The removal in Richmond last week of the statue of Robert E. Lee once again raised the question of the Confederate general’s pace in our history. Was he, as Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post, “a stone-cold loser. No general in U.S. history was defeated as unequivocally and as totally as Lee”. Or was he, as Milbank quoted former President Trump, “the greatest strategist of them all”. Given Lee’s history as a slave owner, his embrace of white supremacy, and his failure on the battlefield when he attempted an offensive (Antietam and Gettysburg), is it more accurate to see him as a traitor to his country?
Prominent in the list of Civil War battles are first and second Bull Run or Manassas dust ups where Union troops failed to enter Virginia and capture the Confederate capitol at Richmond, not far away from DC. Residual memories recounted in the history books may color perceptions of General of the Northern Army of Virginia as a winner. Those were not Rebel attacks, but defenses. Gen. Lee's attacks most notably at Gettysburg were failures but few names remain so prominent in the textbooks so he's considered favorably. But Milbank, highly respected by me, is right about the 'loser' reputation. And the mere fact of Lee's abandonment of the Union and his government paid training at West Point marks him a traitor which should overshadow any defensive set piece battles he 'won'.
Some may argue that Lee's defense of Virginia for so long constitutes a good strategist and winner, but I don't think so. Trump is simply playing to Southern aggressive tendencies today to declare winning when in fact they are losing. Just apply that with Jim Crow and religious bigotry to Dixie and the Confederacy and Lee and we should rightly remove Lee and all confederacy statues everywhere. We are only 150+ years late with calling a spade a spade and removing memorials of the South. The delay may be due to the aura of Lincoln's peaceful reconciliation plans, incumbency of Southern presidents between 1865 and now, most notably Woodrow Wilson, strength of southern congressional representation over the years due to longevity in elections by segregationists, Jim Crow laws which didn't influence northern states, and governmental ennui or slowness to act to neutralize plantation sentiment in the nation. We are all better off not elevating traitors to such prominence in the nation; Lee was just the most prominent Rebel.
Great points, as usual, Bill. My criticsm of Lee's military prowess was summed up in a blog post some years ago:
(Lee's) two attempts to go on the offensive failed, at Antietam in 1862 and Gettysburg the following summer. The latter battle is instructive about Lee’s shortcomings: The frontal assault on the Union center which held the higher ground, was made across a mile-and-a-half of open field against massed artillery and small arms fire. What is remarkable about Pickett’s Charge, arguably the last great assault of Napoleonic-style warfare, was that only seven months earlier, Lee’s army had inflicted an enormous number of casualties on Union troops at Fredericksburg as they launched multiple assaults up Mayre’s Heights. Given the near-identical circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend Lee's failure to adjust tactics.
Nic, I think I told you I read and comment on many right wing blogs. Here a comment I wrote in the patriotchronicles.com site re their banner stating 'Taliban Begins to use Tactics Similar. . .'
‘Fear of future repression’ reported by any western media isn’t the same thing as ongoing voter suppression, killings by police and street-level attacks on minorities already going on in America, that stems from 1863, Emancipation of black slaves here by Pres. Lincoln. There is no equivalence but when terrorists in Afghanistan take over government, it truly is a warning of a ‘return’ to repression of women and non Afghans in the country that ate up thousands of allied troops the past 20 years. The less critical thinking population here must wonder why there is so much effort made by the hard right to ‘equate’ legitimate actions with their own terrorist acts in the USA. Now we see they try to do the same with foreign actors having different but similar motives abroad. If all that brain power were put into resuming the habits and patterns of the former GOP and Republican incumbents at state and national levels today from just a dozen years ago, pre-Tea Party nonsense, we’d have 2 opposing parties today to positively influence We, the People toward a more perfect union. Now all we get is dictatorship when the right prevails.
Thanks. I'm no Civil War expert, that's Roger's domain, but Lee's invasion of the North was to threaten them enough to sue for peace, in other words recognition of the separate Confederacy. Everybody was apparently tired of war so the thrust northward was to take advantage of it. Of course, I'm also dismayed at the tactic of frontal attack although northern generals were bumbling all along the way and might have caved under a massive onslaught. I occasionally catch professors on CSPAN talking about that War and don't remember many of the more obscure (to me) names. But some of the inferior officers were clever and smart and saved the day at Gettysburg.
