Washington Post Article on ACW (2 Viewers)

Combat

Brigadier General
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
10,513
Article by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post:

It has taken a while, but it’s about time Robert E. Lee lost the Civil War. The South, of course, was defeated on the battlefield in 1865, yet the Lee legend — swaddled in myth, kitsch and racism — has endured even past the civil rights era when it became both urgent and right to finally tell the “Lost Cause” to get lost. Now it should be Lee’s turn. He was loyal to slavery and disloyal to his country — not worthy, even he might now admit, of the honors accorded him.

I confess to always being puzzled by the cult of Lee. Whatever his personal or military virtues, he offered himself and his sword to the cause of slavery. He owned slaves himself and fought tenaciously in the courts to keep them. He commanded a vast army that, had it won, would have secured the independence of a nation dedicated to the proposition that white people could own black people and sell them off, husband from wife, child from parent, as the owner saw fit. Such a man cannot be admired.

But he is. All over the South, particularly in his native Virginia, the cult of Lee is manifested in streets, highways and schools named for him. When I first moved to the Washington area, I used to marvel at these homages to the man. What was being honored? Slavery? Treason? Or maybe, for this is how I perceive him, no sense of humor? (Often, that is mistaken for wisdom.) I also wondered what a black person was supposed to think or, maybe more to the point, feel. Chagrin or rage would be perfectly appropriate.

Still, even I was not immune to the cult of Lee. I kept thinking I must be missing something. I imagined all sorts of virtues in his face. He is always dignified in all those photos of him, dour, a perfect pill of a man yet somehow adored by his men. They cheered him when he left Appomattox Court House, having just surrendered to the far more admirable U.S. Grant. They shouted, Hooray for Lee! Hooray for what?

Now comes Elizabeth Brown Pryor, author of “Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters” who in an essay for the New York Times gives us a Lee who is at odds with the one of gauzy myth. He was not, as I once thought, the creature of crushing social and political pressure who had little choice but to pick his state over his country. In fact, various members of his own family stuck with the Union.

“When Lee consulted his brothers, sister and local clergymen, he found that most leaned toward the Union,” Pryor wrote. “At a grim dinner with two close cousins, Lee was told that they also intended to uphold their military oaths. . . . Sister Anne Lee Marshall unhesitatingly chose the Northern side, and her son outfitted himself in blue uniform.” Pryor says that about 40 percent of Virginia officers “would remain with the Union forces.”

After the war, the South embraced a mythology of victimhood. An important feature was the assertion that the war had been not about slavery at all but about state’s rights. The secessionists themselves were not so shy. In their various declarations, they announced they were leaving the Union to preserve slavery. Lee not only accepted the Lost Cause myth, he propagated it and came to embody it.

Lee was a brilliant field marshal whose genius was widely acknowledged — Lincoln wanted him to command the Union forces. In a way, that’s a pity. A commander of more modest talents might have been beaten sooner, might not have taken the war to the North (Gettysburg) and expended so many lives. Lee, in this regard, is an American Rommel, the German general who fought brilliantly, but for Hitler. Almost until Hitler compelled his suicide, Rommel, too, did his duty.

L.P. Hartley’s observation that “the past is a foreign country” cautions us all against facile judgments. But in that exotic place called the antebellum South, there were plenty of people who recognized the evil of slavery or, if nothing else, the folly of secession. Lee was not one of them. He deserves no honor — no college, no highway, no high school. In the awful war (620,000 dead) that began 150 years ago this month, he fought on the wrong side for the wrong cause. It’s time for Virginia and the South to honor the ones who were right.
 
Typical of the kind of worthless junk that the Washington Post loves to publish. I read this article in the paper and I am still counting to ten. :mad: -- Al
 
Very interesting indeed Doug, I don't think I've heard many bad words about Lee so this was a total opposite view to read. When all is said and done he was indeed fighting for the right to keep slavery, great General he may have been, but he was on the wrong side in that debate.

Thanks for posting

Rob
 
Yeah, that wasn't biased at all :rolleyes2: Does he have some sort of citation or bibliography? Last time I checked columnists weren't historians, they're not that smart ^&grin My Civil War professor would never let me get away with making any allegation unless I could back it up, whether he agreed with it or not......the point is credibility. I'm not going to read something that someone hasn't seriously devoted their time to studying.....for example someone who took freshman US history in college while getting their english degree vs. someone who has a doctorate on the Civil War era subject and have written several books on the matter. Who's word would you receive as the gospel?

A word on the author:
In 2009, Cohen was recognized as the "World's Worst Writer" by Wonkette. Salon.com named him the #1 "Hack" in 2010.

