Opinion of Robert E. Lee

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

its your choose

[Antonio the Sixth]

A dumb bitch and a loser.

[Santander]

I accidentally voted Massive HP. I need to pray for forgiveness.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I decided my vote by RNG,
And it chose "Massive HP"

[progressive85]

He has been viewed as an honorable guy... I mean wasn't he extremely respected even by Abraham Lincoln?

[TDAS04]

Option 3.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Lee thought the morality of slavery was much more important than even Virginia. Specifically, be believed that white Virginians must preserve slavery in accordance with God's plan, despite the considerable inconvenience of living alongside members of an "inferior" race.

Apart from all that, Lee is massively overrated as a general and the bizarre hero worship of him perpetuated by the likes of Ken Burns would be inexplicable if it weren't for the clear political motivations of the Lost Cause and its acolytes. Obvious HP is obvious.

[Schiff for Senate]

I'd vote Massive HP, it would have been enough, but I went with option 4, because of the 'muh Virginia' addition, which I agree with completely. He seems complicated and interestingly, when the Civil War began he did not own slaves while Ulysses S Grant did. But his priorities were way out of line if he chose his state over his country.

He has been viewed as an honorable guy... I mean wasn't he extremely respected even by Abraham Lincoln?

What are you getting at? Are you saying you'd vote FF? Or are you simply putting that out there? What did you vote for - HP or FF?

[progressive85]

I'd vote Massive HP, it would have been enough, but I went with option 4, because of the 'muh Virginia' addition, which I agree with completely. He seems complicated and interestingly, when the Civil War began he did not own slaves while Ulysses S Grant did. But his priorities were way out of line if he chose his state over his country.

He has been viewed as an honorable guy... I mean wasn't he extremely respected even by Abraham Lincoln?

What are you getting at? Are you saying you'd vote FF? Or are you simply putting that out there? What did you vote for - HP or FF?

I think I voted HP, but I just wanted the historical perspective on him at the time of Lincoln and Lee.

[LBJer]

Lee thought the morality of slavery was much more important than even Virginia. Specifically, be believed that white Virginians must preserve slavery in accordance with God's plan, despite the considerable inconvenience of living alongside members of an "inferior" race.

Apart from all that, Lee is massively overrated as a general and the bizarre hero worship of him perpetuated by the likes of Ken Burns would be inexplicable if it weren't for the clear political motivations of the Lost Cause and its acolytes. Obvious HP is obvious.

You're not telling the whole story.  Although Lee was not opposed to slavery in practice in the here and now, he also believed that it was a "moral and political evil" that eventually would and should end, at a time to be decided by "a wise Merciful Providence."  

Gary Gallagher said that it's correct to say Lee opposed slavery "...only if one applies the most expansive definition of 'antislavery'."  I think that's a fair assessment.  The following is from one of Lee's letters:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. 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."

Given that a large part of the high regard Lee's been held in has been the belief by many that he was a great general, if you don't believe this you should say why.  To just say he's "massively overrated" is meaningless unless you give your reasons for that assessment.  Gallagher has pointed out that Lee's generalship has been vigorously debated "...over many decades."  

I watched the Ken Burns documentary multiple times, and while I think Burns did give a more favorable portrayal of Lee than the historical record calls for (Gallagher's statement quoted above was in response to the documentary's assertion that Lee opposed slavery), I didn't see any "hero worship" of him by any stretch of the imagination.  

[KaiserDave]

Lee believed that slavery was a great evil for white people who were “burdened” by God with the duty of civilizing the “inferior race.”

[vitoNova]

Ultimate Cuck.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A rather cruel martinet whose admittedly quite impressive tactical abilities have been allowed to overshadow his strategic deficiencies due to 'Napoleon as waifu' syndrome and the extremely low level of competence displayed by senior officers on both sides during the American Civil War.

[LBJer]

Lee believed that slavery was a great evil for white people who were “burdened” by God with the duty of civilizing the “inferior race.”

In the quote I posted, he said it was a "greater (italics mine) evil" to whites than to blacks.  That means that it was an "evil" to blacks as well, albeit to a lesser degree in his eyes.

[KaiserDave]

Lee believed that slavery was a great evil for white people who were “burdened” by God with the duty of civilizing the “inferior race.”

In the quote I posted, he said it was a "greater (italics mine) evil" to whites than to blacks.  That means that it was an "evil" to blacks as well, albeit to a lesser degree in his eyes.

Sure, but it doesn't mean much to me. Displays a sickening ossification of his moral compass, which is one of many reasons he is a big HP.

[LBJer]

Lee believed that slavery was a great evil for white people who were “burdened” by God with the duty of civilizing the “inferior race.”