Maybe I'll see you next weekend as I visit again. Any rehearsals due?
Prominent in the list of Civil War battles are first and second Bull Run or Manassas dust ups where Union troops failed to enter Virginia and capture the Confederate capitol at Richmond, not far away from DC. Residual memories recounted in the history books may color perceptions of General of the Northern Army of Virginia as a winner. Those were not Rebel attacks, but defenses. Gen. Lee's attacks most notably at Gettysburg were failures but few names remain so prominent in the textbooks so he's considered favorably. But Milbank, highly respected by me, is right about the 'loser' reputation. And the mere fact of Lee's abandonment of the Union and his government paid training at West Point marks him a traitor which should overshadow any defensive set piece battles he 'won'.
Some may argue that Lee's defense of Virginia for so long constitutes a good strategist and winner, but I don't think so. Trump is simply playing to Southern aggressive tendencies today to declare winning when in fact they are losing. Just apply that with Jim Crow and religious bigotry to Dixie and the Confederacy and Lee and we should rightly remove Lee and all confederacy statues everywhere. We are only 150+ years late with calling a spade a spade and removing memorials of the South. The delay may be due to the aura of Lincoln's peaceful reconciliation plans, incumbency of Southern presidents between 1865 and now, most notably Woodrow Wilson, strength of southern congressional representation over the years due to longevity in elections by segregationists, Jim Crow laws which didn't influence northern states, and governmental ennui or slowness to act to neutralize plantation sentiment in the nation. We are all better off not elevating traitors to such prominence in the nation; Lee was just the most prominent Rebel.
Great points, as usual, Bill. My criticsm of Lee's military prowess was summed up in a blog post some years ago:
(Lee's) two attempts to go on the offensive failed, at Antietam in 1862 and Gettysburg the following summer. The latter battle is instructive about Lee’s shortcomings: The frontal assault on the Union center which held the higher ground, was made across a mile-and-a-half of open field against massed artillery and small arms fire. What is remarkable about Pickett’s Charge, arguably the last great assault of Napoleonic-style warfare, was that only seven months earlier, Lee’s army had inflicted an enormous number of casualties on Union troops at Fredericksburg as they launched multiple assaults up Mayre’s Heights. Given the near-identical circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend Lee's failure to adjust tactics.
You can check out the entire piece at http://1hundredsixty8.com/blog5.php/the-lost-cause
Nic, I think I told you I read and comment on many right wing blogs. Here a comment I wrote in the patriotchronicles.com site re their banner stating 'Taliban Begins to use Tactics Similar. . .'
‘Fear of future repression’ reported by any western media isn’t the same thing as ongoing voter suppression, killings by police and street-level attacks on minorities already going on in America, that stems from 1863, Emancipation of black slaves here by Pres. Lincoln. There is no equivalence but when terrorists in Afghanistan take over government, it truly is a warning of a ‘return’ to repression of women and non Afghans in the country that ate up thousands of allied troops the past 20 years. The less critical thinking population here must wonder why there is so much effort made by the hard right to ‘equate’ legitimate actions with their own terrorist acts in the USA. Now we see they try to do the same with foreign actors having different but similar motives abroad. If all that brain power were put into resuming the habits and patterns of the former GOP and Republican incumbents at state and national levels today from just a dozen years ago, pre-Tea Party nonsense, we’d have 2 opposing parties today to positively influence We, the People toward a more perfect union. Now all we get is dictatorship when the right prevails.
Any reaction?
Thanks. I'm no Civil War expert, that's Roger's domain, but Lee's invasion of the North was to threaten them enough to sue for peace, in other words recognition of the separate Confederacy. Everybody was apparently tired of war so the thrust northward was to take advantage of it. Of course, I'm also dismayed at the tactic of frontal attack although northern generals were bumbling all along the way and might have caved under a massive onslaught. I occasionally catch professors on CSPAN talking about that War and don't remember many of the more obscure (to me) names. But some of the inferior officers were clever and smart and saved the day at Gettysburg.
Maybe I'll see you next weekend as I visit again. Any rehearsals due?