Whatever credibility Wonkette and Salon have, that's what they think of him, and I would agree, not a very consistent and focused writer.

Just a wild guess, but I bet that he would also say that the US should not have dropped the atomic bombs because Japan was about to surrender {sm3}
 
Now I don't want to reignite the War on here, but isn't the basic premise correct, did Lee not want to keep slavery??. Also was Nathan Bedford Forest not a leading light in the KKK??. We can discuss the ifs and maybe and the ins and outs, but are these not facts?

Rob ( an interested ACW novice)
 
Some the column is based on Pryor's book. For those who are interested in the book, here's a review as published in the Civil War Book Review of Louisiana State University.

Regarding some of the other arguments in the column, some of it may be based on David Blight's book, Race and Reunion regarding Civil War memory, well worth reading.

I know Lee is held in high esteem but does it ever hurt to look at our heroes, whoever they may be (in my case Lincoln and FDR) in a less hagiographic way and see them warts and all. Sometimes the warts make them even more appealing, knowing they are human like us.

The article could have succeeded better had it been a little less inflammatory, but perhaps that was the author's intent.
 
Now I don't want to reignite the War on here, but isn't the basic premise correct, did Lee not want to keep slavery??. Also was Nathan Bedford Forest not a leading light in the KKK??. We can discuss the ifs and maybe and the ins and outs, but are these not facts?

Rob ( an interested ACW novice)

You'd have to ask the men themselves. Otherwise its pure speculation.

It bemuses me when people get on their high horses strutting around in judgement on others as if they, being in that same person's shoes umpteen years ago, would behave with such tremendous moral integrity and uprightness that the savior himself would be hard pressed to match! :rolleyes2:^&grin

Meanwhile they wont make mention of their own failures of character in the present day. Or, maybe they have none....He is risen!
 
You'd have to ask the men themselves. Otherwise its pure speculation.

It bemuses me when people get on their high horses strutting around in judgement on others as if they, being in that same person's shoes umpteen years ago, would behave with such tremendous moral integrity and uprightness that the savior himself would be hard pressed to match! :rolleyes2:^&grin

Meanwhile they wont make mention of their own failures of character in the present day. Or, maybe they have none....He is risen!

Who are you referring to here?

Rob
 
Now I don't want to reignite the War on here, but isn't the basic premise correct, did Lee not want to keep slavery??. Also was Nathan Bedford Forest not a leading light in the KKK??. We can discuss the ifs and maybe and the ins and outs, but are these not facts?

Rob ( an interested ACW novice)

I didn't read anything about Nathan Bedford Forest in the article? He and Lee were not the same, there were many Souths and many Southerners, Bedford was from Tennessee, and Lee from upper Virginia....two very different places socially, economically, and politically.......

I was slamming the way this guy presented his poorly written article, too over simplified, totally biased by not explaining, and not terribly professional.....it sounded like a rant by someone who has a vague knowledge of the Civil War Era........

Just remember, this is just my interpretation of what the article was, just my opinion, I'm not trying to be offensive or defensive, the author just seems like a no-talent jerk just trying to "stir up the bees" for fun, he's not trying to educate his readers (but then again, why should he? he's a columnist, not a historian; therefore not worth my)
 
No I wasn't saying they were the same I mention Forest because he was on the side of slavery and was I understand in the KKK, but am not making any judgements am just an interested outsider, surely we can raise questions and debate points without being seen as trouble making. I don't think anyone on either side was an angel was he?

Rob
 
Finished counting and my blood pressure has come down some. I should know better than to take to heart some rabble-rousing hack writer's attempt to start a PC war about something that occurred 150 years ago. It just really frosts me when that kind of garbage ends up in a national paper where people will read it as gospel and take it at face value. -- Al
 
No I wasn't saying they were the same I mention Forest because he was on the side of slavery and was I understand in the KKK, but am not making any judgements am just an interested outsider, surely we can raise questions and debate points without being seen as trouble making. I don't think anyone on either side was an angel was he?

Rob

My fault, I misunderstood you about lumping them together. Your interest in the American Civil War should be rewarded.....I guess I'm a little on edge because for the next four years, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and I'm just waiting for unqualified people in the spotlight to spread their propaganda about the War Era, I find their deconstructionalistic tactics very useless in learning history. And the general public with little interest before in the War, will have a little twitch of interest now because of the anniversary, I just hope they read/hear/watch/learn the truth from qualified professionals:).......Yes, you are absolutely right, raising questions and debating points is all part of the fun, as long as we don't have W. Post columnist starting our debates for us, then we're all fired up and start lashing out at each other over some fool :redface2:
 
Here is the NY Times essay referenced by Cohen:

The writing is blurred and the paper nearly translucent, but the scene it portrays is vivid. In a recently discovered letter, Mary Custis Lee, the eldest daughter of Robert E. Lee, describes how her father wrestled with the decision to resign his commission in the United States Army and side with the South. The letter, found in a folder of fragments at the Virginia Historical Society, was written in 1871 to Charles Marshall, Lee’s former aide-to–camp, as he prepared to write a biography of the great general.