In the quote I posted, he said it was a "greater (italics mine) evil" to whites than to blacks.  That means that it was an "evil" to blacks as well, albeit to a lesser degree in his eyes.

Sure, but it doesn't mean much to me. Displays a sickening ossification of his moral compass, which is one of many reasons he is a big HP.

But I don't think it makes Lee at least any more of a HP than any number of other people at the time.  The Wiki article on Lee quotes Elizabeth Brown Pryor, the author of an important book on him, as saying that Lee's views on slavery and African Americans, "which today seem startling, were entirely unremarkable in Lee's world. No visionary, Lee nearly always tried to conform to accepted opinions. His assessment of black inferiority, of the necessity of racial stratification, the primacy of slave law, and even a divine sanction for it all, was in keeping with the prevailing views of other moderate slaveholders and a good many prominent Northerners."

[KaiserDave]

Lee believed that slavery was a great evil for white people who were “burdened” by God with the duty of civilizing the “inferior race.”

In the quote I posted, he said it was a "greater (italics mine) evil" to whites than to blacks.  That means that it was an "evil" to blacks as well, albeit to a lesser degree in his eyes.

Sure, but it doesn't mean much to me. Displays a sickening ossification of his moral compass, which is one of many reasons he is a big HP.

But I don't think it makes Lee at least any more of a HP than any number of other people at the time.  The Wiki article on Lee quotes Elizabeth Brown Pryor, the author of an important book on him, as saying that Lee's views on slavery and African Americans, "which today seem startling, were entirely unremarkable in Lee's world. No visionary, Lee nearly always tried to conform to accepted opinions. His assessment of black inferiority, of the necessity of racial stratification, the primacy of slave law, and even a divine sanction for it all, was in keeping with the prevailing views of other moderate slaveholders and a good many prominent Northerners."

40% of American voters had the moral wisdom to support Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860, the most anti-slavery and anti-racist candidate by far. Most Americans did not support the secession which was plainly driven by the interests of a pernicious slave power. Perhaps his attitudes on race were similar to most Americans, indeed most Americans were strongly white supremacist. But all of this said does make him much more of an HP.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lee believed that slavery was a great evil for white people who were “burdened” by God with the duty of civilizing the “inferior race.”

In the quote I posted, he said it was a "greater (italics mine) evil" to whites than to blacks.  That means that it was an "evil" to blacks as well, albeit to a lesser degree in his eyes.

Sure, but it doesn't mean much to me. Displays a sickening ossification of his moral compass, which is one of many reasons he is a big HP.

But I don't think it makes Lee at least any more of a HP than any number of other people at the time.  The Wiki article on Lee quotes Elizabeth Brown Pryor, the author of an important book on him, as saying that Lee's views on slavery and African Americans, "which today seem startling, were entirely unremarkable in Lee's world. No visionary, Lee nearly always tried to conform to accepted opinions. His assessment of black inferiority, of the necessity of racial stratification, the primacy of slave law, and even a divine sanction for it all, was in keeping with the prevailing views of other moderate slaveholders and a good many prominent Northerners."

He chose to betray his nation he took an oath too. Just cause he wasnt as evil as the rest of the Confederate Leadership doesn't mean he isnt an Massive HP.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Lee thought the morality of slavery was much more important than even Virginia. Specifically, be believed that white Virginians must preserve slavery in accordance with God's plan, despite the considerable inconvenience of living alongside members of an "inferior" race.

Apart from all that, Lee is massively overrated as a general and the bizarre hero worship of him perpetuated by the likes of Ken Burns would be inexplicable if it weren't for the clear political motivations of the Lost Cause and its acolytes. Obvious HP is obvious.

You're not telling the whole story.  Although Lee was not opposed to slavery in practice in the here and now, he also believed that it was a "moral and political evil" that eventually would and should end, at a time to be decided by "a wise Merciful Providence."  

Yes, he thought it was a "moral and political evil" —because it had the unintended side-effect of forcing whites to cohabit with blacks. The phrase "moral and political evil" appears in an 1858 letter to his wife, which you quote seemingly without having read it closely, so I will present it again.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. 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.

So we see that Lee was "against" slavery for the absolute worst reason (i.e. he disliked black people), but thought the practice should continue anyways because God said so. Not very admirable!

As for his military record: Lee was, undeniable, a skilled tactician and battlefield commander who won many victories in the early part of the war that he really had no business winning. I say he is "overrated" because it has become commonplace to say (as Burns does) that the Army of Northern Virginia was the greatest army to fight on North American soil, and/or that Lee himself was the greatest military mind in American history, both of which are frankly laughable. Lee was a flawed commander like anyone else, he racked up huge casualty rates in each of his battles, and his early successes were won against the likes of McClellan and Burnside who were not exactly the cream of the crop of the Union officer corps. When Lee was up against an actually competent commander in Grant, his victories noticeably declined, and he was ultimately forced to surrender within a year of the start of the Overland Campaign.

