quote:

ORIGINAL: goodwoodrw

I'm no expert on American history, but what little I have read on Lee suggests he fought for Virginia not the CSA. If Virginia had of been in the Northern Coalition he would have led the Union, would I be correct on seeing it this way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodwoodrw

I'm no expert on American history, but what little I have read on Lee suggests he fought for Virginia not the CSA. If Virginia had of been in the Northern Coalition he would have led the Union, would I be correct on seeing it this way?

warspite1

Interesting. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on the US Civil War will add their insight. Seems strange though - and I only say this because that would mean he would have no personal interest in the politics of his state and who/what he would be fighting for - only that his state declares for one side or the other and he would follow.....

Also, if that was his avowed position, then why would he have become such a revered figure to the South post the war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well as someone who knows little of that period (other than high level) but always keen to learn, I thought this okay - but a little disappointing.

I got from this that Lee seemed keen to move on once the war was lost, and to accept the defeat (he signed the oath). But got no real feel for his innermost thoughts, how he saw the United States - and particularly the south - moving forward, how he felt about his part in the Civil War, his motivations for the action he took and - in the aftermath of defeat - whether he believed he was right. Did he take the action he did subsequently to save his own skin and (perhaps) that of his family, or did he do it because he thought it best for the southern states, or because it was best for the United States? This just left me with a load of questions to be honest.

I heard a few stories - at least one apocryphal? - that showed him as a kindly man but ultimately after one hour and ten minutes I don't feel I know much, if anything, more about the man that I did at the start.

Another bone of contention; as a speaker, if you are going to use the "Sword of Damocles" in a speech it's perhaps a good idea to actually know what it is and how to pronounce it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well as someone who knows little of that period (other than high level) but always keen to learn, I thought this okay - but a little disappointing.

I got from this that Lee seemed keen to move on once the war was lost, and to accept the defeat (he signed the oath). But got no real feel for his innermost thoughts, how he saw the United States - and particularly the south - moving forward, how he felt about his part in the Civil War, his motivations for the action he took and - in the aftermath of defeat - whether he believed he was right. Did he take the action he did subsequently to save his own skin and (perhaps) that of his family, or did he do it because he thought it best for the southern states, or because it was best for the United States? This just left me with a load of questions to be honest.

I heard a few stories - at least one apocryphal? - that showed him as a kindly man but ultimately after one hour and ten minutes I don't feel I know much, if anything, more about the man that I did at the start.

Another bone of contention; as a speaker, if you are going to use the "Sword of Damocles" in a speech it's perhaps a good idea to actually know what it is and how to pronounce it!

Yes, if only we had the journalist with todays insights asking those questions of him. I think the state of reporting was only interested in bare facts in 1865. And there weren't as many reporters/journalist as we have today. Your point brings out the state of american journalism in 1865. Little to none, also reporters suffered from the 1865 american culture its "state of mind", so to speak. I mean, you have a lot of great questions that were not asked of him. How deeply did Robert E. Lee reflect after the war. That will go unanswered.
But at least the attempt by the presenter to bring some humanity to the figure of Robert E. Lee was made. The questions you raised, I would have liked to see asked of many a Confederate general.
As it is we can only piece "as best we can" the material we have and conjecture. What is important to me is we see him as a man not a saint nor great sinner but an honorable general. Worthy of having a statue put up of him as a honorable but not torn down because he was a racist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If we remove all statues and change names of buildings/streets/places JUST because person x no longer fits with what is acceptable now, then we will be left with nothing. Why?

There is a debate that needs to be had. But this needs to be done soberly, calmly and with views from all sides listened to, in order that a consensus be found. I hope so, otherwise this subject will remain a festering sore that won't go away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

There is a debate that needs to be had. But this needs to be done soberly, calmly and with views from all sides listened to, in order that a consensus be found. I hope so, otherwise this subject will remain a festering sore that won't go away.

And we won't have it here. This is now a politicized issue and as you all know we don't discuss politics here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Why didn't General Robert E. Lee surrender, with his army, earlier? I suspect that he knew, long before his surrender, that his position was untenable.

quote:

. . . He wrote to the trustees that he believed, "it is the duty of every citizen, in the present condition of the Country, to do all in his power to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony."

