OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

windcrysmary · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

before I go totally off on these guys, would like a little help...

I've always read where Lee opposed slavery in his letters and was a known hater of slavery...

I've been told there was even a story after the war he took Communion with a freed slave and was asked afterwards what the hell he was doing and his response was "It' time to let go"...

have I been fed a bunch of BS?

the Gettysburgh doc on the military channel characterizes Lee as a "ardent supporter of slavery" at the beginning of the show... as if he was fighting for that particular institution alone.... I got pissed immediately and left a voice mail with them and I'm waiting on their call back or maybe I'll have to respond via e-mail or snail mail...

can anyone tell me if I'm wrong?....do I have my history wrong?...I've googled and the firm docs say I'm right but their are "bloggers" who want to dispute the "southern" opinion of Robert E Lee's take on slavery...

any history buffs have any stuff I can use to support any side to this issue?

thanks....P.S... I know this is a MSU sports page but I can't think of a better place to get the real scoop that has so many intelligent book farmers and intellectuals than those educated in God's University..

thanks a bunch

windcrysmary · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

before I go totally off on these guys, would like a little help...

I've always read where Lee opposed slavery in his letters and was a known hater of slavery...

I've been told there was even a story after the war he took Communion with a freed slave and was asked afterwards what the hell he was doing and his response was "It' time to let go"...

have I been fed a bunch of BS?

the Gettysburgh doc on the military channel characterizes Lee as a "ardent supporter of slavery" at the beginning of the show... as if he was fighting for that particular institution alone.... I got pissed immediately and left a voice mail with them and I'm waiting on their call back or maybe I'll have to respond via e-mail or snail mail...

can anyone tell me if I'm wrong?....do I have my history wrong?...I've googled and the firm docs say I'm right but their are "bloggers" who want to dispute the "southern" opinion of Robert E Lee's take on slavery...

any history buffs have any stuff I can use to support any side to this issue?

thanks....P.S... I know this is a MSU sports page but I can't think of a better place to get the real scoop that has so many intelligent book farmers and intellectuals than those educated in God's University..

thanks a bunch

windcrysmary · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

opines.... thanks

Mjoelner · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Lee%20on%20Slavery.htm

Did you know that Lee was offered command of the Union army at the outbreak of the war but he turned it down to fight for Virginia.

00Dawg · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

Even his Wiki entry will give you some clear direction on his thoughts on the matter.
A letter he wrote in 1856 (I believe to his wife) should give you some semblance of his pre-war stance: generally opposed to slavery, misguided (from a historical retrospective) about any benefits, and believing it would die of its own accord eventually.
He fought for his homeland. That's the long and short of it.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

WutheringDawg · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

<table class="cquote" style="font-size: 13px; margin-top: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: auto; margin-left: auto; border-collapse: collapse; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; background-color: transparent; width: auto; "><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="padding-top: 4px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-left: 10px; ">"...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."

Seems that he was opposed to the idea.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

1dawgfan09 · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

Lee was neither a supporter of slavery in the sense that most Southern politicians and higher ups in the Confederacy were, nor was he free of racial prejudices. However, it is not fair to blame him for having feelings in line with the vast majority of the white people of his age. The problem with men like Lee is that people try to judge them through modern lenses, and that isn't possible if you want to gain an accurate picture of the man. In all honestly, Lee likely wouldn't have fought for slavery alone. He was, before all else, a Virginian who was actually lukewarm about secession and the idea of a Southern Nation until his own state seceded. Had Virginia remained loyal to the Union, Lee would have also.

shsdawg · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

but he also owned slaves and his wealth was based on slavery. 00Dawg said:
Even his Wiki entry will give you some clear direction on his thoughts on the matter.
A letter he wrote in 1856 (I believe to his wife) should give you some semblance of his pre-war stance: generally opposed to slavery, misguided (from a historical retrospective) about any benefits, and believing it would die of its own accord eventually.
He fought for his homeland. That's the long and short of it.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

onedawg · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

“Their [slaves] emancipation
will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity, than
the storms of fiery controversy. This influence though slow, is sure."

Some other favorite quotes from the book "The Maxims of Robert E. Lee for Young Gentlemen."

“God is our only refuge and
our strength. Let us humble ourselves before Him.”

 From Lee’s orders
after [/i]Gettysburg[/i], [/i]August 21, 1863[/i].[/i]

“I am alone to blame...a
younger and more abler man than myself can readily be obtained.”

 Lee to Jefferson
Davis after [/i]Gettysburg[/i], [/i]August 8, 1864[/i].[/i]

“Never touch a novel. They
print beauty more charming than nature, and describe happiness that never
exists.”

