The fact of the matter is that these arrogant revisionist historians can't overcome the fact that he was immensely successful for three years in holding the Union armies back in the East, and that he was a true Christian and gentleman who was fighting for his "country" Virginia, and the original Constitution as he viewed it.
Thank you Sir!
Well let me take the contrarian point of view in this thread. Why doesn’t history celebrate Rommel, Napoleon or Attila the Hun? All brilliant military minds who by all accounts fought valiantly, honorably and fought with principal. I like Shelby Foote’s analysis of Lee and his contribution to history. I can’t remember his quote exactly but something to the effect “For the South never has a war been fought more nobly for a more ignoble cause.” I have read extensively on Lee and can honestly never reached the conclusion that he was fighting for the principals etched in Constitution or the Declaration of Ind. I think Lee’s sense of duty was bound by an older pre-Revolutionary War idea of America. I think history has comported Lee appropriately, he should be recognized for his gentility and military brilliance but should NOT be included in the pantheon of the American great generals like Patton, Pershing, Grant and Washington. Regardless of the shibboleth of states’ rights, Ole Dominion, etc. he did fight and sent his men off to die for maintenance of the status quo in the South which included a pseudo aristocracy and slavery.
Not to mention he was not unilaterally forced to Surrender at Appamattox, he CHOSE to do so to avoid further bloodshed on both sides (thank God he did), however if he had wanted to carry out the war longer- I am sure General Lee and the talente southern dedicated soldiers could have marched on for another three years if they had wanted (and probably longer in gurilla form) if they had really wished and were so embittered as the modern liberal revisionists want to portray!