Posted on 01/24/2015 2:25:41 PM PST by Davy Buck
Dr. Bryon McClanahan reviews Pryor's work on Lee. He is quite critical and discusses major problems with the book as well as the "trendy" practice by modern historians of "humanizing" (tearing down) American heroes . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
After reading the leftist feminist psychobabble hatchet job done on Norman Rockwell as well as the excoriating review of it that was in First Things, I eschew biographies unless I am familiar with the author.
FYI: That letter was written by Dwight D Eisenhower.
It is very sad indeed.
There are other interpretations of the statement "… I am alone to blame, in perhaps expecting too much of its prowess & valor.”
This is mid-19th century American English, and it doesn't necessarily translate into 21st century American English. Lee could have been talking about the past peerless performances of his men, wherein they beat the Federals in the Army of the Potomac like rented mules.
Great letter.
I think you mischaracterize Lee.
For one thing, Lee never said he would ONLY fight FOR Virginia: What he said was he would NOT take up arms AGAINST Virginia, and would defend Virginia if it were attacked. Makes sense, since Virginia was his home. And, remember, prior to Andrew Jackson (arguably) and to Abraham Lincoln (definitely), it was pretty much well-understood that the states were sovereign to the federal union, and that the federal union existed ONLY because the states agreed to create it, but for a limited, restricted purpose. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments made that clear.
I am also unaware that Lee EVER said he would ONLY fight on the territory of Virginia (which is an unusual comment given Lee’s record in the war with Mexico). And, even if you attempt to limit Lee’s words to the years 1861-1865, such a comment by Lee would have been wholly uncharacteristic, as it would imply he would disobey orders if directed to fight outside Virginia’s borders.
He sent in Pickett to salve his pride? Humbug! It had nothing to do with pride; but was, rather, a tactical mistake. Lee missed Jackson so much at Gettysburg, and perhaps his failing at Gettysburg was that he believed his other generals could and would act and perform as Jackson would have.
Lee’s army at Gettysburg lacked the audacious and daring aggression that Jackson embodied, and because of that he lost Gettysburg. THAT was Lee’s great failure at Gettysburg. He fought Gettysburg the way he would have fought it had he HAD Jackson, when, of course, he didn’t.
I suggest to you that had Jackson been with Lee at Gettysburg, the outcome would have been quite different.
As for the oath part, Lee did NOT break his oath. Rather than break his oath, he resigned. An oath should be honored unless and until it becomes untenable to keep, at which point an honorable man would announce he could no longer abide by it, and would renounce it.
I don’t know if you ever served in the military, but please consider the following illustration:
As members of the military we swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and (in the case of enlisted personnel, which I was) obey the orders of our officers. However, had one of my officers given me an unlawful order I would have refused to carry it out. Likewise, had one of my officers ordered me to follow a truly repugnant order (i.e., one that went deeply against my morals and principles), I would have refused to follow it, and would have accepted the consequences of my refusal (Article 15, court martial, etc.) But my refusal would have been the honorable thing to do.
By taking an oath we do not abandon our principles, and we do not become robots.
Actually, it might be said that he fought on the correct side, being a native of Virginia who believed in States Rights. How would his honor stand if he fought against the Citizens of the Commonwealth, accepting the personal honor of Command offered to him by the President?
For years, historians could only get Natl Endowment for the Humanities grants if they were going to a. write about African-Americans who fought on the Union side or b. proved that Lee was a womanizer. The last straw was ‘The Marble Man’ where the author opined that Lee was so audacious a commander because he didn’t have affairs but wanted to. At that, the NEH finally gave up.
Apparently they’ve scraped together a little more money to go after him. With predictably ridiculous results.
But, I’m sensing a new effort to discredit him, as he does embody some very honorable attributes.
Things get mixed up in war so I can understand Gen. Lee's attempt to take the offense. Also, as for Pickett's charge, it appears that Robert E. Lee suffered from what many excellent warriors suffer from and that is victory disease. Gen. Lee was coming off his great victory at Chancerville (sp) and thought he could do anything. Robert E. Lee's fame filled the world after the battle that cost Stonewall Jackson his life. Gen. Longstreet did not suffer the same hubris, but the great Lee was the head General of the army of Virginia and would not listen to Longstreet. His behavior at Gettysburg was quite understandable. Also, Gen. Lee did not have the brilliant, eccentric and wiley Stonewall Jackson with him. Stonewall Jackson's death by friendly fire was probably equal to the loss of many many Confederate divisions.
The absence of Jackson turned the tide...I studied the tactics used by Lee via Jackson’s extraordinary talents and accomplishments...It shined through: Jackson was Lee’s “make it happen” leader...his presence at Gettysburg would have made a distinct difference.
Thanks for your deliberate analysis! Have you done any papers or publications of your studies? I would love to be able to study your findings in more detail.
It astounds me that there are so many on this board who don’t understand what you wrote and hold on to a belief that Lee was somehow a traitor.
It is then that I realize that while I don’t know what the future holds, we will see times that Lee saw and it will be in many ways far far worse, and the outcome much more bleak.
America was pronounced terminal the day Stonewall died.
We’ve been in hospice ever since.
We have one foot in the ground and the other is falling fast.
What comes next won’t be nearly as tidy as reconstruction and the survivors won’t be nearly as useful. A new reality will come once the end arrives and those that remember Lee and our heritage will be all that remains of American civilization. Anyone that argues this point does not live in the South and won’t survive to see if I am right or wrong.
+1
Washington signed an oath to the Crown when he became a colonial officer. Was he also without honor when he broke that oath?
I don’t smoke but I see of all places New Orleans just passed what looks like the most punitive smoking ban I’ve ever read about
This is indeed the end of civilization as we knew it
And he would have died as a traitor if the Crown had won.
By the time of the Revolutionary war, he was out of direct service to the Crown, and was already seen as a member of the Rebels.
And truth be told, that argument has been discussed around my table with my children several times, concerning the whole war. Specifically, was rebellion a correct action for Christians when under the authority of the Crown.
Thank you for your kind words.
My degree is in History. I have loved and studied history ever since I was a young boy.
Yes, I’ve written many analyses over the years, but merely for the pure enjoyment of it; and, perhaps, as a bit of personal catharsis.
I know. This guy just babbles on and on.
A lot of old soldiers got nostalgic after the war.
The love fest of post-war reconciliation, which lasted through to Eisenhower's time wasn't the most accurate reflection of how things were during the war.
Charlie's brother Henry's comment is also worth considering:
I think that Lee should have been hanged. It was all the worse that he was a good man and a fine character and acted conscientiously. It’s always the good men who do the most harm in the world. -- Henry Adams
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.