Think about it, his Father, Light Horse Harry Lee, was about as Virginia as it gets. The concept of "United States" was more like "united States".
Still, he did take up arms against the union. But on his birthday, I won't say anything negative about him.
In 1861 Virginians truly believed they were conducting a second American Revolution. Lee might have seen himself to be a second George Washington(his hero) leading a fight for freedom against his country usurping natural rights owned by virtue of being English or, in 1861, by virtue of Washingon’s (and, not incidently, Lee’s own father, Light Horse Harry)sucessful rebellion against his country, England.
The equation for Lee was simple if not easy: When the mother country invaded Virginia, his father fought. If the Union now invades Virginia, he too will fight for the same liberty and independence.
Our problem comes when we judge men upon facts which they could not have known, or upon values which did not exist. The problem of the historical RE Lee is two fold:he lost and he is seen to have fought for slavery. But Washington and Jefferson, both slave holders, are not generally seen to have fought for slavery. As winners, they got to write history. The historial R.E. Lee has not been so fortunate.
We might remenber that George Washington, too, fought for slavery, one might argue, as much as did Washington and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, papering over the peculiar institution.
Finally, the author’s insights about Lee’s Christian bearing are apposite. His faith animated the man and infuriates the modern liberal.
“Still, he did take up arms against the union.”
Wow, that’s like saying a homeowner took up arms against an armed intruder.