So yeah, Lee was an avowed believer in the divine necessity of slavery whose reputation as the most brilliant military mind in American history is at best inflated. Not good!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

He seems complicated and interestingly, when the Civil War began he did not own slaves while Ulysses S Grant did.

This is, um, pretty misleading. The slaves who worked on Lee's plantation were the legal property of his wife's estate, who he then held to labor for years after the terms of his father-in-law's will stipulated they should be freed. The census may not record him as a slaveowner, but for us to interpret this to mean "Lee did not own slaves" is putting a lot of strain on the specific construction of that sentence. Lee controlled human "property" and profited by the labor of slaves who worked on his plantation. He was, for all intents and purposes, a slaveowner.

In Grant's case, he was "gifted" a single slave by his father-in-law and freed that individual within a few months at a financial loss of hundreds or potentially thousands of dollars. His views with regard to slavery and the ownership of slaves should be very clear.

[Schiff for Senate]

He seems complicated and interestingly, when the Civil War began he did not own slaves while Ulysses S Grant did.

This is, um, pretty misleading. The slaves who worked on Lee's plantation were the legal property of his wife's estate, who he then held to labor for years after the terms of his father-in-law's will stipulated they should be freed. The census may not record him as a slaveowner, but for us to interpret this to mean "Lee did not own slaves" is putting a lot of strain on the specific construction of that sentence. Lee controlled human "property" and profited by the labor of slaves who worked on his plantation. He was, for all intents and purposes, a slaveowner.

In Grant's case, he was "gifted" a single slave by his father-in-law and freed that individual within a few months at a financial loss of hundreds or potentially thousands of dollars. His views with regard to slavery and the ownership of slaves should be very clear.

Full disclosure: I read that in Stupid American History. But in all fairness, if Lee owned slaves, so did Grant, if not himself, through his wife, Julia Dent Grant, who owned a lot of slaves at their place in Missouri.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In Grant's case, he was "gifted" a single slave by his father-in-law and freed that individual within a few months at a financial loss of hundreds or potentially thousands of dollars. His views with regard to slavery and the ownership of slaves should be very clear.

Also at a time when Grant was basically broke and supporting his family as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When Lee was up against an actually competent commander in Grant, his victories noticeably declined, and he was ultimately forced to surrender within a year of the start of the Overland Campaign.

So yeah, Lee was an avowed believer in the divine necessity of slavery whose reputation as the most brilliant military mind in American history is at best inflated. Not good!

I am a big fan of Grant getting his fair due after years of being abused by the Lost Cause and painted as a butcher who threw his men Meme Soviet Style (which itself is inaccurate but I digress) at Lee until raw numbers wore them down. Yes, Grant utilized superior resources, but he also had a grander strategic view of the War then most other Generals did including Lee. The Vicksburg Campaign is also a textbook example of flexibility and being able to adjust as you go and still achieve great victory (lacking this is what destroyed Burnside at Fredericksburg).

However, at the same time in the aftermath of the War, owing to the fact that Grant, Sherman and Sheridan dominated the Army establishment for years, this meant that a number of people got screwed who likewise deserved far better treatment then they themselves got. Namely the people who shined at Gettysburg. Meade, who gets completely overshadowed in part thanks to Lincoln dissatisfaction (Which while understandable with his history with Generals, didn't appreciate the situation Meade's Army was facing). And of course Warren, whose career got wrecked by Sheridan and Grant after Five Forks.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

He seems complicated and interestingly, when the Civil War began he did not own slaves while Ulysses S Grant did.

This is, um, pretty misleading. The slaves who worked on Lee's plantation were the legal property of his wife's estate, who he then held to labor for years after the terms of his father-in-law's will stipulated they should be freed. The census may not record him as a slaveowner, but for us to interpret this to mean "Lee did not own slaves" is putting a lot of strain on the specific construction of that sentence. Lee controlled human "property" and profited by the labor of slaves who worked on his plantation. He was, for all intents and purposes, a slaveowner.

In Grant's case, he was "gifted" a single slave by his father-in-law and freed that individual within a few months at a financial loss of hundreds or potentially thousands of dollars. His views with regard to slavery and the ownership of slaves should be very clear.

Full disclosure: I read that in Stupid American History. But in all fairness, if Lee owned slaves, so did Grant, if not himself, through his wife, Julia Dent Grant, who owned a lot of slaves at their place in Missouri.

Grant's wife did not own any slaves, because she was a married woman with living parents, and therefore unable to own property. Her father certainly owned slaves, and one of them worked on the Grants' farm for a short time while they were in Missouri.

[lfromnj]

How can we have this thread when YH is banned