Two Northern Obituaries of Gen. Lee

scone

2nd Lieutenant
Honored Fallen Comrade
The New York Herald
The Obituary of Robert Edward Lee

On a quiet autumn morning, in the land which he loved so well and
served so faithfully, the spirit of Robert Edward Lee left the clay
which it had so much ennobled and traveled out of this world into the
great and mysterious land. Here in the North, forgetting that the
time was when the sword of Robert Edward Lee was drawn against us—
forgetting and forgiving all the years of bloodshed and agony—we have
long since ceased to look upon him as the Confederate leader, but
have claimed him as one of ourselves; have cherished and felt proud
of his military genius; have recounted and recorded his triumphs as
our own; have extolled his virtue as reflecting upon us—for Robert
Edward Lee was an American, and the great nation which gave him birth
would be today unworthy of such a son if she regarded him lightly.

=================================================

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 13, 1870

OBITUARY: Gen. Robert E. Lee

Intelligence was received last evening of the death at Lexington,
Va., Of Gen. Robert E. Lee, the most famous of the officers whose
celebrity was gained in the service of the Southern Confederacy
during the late terrible rebellion. A report was received some days
ago that he had been smitten with paralysis, but this was denied, and
though it was admitted that he was seriously ill, hopes of his speedy
recovery seem to have been entertained by his friends. Within the
last two or three days his symptoms had taken an unfavorable turn,
and he expired at 91/2 o'clock yesterday morning of congestion of the
brain, at the age of sixty-three years, eight months and twenty-three
days.

Robert Edward Lee was the son of Gen. Henry Lee, the friend of
Washington, and a representative of one of the wealthiest and most
respected families of Virginia. Born in January, 1807, he grew up
amid all the advantages which wealth and family position could give
in a republican land, and received the best education afforded by the
institutions of his native State. Having inherited a taste for
military studies, and an ambition for military achievements, he
entered the National Academy at West Point in 1825, and graduated in
1829, the second in scholarship in his class. He was at once
commissioned Second Lieutenant of engineers, and in 1835 acted as
assistant astronomer in drawing the boundary line between the States
of Michigan and Ohio. In the following year he was promoted to the
grade of First Lieutenant, and in 1836 received a Captain's
commission. One the breaking out of the war with Mexico he was made
Chief-Engineer of the army under the command of Gen. Wool. After the
battle of Cerro Gordo, in April, 1847, in which he distinguished
himself by his gallant conduct, he was immediately promoted to the
rank of Major. He displayed equal skill and bravery at Contreras,
Cherubusco and Chapultepec, and in the battle at the last-mentioned
place received a severe wound. His admirable conduct throughout this
struggle was rewarded before its close with the commission of a
Lieutenant-Colonel and the brevet title of Colonel. In 1852 he was
appointed to the responsible position of Superintendent of the
Military Academy at West Point, which he retained until 1855. On
retiring from the charge of this institution he was made Lieutenant-
Colonel of the Second Calvary, and on the 16th of March, 1861,
received the commission of Colonel of the First Calvary.

Thus far the career of Col. Lee had been one of honor and the highest
promise. In every service which had been entrusted to his hands he
had proved efficient, prompt and faithful, and his merits had always
been readily acknowledged and rewarded by promotion. He was regarded
by his superior officers as one of the most brilliant and promising
men in the army of the United States. His personal integrity was well
known, and his loyalty and patriotism was not doubted. Indeed, it was
in view of the menaces of treason and the dangers which threatened
the Union that he had received his last promotion, but he seems to
have been thoroughly imbued with that pernicious doctrine that his
first and highest allegiance was due to the State of his birth. When
Virginia joined the ill-fated movement of secession from the Union,
he immediately threw up his commission in the Federal Army and
offered his sword to the newly formed Confederacy. He took this step,
protesting his own attachment to the Union, but declaring that his
sense of duty would never permit him to "raise his hand against his
relatives, his children, and his home." In his farewell letter to
Gen. Scott, he spoke of the struggle which this step had cost him,
and his wife declared that he "wept tears of blood over this terrible
war." There are probably few who doubt the sincerity of his
protestation, but thousands have regretted, and his best friends will
ever have to regret, the error of judgment, the false conception of
the allegiance due to his Government and his country, which led one
so rarely gifted to cast his lot with traitors, and devote his
splendid talents to the execution of a wicked plot to tear asunder
and ruin the Republic in whose service his life had hitherto been
spent.

