Robert E. Lee: Icon of the South -- and American Hero

American Spectator ^ | 1/30/07 | HW Crocker III

[RayStacy]

Robert E. Lee: Icon of the South -- and American Hero By H. W. Crocker III Published 1/30/2007 12:08:14 AM

January can be a depressing month. The Christmas decorations come down, the creche is returned to its box (save for those hardliners, like the Crocker family, who leave the nativity set up until 2 February, the Presentation of the Lord), and the tree is dragged unceremoniously from the house. If you've had any time off of work, it ends; the spirit of Christmas can deflate pretty fast, if you're not careful. Even if you are, and you're returning to a desk job, you might start day-dreaming (as I always do) about whether you could, in good conscience, risk the family finances and try your hand at farming or ranching or doing anything that would get you out of an office and away from the corporate crowd.

But we all have to buckle down to our responsibilities, and as we settle down to it, there comes along another anniversary, another date to mark, another birthday to celebrate. In traditional Southern households, four weeks after Christmas, comes the birthday of Robert E. Lee, icon of the South, "one of the noblest Americans who ever lived, and of the greatest captains known to the annals of war" (according to Winston Churchill).

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Lee's birth, and yet so far it seems to have been marked largely by silence. How many of you noticed, or celebrated yourselves, Lee's birthday on 19 January (or Stonewall Jackson's on 21 January)? Lee's birthday is still officially marked in some Southern states, but the great and good general seems to be slipping from America's consciousness, or at least from America's esteem.

Lee, in the mind of some, has become a sectarian hero, when he used to be a national one. Theodore Roosevelt, scion of a Yankee father and a Southern mother, thought Lee was "without any exception the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth." On Lee's death in 1870, a Northern paper, the New York Herald, editorialized: "Here in the North... we have long ceased to look upon him as the Confederate leader, but have claimed him as one of ourselves; have cherished and felt proud of his military genius as belonging to us; have recounted and recorded his triumphs as our own; have extolled his virtue as reflecting upon us -- for Robert Edward Lee was an American, and the great nation which gave him birth would be to-day unworthy of such a son if she regarded him lightly. Never had mother a nobler son."

IT IS IRONIC THAT LEE was so respected as a national hero when the wounds of war were still fresh, but now, a century and a half later, he is considered discredited because of the cause for which he fought. Yet his cause, if anything, is another reason to admire him.

If that last statement sounds controversial, consider, without prejudice, the cause for which Lee sacrificed everything -- his life, his family, his career. It was a simple and eloquent one that every humane man should be able to rally round: "With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty as an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home." In another letter, he wrote, "a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets has no charm for me. If the Union is dissolved and government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none."

Lee would have endorsed the view of General Richard (son of Zachary) Taylor who said that he and his fellow Southerners had fought not for the preservation of slavery -- regret for slavery's loss, Taylor noted after the war, "has neither been felt nor expressed" -- but rather, they had "striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government."

That Lee believed that the Confederacy had only exercised its rights as guaranteed under the Constitution, defended by the founders, and invoked by states and statesmen "for the last seventy years," can be seen in his letter of 15 December 1866 to Lord Acton, in which he says precisely that. He wishes that "the judgment of reason" had not "been displaced by the arbitrament of war," but concludes it has been, and it is time for the South to move on, to accept "without reserve... the extinction of slavery.... [A]n event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none... more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia," and to "trust that the constitution may undergo no [further] change, but that it may be handed down to our succeeding generations in the form we received it from our forefathers."

This does not sound like a man whose politics should bar him from the admiration that used to be his due.

I THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS another, deeper reason why Lee makes modern America uncomfortable. It is his Christianity -- not the fact the he was a believer, but that he actually knew what it meant to pursue the imitation of Christ. Try reading the Gospel of Matthew and you'll find that it's arresting stuff. And Lee, though gentle in demeanor -- indeed a thoroughgoing gentleman -- could be equally arresting.

