Opinion of Robert E. Lee

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

I almost mentioned Meade but omitted him for space. But indeed it is worth noting that after Meade took command of the Army of the Potomac (which position he held for the remainder of the war), Lee never won another campaign outright.

[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.

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.

Ah, in that case, I stand corrected. But importantly, he did condone his wife's support of slavery.

[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.

Ah, in that case, I stand corrected. But importantly, he did condone his wife's support of slavery.

I think Grant's life record taken in full makes perfectly clear what his opinion of slavery was. Prior to the war's beginning he was not an abolitionist and the fact his wife's father was a slaveowner was apparently not a deal breaker for him, but he never failed to free a slave when it was in his power to do so (including several million who became free as a direct result of his military service). The contrast to Lee, who believed slavery was divinely ordained and contributed his considerable skill as a battlefield commander to the preservation of slavery, could not be starker.

[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.

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.

Ah, in that case, I stand corrected. But importantly, he did condone his wife's support of slavery.

I think Grant's life record taken in full makes perfectly clear what his opinion of slavery was. Prior to the war's beginning he was not an abolitionist and the fact his wife's father was a slaveowner was apparently not a deal breaker for him, but he never failed to free a slave when it was in his power to do so (including several million who became free as a direct result of his military service). The contrast to Lee, who believed slavery was divinely ordained and contributed his considerable skill as a battlefield commander to the preservation of slavery, could not be starker.

No, I agree with you...their military service pretty much makes it clear where they stood (and in Grant's case, his presidency as well). I was just giving a chestnut that it turns out is misleading. Overall, yes, Grant was antislavery and Lee proslavery. Definitely. And Lee is obviously an 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."

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.

It's very misleading to say that 40% of voters chose Lincoln without noting that almost all of those voters were in the North and West.  In Virginia, Lincoln got 1.13% of the vote (and Virginia then included what is now West Virginia).

Of course, this narrowing of the group being considered goes both ways.  After all, as Gallagher has pointed out, not only did many people in Lee's extended family remain loyal to the U.S., but roughly a third of all Virginians who had graduated from West Point did so as well, and Lee was the only one of the six colonels from Virginia in the U.S. army in the winter of 1861 who resigned his commission. 

[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.

It's very misleading to say that 40% of voters chose Lincoln without noting that almost all of those voters were in the North and West.  In Virginia, Lincoln got 1.13% of the vote (and Virginia then included what is now West Virginia).

Of course, this narrowing of the group being considered goes both ways.  After all, as Gallagher has pointed out, not only did many people in Lee's extended family remain loyal to the U.S., but roughly a third of all Virginians who had graduated from West Point did so as well, and Lee was the only one of the six colonels from Virginia in the U.S. army in the winter of 1861 who resigned his commission. 

My point is that a lot of Americans had far stronger moral character than Robert E. Lee. I am comparing him to his far superior contemporaries.

[fhtagn]

obviously FF