perfect or pious. We're all works in progress. I think being a Christian is, in no small part, just knowing that you're a work in progress. Lee, when you read his correspondence was acutely aware of many of his own shortcomings & looked to God for the strength to change.

I grew up in the 60s & 70s in a largely white area of the UK. I told jokes that, as I now see it, had racism at their core. I didn't see it that way then. I was wrong then. Society has moved on dragging me in its wake. It has moved inconceivabley more since Lee's time. His views were moderate by the standards of his time.
 
Define being a Christian in in 1860?.

Which ever way you dress it up Lee fought for the preservation of slavery and unlike some ex Confederate commanders after the war who did what they could to redeem themselves like Wofford , Nicholls , Longstreet , Lee had done nothing to heal the great divide that still existed.

You do know when Lee was the president of Washington College they had their own KKK chapter and their were at least two attempted lynching's but none of boys were punished ,Lees soldiers on both his campaigns in the North captured free and black fugitives and sent them south back into bondage.

I think Fredrick Douglass explains Christianity the best in the 19th century.

“between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference.” Fredrick Douglass.

Lee thought he was a Christian but as with many men of the era their idea of Christianity is nothing more than a mutation and mangling of what being a Christian was really about.
By the way, just to be accurate, Jesus wasn't a Christian. Not even a little bit. He was an observant Jew.

I get where Douglas was coming from though.
 
In fact, let's be quite clear about this, George Washington & the rest of the founding fathers were racists & sexists. Sheridan was a genocidal racist. Lots of great men throughout history have been racist. I suspect that if Lincoln had gone yo war just to free the slaves he wouldn't have had an army big enough to defeat the Confederacy. Thank God that he did have army enough.

But Sheridan was never embellished the same goes for Grant and Sherman you have no need to build legends and false propaganda around them its their in the open in your face , I have no doubt Phil was a horrid little man but at the same time nobody is stating well actually Phil was an ok guy.

The problem with Lee is he fits right into the Victorian idea of knightly conduct mythical in nature a man fighting for his principles , Lee was the underdog and everyone roots for underdog , Willian Wallace got the same treatment , People tend to brush under the table what Lee was really about or they just turn a blind eye.

Here is another letter Lee wrote to enforce what I have said already.

Quote Robert E Lee.

“You will never prosper with blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to yours. I wish them no evil in the world—on the contrary, will do them every good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests are naturally with the whites.”

End Quote.

These are Lees own words , I'm just shocked people ignore these letters or chose to brush them under the table its quite obvious in my view Lee chose to fight in order to preserve what he believed in , He did not want blacks to be free he did not want them to vote stating they did not have the "intelligence" to make informed decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top