He resigned his commission on the 25th of April, 1861, and
immediately betook himself to Richmond, where he was received with
open arms and put in command of all the forces of Virginia by Gov.
Letcher. On the 10th of May he received the commission of a Major-
General in the army of the Confederate States, retaining the command
in Virginia, and was soon after promoted to the rank of General in
the regular army. He first took the field in the mountainous region
of Western Virginia, where he met with many difficulties, and was
defeated at Greenbrier by Gen. J. J. Reynolds on the 3d of October,
1861. He was subsequently sent to take command of the Department of
the South Atlantic Coast, but after the disabling of Gen. Joseph E.
Johnston at the battle of Fair Oaks, in the Spring of 1862, he was
recalled to Virginia, and placed at the head of the forces defending
the capital, which he led through the remainder of the campaign of
the Chickahominy. He engaged with the Army of the Potomac under his
old companion-in- arms, Gen. McClellan, and drove it back to the
Rappahannock. He afterward, in August, 1862 attacked the Army of
Virginia, under Gen. Pope, and after driving it back to Washington,
crossed the Potomac into Maryland, where he issued a proclamation
calling upon the inhabitants to enlist under his triumphant banners.
Meantime McClellan gathered a new army from the broken remnants of
his former forces, and met Lee at Hagerstown, and, after a battle of
two days, compelled him to retreat. Reinforced by "Stonewall"
Jackson, on the 16th of September, he turned to renew the battle, but
after two days of terrible fighting at Sharpsburg and Antietam, was
driven from the soil of Maryland. Retiring beyond the Rappahannock,
he took up his position at Fredericksburg, where he was attacked, on
the 13th of December, by Gen. Burnside, whom he drove back with
terrible slaughter. He met with the same success in May, 1863, when
attacked by Hooker, at Chancellorsville. Encouraged by these
victories, in the ensuing Summer he determined to make a bold
invasion into the territory of the North. He met Gen. Meade at
Gettysburg, Penn., on the 1st of July, 1863, and after one of the
most terrible and destructive battles of modern times, was driven
from Northern soil. Soon after this, a new character appeared on the
battle-fields of Virginia, and Gen. Lee found it expedient to gather
his forces for the defense of the Confederate capital against the
determined onslaughts of Gen. Grant. In the Spring and Summer of 1864
that indomitable soldier gradually inclosed the City of Richmond as
with a girdle of iron, which he drew closer and closer with
irresistible energy and inexorable determination, repulsing the rebel
forces whenever they ventured to make an attack, which they did
several times with considerable vigor. In this difficult position,
holding the citadel of the Confederacy, and charged with its hopes
and destinies, Lee was made Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the
South. He held out until the Spring of 1865, vainly endeavoring to
gather the broken forces of the Confederacy, and break asunder the
terrible line which was closing around them. After a desperate and
final effort at Burkesville, on the 9th of April, 1865, he was
compelled to acknowledge his defeat, and surrendered his sword to
Gen. Grant on the generous terms which were dictated by that great
soldier. Lee retired under his parole to Weldon, and soon after made
a formal submission to the Federal Government. Subsequently, by an
official clemency, which is probably without a parallel in the
history of the world, he was formally pardoned for the active and
effective part he had taken in the mad effort of the Southern States
to break up the Union and destroy the Government. Not long after his
surrender he was invited to become the President of Washington
University, at Lexington, Va., and was installed in that position on
the 2d of October, 1865. Since that time he has devoted himself to
the interests of that institution, keeping so far as possible aloof
from public notice, and by his unobtrusive modesty and purity of
life, has won the respect even of those who most bitterly deplore and
reprobate his course in the rebellion.​
 
Next time i'm at the New York Public Library's research branch on 42nd street, i will see what the New York Evening Post has to say on it. However, that might not be for awhile due to the transit strike
 
Dear John W.
Amen, brother. The NY Times is still telling it like it is.

What an extraordinary character Lee had. One of the most fascinating figures of the war.
 
Unfortunately, I was being sarcastic. Making digs at the man in the text of his obituary, was vicious, partisan, biased, and unobjective. As I said, little has changed at the New York Times.

Just my opinion and that's all I'll say on the matter.

John W.
 
New York Times

Probably said it as good as was ever said, why there was a Civil War.

Political positions, so weighted by argument for more than a generation, that war was a necessity.
 
This New York Times obit seemed more of a 'grilling' of a Christian man and great General than a history of the war, with all due respect to differing opinions. Gen. Lee would have garnered the 'Times' great respect and a subjective obit, IMO, had he accepted command of the winning side

I agree with Mr. John W., the 'Times' haven't changed in 'objectivity' since before the WBTS.

Regards,
Alabaman
 
Back
Top