The Myth of the Kindly General Lee [W: 473]

[shrubnose]

The myth of the Confederate leader's heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E.Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Read the article here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/?
If anyone has any evidence to the contrary,let's see it.

:lol:

Lee and those who fought on his side have all been dead and buried for a long time.

Anyone who thinks that 'The South Will Rise Again' is living in a dream world.

Just sayin'.

 

[calamity]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The myth of the Confederate leader's heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E.Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Read the article here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/?
If anyone has any evidence to the contrary,let's see it.

:lol:

Lee and those who fought on his side have all been dead and buried for a long time.

Anyone who thinks that 'The South Will Rise Again' is living in a dream world.

Just sayin'.

Thanks for the link. Good stuff.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I have never defended Lee or the Confederacy, and I don't do so here, but I do defend truth, and when an article purports to speaking truth to myth, yet plays fast and loose with it, I find it intellectually offensive.

I only read the first 60% of it, but in it, I found some pretty bad mischaracterizations of quotes from Lee - the first in a passage supposedly correcting a mischaracterization of the same quote - to point where it's clear the author either didn't understand what Lee said, or more likely, didn't care.

It's also riddled with errors such as saying "every" seceding state declared slavery as its reason, but not every state offered any declaration. Or blaming Lee personally for things which he would have been under orders to do, such as with prisoner exchanges.

I take no position on Lee to say this is a shoddy, even snotty, article.

 

[calamity]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I have never defended Lee or the Confederacy, and I don't do so here, but I do defend truth, and when an article purports to speaking truth to myth, yet plays fast and loose with it, I find it intellectually offensive.

I only read the first 60% of it, but in it, I found some pretty bad mischaracterizations of quotes from Lee - the first in a passage supposedly correcting a mischaracterization of the same quote - to point where it's clear the author either didn't understand what Lee said, or more likely, didn't care.

It's also riddled with errors such as saying "every" seceding state declared slavery as its reason, but not every state offered any declaration. Or blaming Lee personally for things which he would have been under orders to do, such as with prisoner exchanges.

I take no position on Lee to say this is a shoddy, even snotty, article.

How about every seceding state which issued a separate written declaration made it clear that slavery was the reason?

Declaration of Causes of Secession

The rest just signed on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession

And, yes, slavery was the reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Slavery

 

[Crovax]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The myth of the Confederate leader's heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E.Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Read the article here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/?
If anyone has any evidence to the contrary,let's see it.

:lol:

Lee and those who fought on his side have all been dead and buried for a long time.

Anyone who thinks that 'The South Will Rise Again' is living in a dream world.

Just sayin'.

A very biased article it points out Lee's views race relations but ignores the historical context of those views.

According to the article Lee's can't be viewed as a good person because he didn't see blacks and whites as equals.

How about Lincoln, surely he could be viewed as someone of high moral character?

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

I guess I will await the Atlantic article talking about how Lincoln is a horrible person and everyone who celebrates him as a good person is dillusional. :waiting:

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

How about every seceding state which issued a separate written declaration made it clear that slavery was the reason?

Declaration of Causes of Secession

The rest just signed on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession

And, yes, slavery was the reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Slavery

I never claimed slavery wasn't the reason, nor that the states which offered reasons didn't cite slavery.

In fact, you'll find me on record here as doing exactly the opposite, and arguing forcefully that slavery WAS the reason.

No wonder you like this article so much; its intellectual failures are the same as yours. And this why I do mot take anything you say seriously.

 

[calamity]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I never claimed slavery wasn't the reason, nor that the states which offered reasons didn't cite slavery.

In fact, you'll find me on record here as doing exactly the opposite, and arguing forcefully that slavery WAS the reason.

No wonder you like this article so much; its intellectual failures are the same as yours.

The article painted a more realistic version of Lee than was sold to most of us. I even recall being taught some BS in grade school about Lee loving the US, but his loyalty to Virginia forced him to fight against the country he loved. What kind of crap is that?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The article painted a more realistic version of Lee than was sold to most of us. I even recall being taught some BS in grade school about Lee loving the US, but his loyalty to Virginia forced him to fight against the country he loved. What kind of crap is that?