A new life in Lexington

Lee arrived in Lexington in mid-September 1865 and went to work immediately. Over the next five years, Washington College grew physically and financially: the faculty increased in size from four to twenty, enrollment grew from fifty to nearly 400 students, and financial contributions poured in from both southern and northern sources. Lee's personal involvement with many of his students reflected his desire to create a new generation of Americans. In response to the bitterness of a Confederate widow, Lee wrote, "Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring [your children] up to be Americans."

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well as someone who knows little of that period (other than high level) but always keen to learn, I thought this okay - but a little disappointing.

I got from this that Lee seemed keen to move on once the war was lost, and to accept the defeat (he signed the oath). But got no real feel for his innermost thoughts, how he saw the United States - and particularly the south - moving forward, how he felt about his part in the Civil War, his motivations for the action he took and - in the aftermath of defeat - whether he believed he was right. Did he take the action he did subsequently to save his own skin and (perhaps) that of his family, or did he do it because he thought it best for the southern states, or because it was best for the United States? This just left me with a load of questions to be honest.

I heard a few stories - at least one apocryphal? - that showed him as a kindly man but ultimately after one hour and ten minutes I don't feel I know much, if anything, more about the man that I did at the start.

Another bone of contention; as a speaker, if you are going to use the "Sword of Damocles" in a speech it's perhaps a good idea to actually know what it is and how to pronounce it!

Yes, if only we had the journalist with todays insights asking those questions of him. I think the state of reporting was only interested in bare facts in 1865. And there weren't as many reporters/journalist as we have today. Your point brings out the state of american journalism in 1865. Little to none, also reporters suffered from the 1865 american culture its "state of mind", so to speak. I mean, you have a lot of great questions that were not asked of him. How deeply did Robert E. Lee reflect after the war. That will go unanswered.
But at least the attempt by the presenter to bring some humanity to the figure of Robert E. Lee was made. The questions you raised, I would have liked to see asked of many a Confederate general.
As it is we can only piece "as best we can" the material we have and conjecture. What is important to me is we see him as a man not a saint nor great sinner but an honorable general. Worthy of having a statue put up of him as a honorable but not torn down because he was a racist.

warspite1

So he didn't commit his thoughts to paper either - correspondence or diary perhaps? That is a shame - but then he didn't live long after the end of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

He had freed his slaves plus the slaves that were inherited from Mr. Custis. He freed his slaves before the war and those from Mr. Custis in 1862.

He preferred that the Union be intact but he considered himself a Virginian first, then an American. That was common in the South or anyplace without an influx of newcomers. The North had a lot of immigrants who identified with the Nation before the state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don60420

“He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile. He was a Caesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness, and Washington, without his reward.”

Benjamin Harvey Hill on Robert E. Lee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rommel222

Greetings to All,
Interesting articles on Robert E. Lee divided loyalty analysis:
https://leefamilyarchive.org/reference/books/bruce/03.html

https://www.historynet.com/a-question-of-loyalty-why-did-robert-e-lee-join-the-confederacy.htm#:~:text=Despite%20his%20clear%20affection%20for,him%20in%20the%20secession%20crisis.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

https://www.fredericksburg.com/lifestyles/assessing-robert-e-lees-divided-loyalties/article_bf614d39-8af2-5616-a889-e94f19f4db5f.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

He had freed his slaves plus the slaves that were inherited from Mr. Custis. He freed his slaves before the war and those from Mr. Custis in 1862.

He preferred that the Union be intact but he considered himself a Virginian first, then an American. That was common in the South or anyplace without an influx of newcomers. The North had a lot of immigrants who identified with the Nation before the state.

Thanks. That knowledge is significant. Still no first hand knowledge as to why he did it but I'm guessing he was motivated by a good heart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

quote:

ORIGINAL: rommel222

Greetings to All,
Interesting articles on Robert E. Lee divided loyalty analysis:
https://leefamilyarchive.org/reference/books/bruce/03.html

https://www.historynet.com/a-question-of-loyalty-why-did-robert-e-lee-join-the-confederacy.htm#:~:text=Despite%20his%20clear%20affection%20for,him%20in%20the%20secession%20crisis.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

https://www.fredericksburg.com/lifestyles/assessing-robert-e-lees-divided-loyalties/article_bf614d39-8af2-5616-a889-e94f19f4db5f.html

thanks, Rommel222. Warspite1 a must read

In the articles you posted I found most revealing the smithsonian article in which he writes about his view of slavery. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/