It provides the most reliable information currently available to historians, overshadowing the questionable second-hand accounts that scholars once had to rely on. Not only was Mary Custis Lee an eyewitness to the scene, but her letter was written just a few years after the war, whereas the traditional depictions did not appear until decades later.

And her words fundamentally alter the story of Lee’s fateful choice. Lee biographers have long claimed that his decision to leave the Army was an inevitable one, driven by the pull of relatives, state and tradition. However, as his daughter shows us, in the end the decision was highly personal, made in spite of family differences and the military conventions he revered.

Lee’s decision to give up his 35-year Army career came after a week of cataclysmic events: the southern capture of Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to protect federal property and, on April 17, the secession of Virginia.

The days had been personally traumatic as well. Like many border-state families, the Lees and their friends were sharply divided on the issues. When Lee consulted his brothers, sister and local clergymen, he found that most leaned toward the Union. At a grim dinner with two close cousins, Lee was told that they also intended to uphold their military oaths. (Samuel Phillips Lee would become an important admiral in the Union navy; John Fitzgerald Lee retained his position as judge advocate of the Army.) Sister Anne Lee Marshall unhesitatingly chose the northern side, and her son outfitted himself in blue uniform. Robert’s favorite brother, Smith Lee, a naval officer, resisted leaving his much-loved berth, and Smith’s wife spurned her relatives to support the Union cause. At the same time, many of the clan’s young men, such as nephew Fitzhugh Lee, were anxious to make their mark for the South in the coming conflict, creating a distinct generational fault line.

Matters became more complicated when, on April 18, presidential adviser Francis P. Blair unofficially offered Lee the command of the thousands of soldiers being called up to protect Washington. Fearing that such a post might require him to invade the South, Lee immediately turned down the job. Agitated, he went to tell his mentor, Gen. Winfield Scott, the Army’s commander in chief. Another dramatic scene followed. Scott, though a proud Virginian, had dismissed as an insult any hint that he himself would turn from the United States. When Lee offered to sit out the troubles at his home, Arlington, the general told him bluntly: “I have no place in my army for equivocal men.” Greatly distressed, Lee returned to Arlington to contemplate his options.

Although his wife called it “the severest struggle of his life,” historians have long trivialized Lee’s decision. It was “the answer he was born to make,” biographer Douglas Southall Freeman put it. “A no-brainer,” said another. But daughter Mary’s letter, along with other previously unknown documents written by his close family and associates, belies such easy assessments. These newly found sources underscore just how complex and painful a choice it was to make.

The conventional wisdom holds, for example, that Lee disdained secession, but once his state took that step he was duty bound to follow. But these documents show that he was not actually opposed to disunion in principle. He simply wanted to exhaust all peaceful means of redress first, remarking in January 1861 that then “we can with a clear conscience separate.”

Nor was he against the pro-slavery policies of the secessionists, despite postwar portraits of the general as something of an abolitionist. He complained to a son in December 1860 about new territories being closed to slaveholders, and supported the Crittenden Compromise, which would have forbidden the abolition of slavery. “That deserves the support of every patriot,” he noted in a Jan. 29, 1861 letter to his daughter Agnes. Even at the moment he reportedly told Francis Blair that if “he owned all the negroes in the South, he would be willing to give them up…to save the Union,” he was actually fighting a court case to keep the slaves under his control in bondage “indefinitely,” though they had been promised freedom in his father-in-law’s will.

The decision was made yet more difficult by Lee’s pacifism. Haunted by the prospect of prolonged and bloody warfare, he warned of it repeatedly at a time when few others were anticipating a lengthy conflict. He saw destruction and possible ignominy in the future, not the glory anticipated by the Southern masses.
 
Hey no problem at all my friend, and i really understand what you mean . Last year during the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain my volcanic pride was very near the surface that it got me in trouble a few times.

I look forward to sharing and learning more about the ACW in the many discussions coming up in the next four years , it's a fascinating and heart rending conflict full of interest.