:2wave:

 

[Paperview]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

A very biased article it points out Lee's views race relations but ignores the historical context of those views.

According to the article Lee's can't be viewed as a good person because he didn't see blacks and whites as equals.

...

Incorrect premise.

Try again.

 

[Paperview]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

...

It's also riddled with errors such as saying "every" seceding state declared slavery as its reason, but not every state offered any declaration.

Does a declaration have to be formal?

Name a seceding state, and I'll find you declarations by those who represent the state that say it was.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Does a declaration have to be formal?

Name a seceding state, and I'll find you declarations by those who represent the state that say it was.

That wasn't the statement in the article.

 

[Paperview]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

That wasn't the statement in the article.

Quote from the article: "Every state that seceded mentioned slavery as the cause in their declarations of secession."

I ask again: Does a declaration have to be formal?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Quote from the article: "Every state that seceded mentioned slavery as the cause in their declarations of secession."

I ask again: Does a declaration have to be formal?

"As the cause in their declarations of secession," so yes, that's what the author was referring to.

But if you feel you need to bend over backwards to insist upon an interpretation not at all evident in the text, I guess that's what you'll do. :shrug: Believe whatever you want.

 

[Paperview]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

"As the cause in their declarations of secession," so yes, that's what the author was referring to.

But if you feel you need to bend over backwards to insist upon an interpretation not at all evident in the text, I guess that's what you'll do. :shrug: Believe whatever you want.

Again, you avoid the question. Every seceding state declared, in one form or another, their reasons - many literally thousands of times - through their representatives, their many numerous speeches, their memorialized pamphlets and written record, their signing on formally to "The Slave-Holding States" Constitution, etc. etc.

They did declare. Announce. Profusely.

Because the term declarations of secession is interpreted by you to mean a formal, separate document with that as a title, does not mean that they did not do so.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Again, you avoid the question.

:roll:

"As the cause in their declarations of secession," so yes, that's what the author was referring to.

I have no further time for, nor interest in, your nonsense attempts to twist the article so that it says what you want it to say, rather than what it it does. Clearly, truth is not so important to you as agenda.

 

[Paperview]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Your initial statement:

Originally Posted by Harshaw
It's also riddled with errors such as saying "every" seceding state declared slavery as its reason, but not every state offered any declaration."

The error here is yours.

Every state did declare slavery as its reason. Every state did not issue a separate formal document by that name.

Not sure why you're not getting that.

It is your

nonsense attempts to twist the article so that it says what you want it to say, rather than what it it does. Clearly, truth is not so important to you as agenda.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Your initial statement:

Originally Posted by Harshaw
It's also riddled with errors such as saying "every" seceding state declared slavery as its reason, but not every state offered any declaration."

The error here is yours.

Every state did declare slavery as its reason. Every state did not issue a separate formal document by that name.

Not sure why you're not getting that.

It is your

nonsense attempts to twist the article so that it says what you want it to say, rather than what it it does. Clearly, truth is not so important to you as agenda.

To you, as to calamity: :2wave:

 

[justabubba]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

thanks for that article, OP
as a child schooled primarily in the south, the backstory about lee and his racist inclinations were ever revealed
appears i got the myth version of lee's history
my first inclination upon seeing lee's statue was being removed was that it was an inappropriate act towards a man of valor
based on your cite, i no longer hold that view

 

[slick]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

thanks for that article, OP
as a child schooled primarily in the south, the backstory about lee and his racist inclinations were ever revealed
appears i got the myth version of lee's history
my first inclination upon seeing lee's statue was being removed was that it was an inappropriate act towards a man of valor
based on your cite, i no longer hold that view

It's hard to believe this hit piece on Lee actually changed someones view of Lee, wow imagine if the writer pointed his
arrows on Forrest.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

It's hard to believe this hit piece on Lee actually changed someones view of Lee, wow imagine if the writer pointed his
arrows on Forrest.

I know right? There's even more stuff to talk about! Like Fort Pillow! And Forrest helping found the KKK!

 

[slick]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I know right? There's even more stuff to talk about! Like Fort Pillow! And Forrest helping found the KKK!

