Robert E. Lee and Me

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
The author's service per Wiki:

Seidule served in the United States Army for more than 35 years, starting as a tank platoon leader in Germany. His commands include a cavalry unit in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Gulf War, as well as 3rd Battalion, 81st Armor Regiment. His staff positions included crisis planning for NATO in Kosovo and North Macedonia.​

The author is not the only person who, after being raised in the tenets of the Lost Cause, eventually came to a different opinion after years of study. He's notable because he grew up in the south, attended Washington and Lee, served in the army for 30-plus years, and taught history at West Point. I don't think his opinion should be dismissed out of hand. Other than a few very biased reviews, the rest of the reviews seem positive.

“Profoundly moving memoir distinguished by moral courage and intellectual integrity…Everyone interested in the Civil War and its continuing importance in American culture should read this unflinchingly honest book.” ― Professor James M. McPherson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Battle Cry of Freedom.
I have no problem with his service, nor, frankly, even with his opinions. my problem is he asserts his opinions as facts.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
I have no problem with his service, nor, frankly, even with his opinions. my problem is he asserts his opinions as facts.
Perhaps you read it that way. Professional historians usually don't make up facts--but they are prone to strong opinions. Because people understand (or should understand) that coming up with an inference is basic, authors omit phrases such as "in my opinion" or "it is my judgement that...". Phrases that we, as amateurs, often use.
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Here is a rebuttal on the Genera’s military service. He Served, so, bless him for it. However, your argument made IT an issue.

Also, if Seidule finally had a Reckoning, why did it take him so long?

Whole thing Smells.

https://www.charlestonathenaeumpres...-by-ty-seidule-part-one-of-a-two-part-review/
16 years in the regular army service, and 20 years teaching history. If that's the truth, I'm not sure how that discredits him.

And as soon as people starting using buzzwords like "woke," it reveals a slant. So your reference doesn't seem to me to be an impartial reviewer.
 

Paul Yancey

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Location
Kentucky

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
16 years in the regular army service, and 20 years teaching history. If that's the truth, I'm not sure how that discredits him.

And as soon as people starting using buzzwords like "woke," it reveals a slant. So your reference doesn't seem to me to be an impartial reviewer.
Kind of like Lost Cause? What is New here? Nothing. If anyone has read a CW History book published in the last 60 years, this narrative is splattered all thru most of them.

Seidule knew he had the Right Bio to Trigger the Lost Cause Wokies. Sound Familiar? Some just beg for this stuff.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Kind of like Lost Cause? What is New here? Nothing. If anyone has read a CW History book published in the last 60 years, this narrative is splattered all thru most of them.

Seidule knew he had the Right Bio to Trigger the Lost Cause Wokies. Sound Familiar? Some just beg for this stuff.
If it's just the same old thing of the last 60 years, why get worked up about it or try to tear down the author? Just ignore the book then.

From what I understand, it's more of a memoir than a history book. The general wrote of his own experience, of studying and re-evaluating the myths of the Lost Cause.
 

BillO

Captain
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Location
Quinton, VA.
It seems to me that the presentation of opinions based on observation of what happened pretty much defines history (vs. chronology). There's nothing wrong with reading many opinions and there's something very wrong with reading only what is agreeable.
Your definition of history differs slightly from mine.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Your definition of history differs slightly from mine.
This distresses me no more than my disagreements should distress you. ☺️ If we all had nothing to say but "Yes! How true!," discussion would be pointless.
 
Last edited:

J C J Barefoot

Private
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Countries Lie about their Nationalism. South didn't tell the Whole Truth about Causation of the Civil War. This has been debated at nausea. Lee and all White Southerners have been uncloaked.

Northerners and the Federal Government are the ones who Still get away with it. They fought for White Supremacy just as much as the South did. Reconstruction was just as much a vehicle for the South to keep Blacks out of the North to Protect the Norths nearly Perfect 99% Lilly White Institutions as it was for the South's to maintain their White dominated Southern Institutions. The North refused a Racial Adjustment in the North.

If General Seidule had a Reckoning, it must be a late one.

Here is a book review. Some won’t like the source.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/a-defense-of-lee/

Oh NOW I get it. I finally see the total motive of white supremacy that has been hidden from Northern history. So lets say I'm from Ohio in 1862. I come up with this proposal-- Let's fight a war against the South to keep the Union, then eighteen months into it let's change the goals and free their slaves, and after they invade Maryland and Pennsylvania and come within a stroke of luck of whipping us...let's continue another two more years and kill and wound another 150,000 of our dear sons and brothers. It's all worth it because if we beat the South we can remain the supreme white race against all the millions of free southern slaves whom at that time with their skill, training and education are going to flood the north and take away our way of life. Then, after the war, let's provide a 13th, and 14th amendment to allow the back vote and equal citizenship---that will really trick them that our real gaol was always WHITE SUPREMACY. Then- let's start KKK chapters in Vermont ---oh wait. Now I get it. The North's motive was whiteness.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Oh NOW I get it. I finally see the total motive of white supremacy that has been hidden from Northern history. So lets say I'm from Ohio in 1862. I come up with this proposal-- Let's fight a war against the South to keep the Union, then eighteen months into it let's change the goals and free their slaves, and after they invade Maryland and Pennsylvania and come within a stroke of luck of whipping us...let's continue another two more years and kill and wound another 150,000 of our dear sons and brothers. It's all worth it because if we beat the South we can remain the supreme white race against all the millions of free southern slaves whom at that time with their skill, training and education are going to flood the north and take away our way of life. Then, after the war, let's provide a 13th, and 14th amendment to allow the back vote and equal citizenship---that will really trick them that our real gaol was always WHITE SUPREMACY. Then- let's start KKK chapters in Vermont ---oh wait. Now I get it. The North's motive was whiteness.
Big Part of it was keeping the North White. North was 99% White before the war and rejected any diffusion. Yep there were more KKK in the North than South by 1920s. Migration of blacks started about this time. WWI stopped white European immigration flows. If Vermont had been 40% Black they woukd of had the KKK. The Pure Yankee was geographically a long way from any major black populations. So, they were more emancipation prone. Had no fear of Ever having to accept a large Black population.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Big Part of it was keeping the North White. North was 99% White before the war and rejected any diffusion. Yep there were more KKK in the North than South by 1920s. Migration of blacks started about this time. WWI stopped white European immigration flows. If Vermont had been 40% Black they woukd of had the KKK. The Pure Yankee was geographically a long way from any major black populations. So, they were more emancipation prone. Had no fear of Ever having to accept a large Black population.
As has been brought up before, there were more free blacks in the loyal states than in the seceded states.
 
Top