 Lee advising his
wife on reading material for his sons.[/i]

“Learn to be good. Be true,
kind and generous and pray earnestly to God to enable you to keep His
commandments, and walk in the same all the days of your life.”

 Lee to his sons,
March 31, 1846.[/i]

“May God rescue us from the
folly of our acts, save us from selfishness, and teach us to love our neighbors
as ourselves.”

 General Lee to his
son, [/i]January 30, 1861[/i].[/i]

“It must be remembered that
we only make war upon armed men.”

 From Lee’s General
Orders No. 73.[/i]

“There is scarcely anything
that is right that we cannot hope to accomplish by labor and preserverence. But
the first must be earnest and the second unremitting.”

 Lee to Martha
Williams.[/i]

“It is history that teaches
us to hope.”

 General Lee.[/i]

[/i]

HammerOfTheDogs · Sep 23, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

00Dawg said:
and believing it would die of its own accord eventually.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 basically threw away the Missouri Act of 1820 and the Great Compromise of 1850. Before, it was believed that slavery would die out because it was confined to Southern States and eventually become obsolete when technology caught up (like mechanical cotton pickers). However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act stated that voting for slavery or freedom would be up to the States...this caused a very nasty civil war in Kansas between anti-slavery Jayhawkers and pro-slavery folks coming over from Missouri. Anti-slavery folks knew that if people could vote on slavery, it could possibly take root in possible future territories like Cuba, Puerto Rico, and what's today northern Mexico.<div>
</div><div>Just think about it...we have migrant farm workers who work the fields of California and Florida. If slavery were still legal, those would probably be plantations with field slaves on them.</div><div>
</div><div>As for Robert E. Lee, he was a brilliant defensive strategist and counterpuncher. However, both times he actually went on the offensive (Antietam and Gettysburg), his army suffered horrific casualties. He would get tunnel-vision and be oblivious to the changing circumstances when he was on the offensive. The only reason the Civil War didn't end after both battles, was because the Union Commanders of each battle (McClellan at Antitam and Meade at Gettysburg) were both timid field commanders who were intimidated by Lee.
</div><div>
</div><div>BTW, Lee wasn't the best Virginia commander of the Civil War...that would be George Thomas. He won every battle where he was the commanding General, and many of his tactics presaged the great army offensives of Rommel and Patton in World War II. </div><div>

</div><div>He isn't famous because he was a Virginian and wasn't completely trusted by other Union generals (although his men were utterly devoted to him), the Ohio politicians (of whom William Tecumseh Sherman's brother was a Senator) didn't want Sherman nor Grant upstaged in any way after the war, Thomas himself was a soldier's soldier who didn't care for intra-army politics and would rather take a subservient role instead of upstage someone senior to him, he burned all his correspondences and records after the war, and he died in 1870 before he could sit down and write a biography.</div>

shsdawg · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

genius. They perfectly complimented each other.Lee-Jackson = not genius, Leewas never really the same with out him.I think overall Jackson was the best the CSAhad, his Valley campaign on his own was a masterpiece. Forrest might have been ahead ofLee as well but he never really led a large enough campaign on his ownto fairly judge that. It would have been interesting to have seen what Cleburne could have done on his own too. He showed every sign of genius. Then again so did Hood, till he actually got an army of his own.

00Dawg · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

Mutt the Hoople said:
00Dawg said:

and believing it would die of its own accord eventually.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

Click to expand...

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 basically threw away the Missouri Act of 1820 and the Great Compromise of 1850. Before, it was believed that slavery would die out because it was confined to Southern States and eventually become obsolete when technology caught up (like mechanical cotton pickers). However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act stated that voting for slavery or freedom would be up to the States...this caused a very nasty civil war in Kansas between anti-slavery Jayhawkers and pro-slavery folks coming over from Missouri. Anti-slavery folks knew that if people could vote on slavery, it could possibly take root in possible future territories like Cuba, Puerto Rico, and what's today northern Mexico.<div>
</div><div>Just think about it...we have migrant farm workers who work the fields of California and Florida. If slavery were still legal, those would probably be plantations with field slaves on them.</div>

Lee's post-KN Act feelings on the matter are a "problem". If you want to argue slavery would've persisted in perpetuity, you are free to do so. However, while not stating my own opinion on the matter, you are arguing with a man who obviously had more opportunities to assess the actual situation than either of us.