Maybe you yourself wrote that hit piece on Lee under a pen name!
Imagine if Jackson had not fallen just 2 months before at Chancellorville & Lee had Forrest instead of Stuart in charge of the cavalry,
if his to that point undefeated army of Northern Virginia marched north to Pennsylvania.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Maybe you yourself wrote that hit piece on Lee under a pen name!
Imagine if Jackson had not fallen just 2 months before at Chancellorville & Lee had Forrest instead of Stuart in charge of the cavalry,
if his to that point undefeated army of Northern Virginia marched north to Pennsylvania.

He would have been even more overconfident and likely made several other crucial errors.

More than anything else, Gettysburg proved that Robert E Lee was a mortal like anybody else, not some demigod that y'all had elevated him up as.

 

[slick]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

He would have been even more overconfident and likely made several other crucial errors.

More than anything else, Gettysburg proved that Robert E Lee was a mortal like anybody else, not some demigod that y'all had elevated him up as.

I think you are probably right. In the 2 major battles before Gettysburg in which Lee was credited with his greatest
successes, Jackson was solid at Fredericksburg & essential at Chancellorsville. Even before that at Sharpsburg in
Lee's first attempt northward in was Jackson's FOOT cavalry which sped from Harpers Ferry to Maryland some
say saving Lee from disaster.

Lee split Jackson's corps between A.P. Hill & Ewell at Gettysburg, not a confident duo entering the battle.
Longstreet the remaining Corp commander a believer in defensive warfare which Lee used brilliantly at Fredericksburg
was not in favor of Pickett's charge.

Add that Stuart, a real FFV Virginian aristocrat who loved reading glowing reports of his exploits in the Richmaond papers,
usually a fine cavalry commander failed at Gettysburg. Imagine if it was Forrest not Stuart leading
Lee's cavalry, a poorly educated self made man in an era of aristocratic snobbery in the south.
Afterall, after his surrender, when asked by a Union Officer who he thought his greatest general was,
General Robert E. Lee replied, Sir, a gentleman I have never had the pleasure to meet, General Nathan Bedford Forrest.'

A hypothetical I recall a real history buff student posed to our professor in one of the 2 civil war classes I
barely past during college a long time ago.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I think you are probably right. In the 2 major battles before Gettysburg in which Lee was credited with his greatest
successes, Jackson was solid at Fredericksburg & essential at Chancellorsville. Even before that at Sharpsburg in
Lee's first attempt northward in was Jackson's FOOT cavalry which sped from Harpers Ferry to Maryland some
say saving Lee from disaster.

Lee split Jackson's corps between A.P. Hill & Ewell at Gettysburg, not a confident duo entering the battle.
Longstreet the remaining Corp commander a believer in defensive warfare which Lee used brilliantly at Fredericksburg
was not in favor of Pickett's charge.

Add that Stuart, a real FFV Virginian aristocrat who loved reading glowing reports of his exploits in the Richmaond papers,
usually a fine cavalry commander failed at Gettysburg. Imagine if it was Forrest not Stuart leading
Lee's cavalry, a poorly educated self made man in an era of aristocratic snobbery in the south.
Afterall, after his surrender, when asked by a Union Officer who he thought his greatest general was,
General Robert E. Lee replied, Sir, a gentleman I have never had the pleasure to meet, General Nathan Bedford Forrest.'

A hypothetical I recall a real history buff student posed to our professor in one of the 2 civil war classes I
barely past during college a long time ago.

Hill was sick--- I believe he has syphilis? Anyway, he wasn't in his right mind. Ewell has been described as decent but not spectacular, and I don't think Lee really liked Longstreet. As it turned out, Longstreet was probably in a better frame of mind in some ways at Gettysburg than Lee was.

Even if Jackson hadn't been killed, and Forrest sent east(which, on the other hand, means that the Confederacy loses east of the Missisissippi even faster than they did historically) victory disease still plagued the overall command of the Confederacy. They'd beaten up on the Union JV commanders-- the Army of the Potomac, on the other hand, was a first rate fighting force, as evidenced by the fact they survived so many dismal commanders--- so many times they really didn't think it was possible for them to lose.

 

[apdst]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I know right? There's even more stuff to talk about! Like Fort Pillow! And Forrest helping found the KKK!

What about Fort Pillow?