Lee Robert E. Lee, History & Memory

[MWood1841]

Caught this C-Span segment recently from this past June's Gettysburg College annual conference. A fair balanced round table discussion with Carol Reardon, Joseph Glatthaar, A. Wilson Greene and Keith Bohannon, moderated by Gary Gallagher. Link below.

Historians discussed Robert E. Lee as a complex figure whose legacy has evolved over time. The Gettysburg College Civil War Institute hosted this event.

https://www.c-span.org/program/the-civil-war/robert-e-lee-in-history-and-memory/660914

refreshing to hear military historians who have had excellent scholarly careers discuss Lee without 21st century lenses. Gallagher points this out several times the difference between actual history and memory.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

One of the best C-Span talks ive listened. Everyone should give a watch. Their discussion on keeping and firing subordinates and the way to do it was fascinating. Lee's letter to Early firing hom was so positive to Early that Early framed and kept it.

 

[Rebforever]

One of the best C-Span talks ive listened. Everyone should give a watch. Their discussion on keeping and firing subordinates and the way to do it was fascinating. Lee's letter to Early firing hom was so positive to Early that Early framed and kept it.

Was the letter to early shown, or was this a memory?

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

Was the letter to early shown, or was this a memory?

They just mentioned it. How even when Lee removed you he was always about not embarrassing them.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

For those interested.

Lt.-General J. A. Early, Franklin Co., Va.

"General,—My telegram will have informed you that I deem a change of Commanders in your Department necessary; but it is due to your zealous and patriotic services that I should explain the reasons that prompted my action. The situation of affairs is such that we can neglect no means calculated to develop the resources we possess to the greatest extent, and make them as efficient as possible. To this end, it is essential that we should have the cheerful and hearty support of the people, and the full confidence of the soldiers, without which our efforts would be embarrassed and our means of resistance weakened. I have reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that you cannot command the united and willing co-operation which is so essential to success. Your reverses in the Valley, of which the public and the army judge chiefly by the results, have, I fear, impaired your influence both with the people and the soldiers, and would add greatly to the difficulties which will, under any circumstances, attend our military operations in S. W. Virginia. While my own confidence in your ability, zeal, and devotion to the cause is unimpaired, I have nevertheless felt that I could not oppose what seems to be the current of opinion, without injustice to your reputation and injury to the service. I therefore felt constrained to endeavor to find a commander who would be more likely to develop the strength and resources of the country, and inspire the soldiers with confidence; and, to accomplish this purpose, I thought it proper to yield my own opinion, and to defer to that of those to whom alone we can look for support.

I am sure that you will understand and appreciate my motives, and no one will be more ready than yourself to acquiesce in any measures which the interests of the country may seem to require, regardless of all personal considerations.

Thanking you for the fidelity and energy with which you have always supported my efforts, and for the courage and devotion you have ever manifested in the service of the country,

I am, very respectfully and truly,
Your ob't serv't,
R. E. LEE, Gen'l."

 

[Cavalier]

Maybe this is how you tell someone to go to h--- but make it seem like they're going to enjoy the trip ?

John

 

[JerryD]

One of the best C-Span talks ive listened. Everyone should give a watch. Their discussion on keeping and firing subordinates and the way to do it was fascinating. Lee's letter to Early firing hom was so positive to Early that Early framed and kept it.

They say tact is the ability to tell a man to go to hades, and make him look forward to the trip....

 

[JerryD]

Interesting discussion, but it would have been a lot more interesting if they had not picked a panel that all agreed with each other. Diversity of opinion is usually the best way to weigh and judge varying opinions. It seems pretty much the whole panel (other than the woman from Gettysburg College), were anxious to dispute the Connelly/Nolan interpretation. Would have been much more interesting if they had one or two on the panel who were willing to defend that school.

 

[wausaubob]

General Lee was dependent on his subordinates. In a few weeks time, friendly fire wounded Longstreet, and the federal troopers killed General Stuart. Robert E. Lee had to feel lonely at that point.

 

[SWS]

"Extra Billy" Smith certainly wasn't doing Early any favors.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

General Lee was dependent on his subordinates. In a few weeks time, friendly fire wounded Longstreet, and the federal troopers killed General Stuart. Robert E. Lee had to feel lonely at that point.

