Lee Post-War Lee

I'm not sure a 'public speaking tour' was necessary. But maybe some public remarks or letters to newspapers, encouraging acceptance of blacks as citizens and condemning vigilantism against freedmen. I think his behavior could be described as quiet and bitter.
"it is the duty of every citizen, in the present condition of the Country, to do all in his power to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony
In response to the bitterness of a Confederate widow, Lee wrote, "Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring [your children] up to be Americans."
Do these sound like the statements a quiet and bitter man would make? There are numerous more from Lee along these same lines. How anyone can try to paint Lee as basically nursing a grudge after the war is baffling.
 
Do these sound like the statements a quiet and bitter man would make? There are numerous more from Lee along these same lines. How anyone can try to paint Lee as basically nursing a grudge after the war is baffling.

Read the book, Reading The Man, A portrait Of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, by Elizabeth Brown Pryor, chapter 25, Blurred Vision, starting at page 449.

Then see if Lee was always a man who forgave and forgot.
 
Read the book, Reading The Man, A portrait Of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, by Elizabeth Brown Pryor, chapter 25, Blurred Vision, starting at page 449.

Then see if Lee was always a man who forgave and forgot.
Public statements? I assume not based on the title.
 
Public statements? I assume not based on the title.

Per the above mentioned book, "...He reportedly told some young women he met at the Virginia springs that he had "never known one moment of bitterness or resentment," advising them that it "was unworthy of them,,,to cherish feelings of resentment against the North."
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 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 smoke from a roiling volcano."
 
Do these sound like the statements a quiet and bitter man would make? There are numerous more from Lee along these same lines. How anyone can try to paint Lee as basically nursing a grudge after the war is baffling.
Did Lee ever try to use his influence in a larger way, to the newspapers and state governments?
 
Did Lee ever try to use his influence in a larger way, to the newspapers and state governments?
Did he ever in his life? It would have been totally out of character for him to take the public stage. He didn't even take the stage and respond to the newspaper article about his supposed whipping of two slaves, although denying it privately. Besides that, he was war weary, had heart disease, had lost everything he had in a, I'll say it again, a war he never wanted to occur to begin with. Now, that he somehow didn't do what you, a 155 years later, think he should have done, he's some kind of vindictive, bitter, old man, nursing a grudge.
 
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 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 smoke from a roiling volcano."
I haven't read the book and a few out of context quotes don't mean much.
 
Did he ever in his life? It would have been totally out of character for him to take the public stage. He didn't even take the stage and respond to the newspaper article about his supposed whipping of two slaves, although denying it privately. Besides that, he was war weary, had heart disease, had lost everything he had in a, I'll say it again, a war he never wanted to occur to begin with. Now, that he somehow didn't do what you, a 155 years later, think he should have done, he's some kind of vindictive, bitter, old man, nursing a grudge.
Yes, he had written the newspapers before the war.
 
I'm not sure a 'public speaking tour' was necessary. But maybe some public remarks or letters to newspapers, encouraging acceptance of blacks as citizens and condemning vigilantism against freedmen. I think his behavior could be described as quiet and bitter.
As his citizenship had failed to be restored, he behaved as a non citizen should by not getting involved in postwar politics frankly.

If they wanted him involved, perhaps they should have restored it............
 
In other words, first he was defeated on the battlefield, and then he sulked.
No, he applied for a pardon and the US dropped the ball, it was the US behaving badly.

Again if you have no say or are even a citizen, you have no obligation, and certainly no reason to involve yourself in politics. Grant was perhaps sulking complaining about non citizens not being more involved........when there is absolutely no reason for them to be.........
 
Okay. I'll just disagree. Treason is not akin to jaywalking.
Perhaps, but then Edited

If you don't think his citizenship should have been restored, there is no reason to complain about him not being more involved in postwar politics or reconstruction then......because as a non citizen there was no reason for him to be..........

However if one thinks or wishes he had been more involved postwar in politics and reconstruction, then they should have restored his citizenship so he would had a reason and incentive to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps, but then don't talk out of both sides of your mouth....

If you don't think his citizenship should have been restored, there is no reason to complain about him not being more involved in postwar politics or reconstruction then......because as a non citizen there was no reason for him to be..........
I'd say he should have gone above and beyond to earn his citizenship back. Don't start with the insults.
 
No insult, simply noting your inconsistency as to whether he should or should not be involved in politics and reconstruction.

Historically he wasn't, as he had absolutely no reason to be..........as he wasn't a citizen.
 
No insult, simply noting your inconsistency as to whether he should or should not be involved in politics and reconstruction.

Historically he wasn't, as he had absolutely no reason to be..........
No inconsistency on my part. Edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original reason to require pardons was to keep them out of politics, perhaps he realized that.

To be a good citizen requires actual citizenship. And he did do everything he was supposed to do.
I'd bet he used that same type of conditional loyalty when he was sulking.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top