GloryDawg · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

Jackson was the best Corps commander in both armies. Not Army Commander. He was tough, aggressive and his men loved him. He could inspire his men to do anything. However, much of his greatness comes from the fact he died and did not finish the war. He did very good in theValley but a week latermade many mistakes in the seven days battle which left the seven days in doubt. Even his nickname is in doubt. When Gen Bee said, "look there stands Jackson like a stone Wall", many said it was a insult because Bee was getting whipped and Jackson was doing nothing to help but Bee did not survive 1st Bull Run and was never able clarified. Hist greatest moment was Chancellorsville but he was lucky in the sense the Union deployment was horrible and he was able to flank the Union Army and catch them with their pants down. He really only saw one day of that battle due to getting shot by his own men. Jeb Stuart took over his corp and finished the remaining of the battle and did most of the leading. He did a hell of a job and Lee offered him that command once Jackson died of Pneumonia. He turned it down.

As far as Lee, he is the greatest General this country ever produced. He was great with Jackson and with out Jackson. Long Street was as good as Jackson. The only really mistake Lee made was attacking the third day of Gettysburg. Long Street argued attacking but the other Corp commanders argued forattacking. If Jackson was still alive and leading his corp and not Euell he might have been able to help Long Street talk Lee out of attacking. Another point about Gettysburg. Lee was tired and was pressing the issue hoping to force the Union into a truce. Medical records also shows that Lee could have possibly had a heart attack two weeks before the battle and this could have played into his decision making at Gettysburg. One thing that might have helped if Jackson was around at Gettysburg, he might have taken the heights out side of Gettysburg where Euell did not.

As far as Lee and slavery, Lee was very much against it and even advocated letting Black fight in the Confederate army. Much of Lee's wealth came from his wife's family. She was the grand daughter of Martha Washington. Her family might have owned slaved but Lee was a military man and did not.

RonnyAtmosphere · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

..Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery, yet served as general to an army that was fighting to keep the culture of slavery intact?

If this is true (which I have no idea if it is or not), Robert E. Lee was one of history's biggest frauds & hypocrites.

If you have questions about Robert E. Lee, you currently have the world's most advanced research mechanism at your disposal. It's called Google.

eurotrash · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

He was a soldier and a man of honor (as it was defined in the Antebellum South). That one could be opposed to slavery and still fight for the South is nothing surprising. As an institution it was dying out elsewhere so it's not unreasonable
for someone to think it would soon end regardless of the Civil War.

Soldiers have all sorts of motivations for fighting. Most Union soldiers were racists who didn't fight because they opposed what abolitionists considered to be a morally indefensible institution (slavery). They fought for their country among other reasons (don't forget about being forced through the draft). Most northerners opposed to slavery simply didn't want to compete with slave labor.

Slavery, btw, was a normal part of civilization until quite recently times (not much difference between slavery and serfdom in eastern Europe, especially Russia, other than race). Southern slave owners quite rightly argued that it was a justified in the Bible. They in fact did a better job at justifying the institution than abolitionists did at critiquing it and they weren't ashamed or guilt ridden for owning other human beings. Of course today most people rightly consider it immoral and a shameful part of our national history but most slave owners had few moral conflicts.

But, slavery was the main cause of the war among other legitimate causes--liberal and conservative historians generally agree on this. It's the one least likely to be resolved by political compromise. Most southerners didn't fight preserve slavery. But southern elites, who sent young men into battle, wanted a slave-based South and slavery extended into the territories. That's sort of like saying the the Iraq war is not a war for oil, but if you remove oil from the equation then the elites would probably not bother sending young men and young women to fight there. Our entire standard of living is based on having secure sources of oil--that's why the Middle East, a largely culturally primitive and economically backward region, is so important.

BTW, there are some good, thoughtful comments on this thread. Not bad for a sports message board. We should sent this thread to U.S. News to boost State's collegiate ranking.

MaxwellSmart · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

"
Surrender means that the history of this heroic
struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be
trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school
books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the
influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as
traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."

-General Patrick Cleburne, CSA

eurotrash · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

There's nothing wrong with revisionist history if it's more accurate and is based on sources (like government documents) that were unavailable to previous historians. The Patriot's History of the United States has some interpretations that can be regarded as "revisionist" but it's authors are outspoken conservatives.

patdyeisstilldrunk · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

As with most other Protestants at the time, Lee believed in Divine Intervention and the fact that God's will was done in all things, regardless of man's understanding. The perfect example of Calvinist Theory in action is seen in an examination of TJ (Stonewall) Jackson -- he said he was as comfortable in battle as he was in his own bed because his destiny was pre-ordained by God. Lee viewed the slavery issue in a similar way: he did not approve of his fellow man being in bondage, but the issue was not his to solve; God would dictate when and if the slavery issue would be resolved. Lee simply believed that it was pointless to they to understand the ways of God, and it would be best to align one's self with God's Will rather than trying to align God's Will with his personal hopes and desires.

patdyeisstilldrunk · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

Lee fught because his home was being invaded. You can't compare today's mindset about state's rights to the way people felt about their states in the 19th century. Sure, we have state pride, but states in the 19th century had a more autonomous mindset and state citizenry was viewed as more important than country citizenry.