The panel discusses Lee from that point on was some of Lee's most impressive campaigning, his ability to keep the army together, and hte increased work load was incredible. One panelist described one of Lee's best attributes was his resiliance, and ability to recover from mistakes or setbacks.

 

[MWood1841]

(other than the woman from Gettysburg College)

I found Carol Reardon's comments regarding current ROTC students and military staff rides thought provoking. She has partnered with and contributed to several Gary Gallagher works, which in of itself is an adulation for her career as a historian.

 

[wausaubob]

The panel discusses Lee from that point on was some of Lee's most impressive campaigning, his ability to keep the army together, and hte increased work load was incredible. One panelist described one of Lee's best attributes was his resiliance, and ability to recover from mistakes or setbacks.

But there were some serious mistakes starting with July 3, 1863. The loss of Stuart's intelligence ability and the loss of Longstreet cost the Confederates. By August 1863 General Lee had to rely on General Hill to try to dislodge the federal forces from the Weldon Railroad. For whatever reason, Hill was unable to accomplish the objective. Lacking Jackson, Longstreet, and Stuart, and the subordinate officers listed in the other thread, it wasn't the same army by 1864. And then there were the material shortages. General Lee was operating in a very confined area.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

But there were some serious mistakes starting with July 3, 1863. The loss of Stuart's intelligence ability and the loss of Longstreet cost the Confederates. By August 1863 General Lee had to rely on General Hill to try to dislodge the federal forces from the Weldon Railroad. For whatever reason, Hill was unable to accomplish the objective. Lacking Jackson, Longstreet, and Stuart, and the subordinate officers listed in the other thread, it wasn't the same army by 1864. And then there were the material shortages. General Lee was operating in a very confined area.

Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said. Yes even without Longstreet and Stuart and Jackson the army was still quite formidable and much of that was because of Lee. Even at Petersburg Lee is able to land 3 major blows to Grant, while not enough to stop Grant, they inflict disproportionate casualties on him, and show that the ANV was still quite dangerous. Again just because Lee ultimatley loses doesn't mean he wasn't a exemplary field commander. Or that he didn't exhibit characterstics of command that aren't timeless to military history. There wre only a few generals in the war who commanded armiees that could be said of.

 

[Rebforever]

"Extra Billy" Smith certainly wasn't doing Early any favors.

I am one of those that think General Lee did not write that letter.

 

[wausaubob]

I am one of those that think General Lee did not write that letter.

Many of things attributed to General Lee he neither said nor wrote.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I am one of those that think General Lee did not write that letter.

Thought this finding comes as no surprise given Lee directed his aide-de-camp, Col. Charles Marshall, to write his Apr. 10, '65, farewell address to the AoNV (After reviewing the draft, Lee merely removed what he considered might be one possibly inflammatory paragraph and made several other very minor changes to it).

Thought both correspondences showed similarities in the elegant use of words, as well as adopted the same tactful and grateful tones of language.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I had this video saved and finally got around to watching it this evening. Very good discussion.

Interesting discussion, but it would have been a lot more interesting if they had not picked a panel that all agreed with each other. Diversity of opinion is usually the best way to weigh and judge varying opinions. It seems pretty much the whole panel (other than the woman from Gettysburg College), were anxious to dispute the Connelly/Nolan interpretation. Would have been much more interesting if they had one or two on the panel who were willing to defend that school.

Are there any current major Civil War historians who think the Connelly and Nolan weren't an over-correction, as Carol Reardon described them in this panel?

I do think, broadly-speaking, many of the key points of Connelly's interpretation aren't wrong so much as overstated. Lee loomed larger during the war AND he was polished into The Marble Man by The Lost Cause. Virginia was overemphasized during the war AND by The Lost Cause, and it contributed to Confederate defeat. Lee wasn't blind to events outside Virginia, but his focus was always on Virginia.

There's a comment near the end about cultural-social historians, who are not military historians, misinterpreting Lee. It brought to my mind Varon's recent biography of Longstreet and White's recent biography of Chamberlain, both of which do a better job than any previous biography of looking at those men's lives outside 1861-1865, but both of which I think mishandle the military portion of their subject's life. Much as the history field could be improved by more collaboration between researchers and writers, so to could it be improved by collaborative biographies (military historian & non-military historian) about Civil War figures to provide a more complete and well-rounded analysis.