Cheers

Rob


My fault, I misunderstood you about lumping them together. Your interest in the American Civil War should be rewarded.....I guess I'm a little on edge because for the next four years, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and I'm just waiting for unqualified people in the spotlight to spread their propaganda about the War Era, I find their deconstructionalistic tactics very useless in learning history. And the general public with little interest before in the War, will have a little twitch of interest now because of the anniversary, I just hope they read/hear/watch/learn the truth from qualified professionals:).......Yes, you are absolutely right, raising questions and debating points is all part of the fun, as long as we don't have W. Post columnist starting our debates for us, then we're all fired up and start lashing out at each other over some fool :redface2:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coming late to the game, but I'm not sure I understand the fuss. It seems some of the gripe is not so much what the author said, (well, that to) but where it was said.
Say what you will about the NY Times or the Washington Post's politics, they are not rags. They are well respected papers that the elites in both parties respect, whether they may agree with them or not.
Be that as it may, I don't see the problem with the article. He seems in many ways to be praising Lee as not, but are not the facts that he presents accurate? As it is, he is referencing a book on the topic. We might not like it, but we all have known that Lee owned slaves, and he fought against his country.
All through Northern Virginia, and I suspect Southern also, there are highways and memorials to Confederate generals and soldiers. My brother was stationed in DC some years back and lived on Stonewall Drive in his town in Virginia. In the middle of their town on main street the road went around a statue of a Southern soldier.
Okay, fine. BUT, as the article mentions there make up of the population is somewhat different racially than before, and somehow don't take kindly to living on or driving through on a street or in an area named for people who wanted to keep them as slaves. I think that's fair.
Along those lines, and this might be a topic for another discussion, was Lee the great strategist he is credited for? Now, given what was just said, understand that Lee would be one of the people I would have liked to have met. I've been out to Washington and Lee, been to the Lee-Custis house, and generally have respect for great respect for him in many ways. (I do also for T. Jefferson)
BUT, Pickett's charge at Gettysburg which some thought destroyed the Confederacy was poorly conceived, and generally destined to be the disaster for the Confederate army that is was. What great general would have done that? I think each of us, were we Lee that day, would have done this differently. And much better.

I have loved this line for years:
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago; or to anyone who ever sailed a skiff under a quilt sail, the moment in 1492 when somebody thought This is it: the absolute edge of no return, to turn back now and make home or sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world's roaring rim.
 
The only sentence that is inflammatory is this one.. ".....Lee was not one of them. He deserves no honor — no college, no highway, no high school. In the awful war (620,000 dead) that began 150 years ago this month, he fought on the wrong side for the wrong cause. It’s time for Virginia and the South to honor the ones who were right. "....which is the Cohen's. It's nonsense!
 
My fault, I misunderstood you about lumping them together. Your interest in the American Civil War should be rewarded.....I guess I'm a little on edge because for the next four years, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and I'm just waiting for unqualified people in the spotlight to spread their propaganda about the War Era, I find their deconstructionalistic tactics very useless in learning history. And the general public with little interest before in the War, will have a little twitch of interest now because of the anniversary, I just hope they read/hear/watch/learn the truth from qualified professionals:).......Yes, you are absolutely right, raising questions and debating points is all part of the fun, as long as we don't have W. Post columnist starting our debates for us, then we're all fired up and start lashing out at each other over some fool :redface2:

50 years ago when I was 8 the Civil War Centennial was more about dressing up, nostalgia and cool Marx and Mattel toys plus the pressed felt souvenir Kepis some kids got from Gettysburg. This was just before the Civil Rights Movement really got going. If there was an attempt to politicize the Centennial I didn't hear about it.

Blake's point about historians is correct yet most people will only be exposed to commentary from the papers and magazines the read. Hopefully not from the issues with Ghost and UFO sitings or HUGE HEADLINES!
 
Despite being an outsider I would still say that you are in many ways still «fighting» the ACW...


Paulo
 
I must say its refreshing that the vast majority of open minded and well educated people on here are able to field questions about this emotive and to an extent still raw subject without seeing it as some slur against their cause, the fact that people can talk in an adult and open way about it is a good sign.

Now if we can accept that Lee was on the side who wanted to continue the status quo in terms of slavery (and there can be little argument of that) which I'm sure we all abhor, it doesn't detract from his legendary military skill does it, Rommel was indeed a gifted General but fought for the most loathsome regime in History. So whilst we can disagree with Lee's cause, his skill and care for his troops remains unblemished. So what I'm saying is that whilst everyone seems to disregard this article in the Post, is it not true to say Lee was on the wrong side but without personally attacking him or his reputation?. This question is for those who are able to discuss in a calm manner, those who can't just keep moving please.

Rob
 
Well, there are leaders who can get folks worked up about battles and wars hundreds of years in the past. Look at Kosovo back in the 1990s.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top