Lee felt it was his duty to protect his state's right to secede from the US and vowed to defend VA if / when they were attacked by a "foreign" government. The issue of slavery was not part of Lee's decision to fight.

Read a book. Lee was hardly a fraud.

TheFireman6 · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

History is written by the victors. This was an economic war from the onset. Lincoln stated that if he could save the union without freeing one slave, he would. There were unfair tariffs levied on the south at the time. South carolina decided to exercise it's constitutional right and secede from the union. Once lincoln used the barrel of a gun to keep them from succeeding, the other southern states followed suit. Lincoln wanted to centralize the federal government. He shut down newspapers in the north that were sceptical to his cause for fighting the south. Every war requires a "moral cause" and the civil war was no different. Slavery was not the main issue until halfway through the war. Slavery was terrible, but I tend to agree with Lee that slavery would have eventually abolished itself. The wheels were already in motion before the civil war. The south was producing and trading with other countries. The north was pissed because they weren't getting their cut. The north set out to cripple the south's economy. They used terrorist and ruthless tactics like Sherman burning entire cities to crush the southern economy and will to fight. Lincolns war to "save the union" cost the lives of 600,000 men. In my opinion, Lincoln was a political tyrant that wanted to take
power out of the states hands and have a strong central government. Screw him.

jacksonreb1 · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

his state of Virginia. over the union. that is the bottom line reason he fought for the south.

MaxwellSmart · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

Today history is taught with an agenda.

madisondawg11 · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

The south will rise again! **

shsdawg · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

wasn't in overall command at the Seven Days.He was newly arrived in the area and hadn't worked with Lee, few had at the time.Jackson's performance in the Vally Campaign is quite probably the greatest preformance everby an commander of an"American" army.

Gettysburg proves Lee was in no way the greatest general this country ever produced. I used to believe as you do, walking the ground at Gettysburg convinced me otherwise.To attack those positions head on was just insanity. If he had listened to Longstreet he might have won. I admire Lee and some of what he stood for, but he is not exactly what the Lost Cause myth makes him out to be. He was a very good commander. His men loved him and he knew how to use a great subordinate in Jackson. He was a masterful defender. His great failings were to believe his army was invincible and contempt for his opponents. Gettysburg was the result. No commander who did what Lee did at Gettysburg can truly be considered great. As for Lee's wealth,it derived from slavery and he and his wife owned slaves. To argue otherwise is to deny reality.

eurotrash · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

"history is written by the victors" Nice cliche but that's about it. Lots of people write history, not just those from victorious powers. Are current historians of Roman civilization the victors? Professor Scarbarough (sp?) at USM is about as conservative as they come (he's a former Citizen Council member) and he cites slavery as the main cause of the Civil War. And you are correct that the war had economic causes because slavery is an economic system.

The quote you cited from Lincoln regarding slavery and saving the Union was written after he had already decided to issue an emancipation proclamation and make slavery a central issue. He told his cabinet in July 1862 and he was waiting for a Union victory (Antietam became the victory) to issue the proclamation. The Lincoln quote is from a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune in August 1863 and it was designed for public consumption. The North wasn't ready for fight a war over slavery, despite Lincoln's personal views, so he used typical public language although privately he believed the opposite. Politicians often says things in public that they don't privately support. they're politicians. Check records of Lincoln's administration versus the date of the Greeley letter with the quote you mentioned to see what his true views were..

BTW, not sure that slavery would have ended because it was profitable, southern elites supported the institution, and slaves represented an enormous capital investment. Which owners wanted to voluntarily lose so much capital?

Lincoln did assume some dictatorial powers but so did southern governors during the war. BTW, he almost got voted out of office so he wasn't exactly a tyrant. Unfortunately the US. has been known to restrict civil liberties during war (Patriot Act).

There were many issues that led to the Civil War but go read secessionist documents from southern state to see how slavery played a central role.

You're right that slavery was the moral cause only after the war began, but it was the central cause of war nonetheless. It was the issue that prevented compromise.

Whether the North was "pissed because they weren't getting their cut" seems far fetched. The North didn't declare war, the U.S. did, and the North was becoming an industrial powerhouse but one that also was heavily involved in slavery through trade with the South.

eurotrash · Sep 24, 2011

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

It's part of the humanities so there is always an agenda. I agree that some on the left use it as a political weapon to make whites feel guilty about themselves and they focus only on the country's failings and not its successes. For instance, if we're so racist why do Mexicans in particular keep immigrating here. Mexico must truly suck.

OT: discrepancy with military channel on Robert E Lee..history buff's opinion appreciated

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

1dawgfan09

Guest

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member