Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Robert E Lee- Man or Myth

Robert E Lee is a man that causes much contention and debate.  Was he a hero?  Military genius?  Abusive slave holder? Traitor?  A defender of states's rights?  A peacemaker?  It depends on who you ask, where they learned about American history, and when they grew up.  What's the real story then?  And what is the myth that has arisen over time?  Let's take a look.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Robert E Lee was the fourth son of Henry Lee and Ann Hill Carter in Virginia in 1807.  Both families had long military traditions, and were part of the southern elite.  He later married a great-granddaughter of Martha Washington.  As a result, several plantations came under his control.  His beginnings were more humble though.  His father was bad with money, and died when Robert was young, leaving Ann to manage 4 children on her own.  She taught Robert to work hard and do his best, which led to his appointment to West Point.  He was well liked, and graduated second in his class.  

He remained in the military, and fought in the Mexican American War under General Winfield Scott, who praised his performance on the battlefield.  In 1859, he was ordered to suppress John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.  He did so quickly, but realized this was a significant event in the story of slavery.  

Lee was in Texas during the decision to secede, and returned to Virginia.  He was called to Washington, D.C. where Lincoln offered him command of troops to force the south back into the Union.  He refused and resigned, at that time saying a war would be pointless.  However, he soon took command of Virginia's forces and began to prepare for invasion.

As a strategist and career military leader, Lee understood that the south would not be able to win head to head with the north.  He made keeping Union troops out of Richmond his objective, and did it well.
He wasn't just fighting the better trained and equipped Union Army though.  He faced food shortages, desertions, and lack of trustworthy leadership.  This gradually deteriorated the situation, and in the end, Richmond.  Lee finally surrendered and Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.  

After the war, Lee found himself with no income and no home.  He accepted a position as president at Washington College, and remained there until his death in 1870. 

Here you have the basic chronology of Lee's life.  He was a good soldier and was successful at running Washington College.  His colleagues admired him.  But is this the entire story?  

Many people portray Lee as a devout Christian who abhorred slavery.  But according to an Atlantic article written by Adam Serwer, despite pulling out a tiny snippet of a Lee quote to make it appear as if he was an abolishonist, Lee said in an 1856 letter in reference to his views on slavery and his own slave ownership,
     "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. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy."
 
Lee not only defended the practice of physical punishment, but he was also known to break away from the practice of allowing families to stay together.  Instead, he would send spouses and children away to other plantations.  This practice was known to cause great suffering and pain.  Court records from the time show that Lee inherited approximately 189 bondsmen when his father-in-law passed away.  The will stated that they were to be freed in 5 years.  Lee was known as a difficult master.  Several runaway attempts were made.  One such attempt was later documented in court.Wesley Norris, his sister, and cousin ran to Maryland, where they were captured and returned.  Lee ordered them stripped and given 50 lashes (except the sister who was to get 20).  The overseer refused, and the constable did the deed while Lee watched and told him to lay it on.  He then had their backs washed with salt water.  Lee then tried to petition to not emancipate according to the will, but was denied.  He finally relented 3 days before the Emancipation Proclamation.  


In his book about Lee, Roy Blount tells us that Lee made his choices based on his own standard of honor.  He continues that Lee felt Virginia was wrong to secede, but as a Virginia native and slave holder, he felt he had to choose that side of the war.  Blount also says that over the years, many have tried to discount the role slavery played in Lee's decision, but that it was a prominent factor.  

Numerous presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, have extolled Lee's virtues as a soldier, and as a man.  However, Frederick Douglass said that praise of Lee was nauseating, and that it seemed to him that whoever kills the most men is the best Christian to Americans.  This ignores the fact that Lee likely never killed anyone himself, but did lead troops into battles that left scores of men on both side dead.  

While others have painted a picture of Lee as too good for everything about his life, from his poor childhood to his time on the battlefield, Lee himself seems to have always felt he was not good enough.  He often struggled with his self image, and many perceived him as an extreme perfectionist.  This could be from his family military background.  With this information, perhaps it is easier to understand how he could be a great strategist but a poor commander.  

So did Lee fight out of loyalty to Virginia, or because he was defending the right to slavery? The answer is probably both.  He has been quoted as saying he loved Virginia so much that he wouldn't fight against his home state.  But we have already established that not only did he own slaves and more than one plantation dependent on slave labor, but he also felt that slavery was actually good for Africans.  

This brings us to his later life as president of Washington College.  By all accounts, he was a good president, and made decisions that helped the college be successful.  However, there are also accusations that he started a new fraternity, Kappa Alpha Order, that adopted his battle flag and proceeded to rewrite history.  These were rich and powerful people.  They were able to enter Congress and the law, and began to push the "Lost Cause" movement.  This was backed by the United Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.  They literally had the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia named as the official Confederate flag, including in textbooks.  They disseminated the idea that the Confederacy was made up of honorable Southern gentlemen who loved their states, and were just fighting for the states' rights promised by the Founding Fathers.  
And most importantly, they started building monuments and commissioning statues of Confederate politicians and generals, and celebrating white supremacy.  Of course, this was after Lee was gone, but he no doubt would have approved of their ideals, despite the later contention that he was a peacemaker.  It is true that he did not enjoy war, and that he wanted to have a bloodless reunion of the United States, but he would also not have had a problem with the Dixiecrats adopting his battle flag in 1948 on the platform of segregation.  (Sorry, slipped a little conjecture in there).  

In short, Robert E Lee was a a loyal husband, a good father, and a great strategist.  But that is sullied by his support of slavery, and his white supremacist attitudes.  It is further sullied by his treatment of the humans that an honorable man would have freed upon their inheritance.  (Sorry again, but even then people knew slavery was wrong).  We cannot judge him on his military service alone.  We must examine the whole man, and that man had problematic flaws that leave me to conclude he was not a hero, and should not be placed on a pedestal.  He should be remembered as a man who fought for the wrong cause, however bravely he may have entered the battlefield, and lost to those who eventually worked to end bondage based on race.  















 

No comments:

Post a Comment