When a young mother sought Lee's advice for raising her infant son, Lee replied, "Teach him he must deny himself." Or how about this: "Duty...is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things.... You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less."

Lee always put others first; he believed that to lead is to serve; he believed that the "forbearing use of power does not only form the touchstone, but the manner ... of a true gentleman.... A true gentleman of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others."

Today, Self seems to be the great god of most people. They bow before the presumed truth that happiness lies in self-esteem and "self-actualization" -- a very self-flattering way of affirming that one's "inner self" is always right, and the source of all truth. Self-denial, unless it is in the form of a diet (to make us feel better about ourselves), is not much in vogue.

Well, Lee was the great anti-self-actualizer of American history. As Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer Douglas Southall Freeman put it: "Had [Lee's] life been epitomized in one sentence of the Book he read so often, it would have been in the words, 'If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.'"

Today, many find that sentence too bracing, and Lee, who embodied it, becomes an affront, a perfect example of Mark Twain's apothegm that "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."

And it's not just that, of course. Ignorance is part of the problem too. For how many Americans today know the real Robert E. Lee or know anything about him at all, save that he was a general "who fought for slavery."

If we want an America of heroes, we need to cherish our heroes of the past. It is to the advantage of every Southerner, of every American, to renew his acquaintance with Robert E. Lee, because there simply is no finer American hero.

[kalee]

ROFLOL We always do the same. That's the best day to visit WbtS sites, cold and usually wet but never crowded.

[stand watie]

you may (SADLY) just be correct.

while i DO want a FREE dixie REPUBLIC, the thought of a REAL civil war on this continent is HORRIFYING.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

GOOD for you!

free dixie,sw

[Conservative4Ever]

As a mother who has a hard time remembering my children's birthdays...forgive me on not remembering General Lee's. I do think he was a great man with exceptional military ability. Had the south had the industrial resources as did the north...the south could very well have won. It was best they didn't in the long run..we are a better, stronger nation because we stayed united.

[stand watie]

well, you're half right anyway.

had the south remained independent, the north could be the sort of imperialist,socialist, amoral, nanny-state, that they seem to want "up there" AND dixie would be FREE.

BOTH nations would be happier if Lee had won.

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

Thank you for sharing your very interesting meeting with historian Stephen Ambrose.

While I do not yet have "The Wild Blue : The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany 1944-45" when I do get a copy I shall remember your father's serving in the 8th Air Force. You must be extremely proud of him, plus being able to discuss his service with Mr. Ambrose. My own father served as a Navy Lt. during the conquest of Okinawa in addition to other areas of the Pacific.

Do you know if Mr. Ambrose included any of the material supplied by you for "The Wild Blue"? Hopefully Mr. Ambrose's son will be able to sign that book The hardback version of "To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian" I have, which was regretfully Mr Ambrose's final publication.

Having a number of works by the distinguished 'dean' of twentieth-century American historians (Rear Admiral) Samuel Eliot Morison (1887 - 1976) I noted the highly readable, dramatic narration style comparisons between both Admiral Morison & Mr. Ambrose, coupled with their keen talent at precise historical description.

As the U.S. Navy's leading historian on active duty in World War II, Admiral Morison earned seven engagement stars and a Legion of Merit, with Combat Distinguishing Device "V", while serving in combat areas of the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific. The Presidential Medal of Freedom was awarded to Admiral Morison in 1964.

Would you place the works of historian David McCullough in the same league with Admiral Morison and Stephen Ambrose?

[BigCinBigD]

The general bone of contention on these threads is:

a) The South shoulda/coulda/woulda won.
b) It didn't.
c) Not yet anyway.
;0)

[beckysueb]

Lee would have endorsed the view of General Richard (son of Zachary) Taylor who said that he and his fellow Southerners had fought not for the preservation of slavery -- regret for slavery's loss, Taylor noted after the war, "has neither been felt nor expressed" -- but rather, they had "striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government."

Too bad this little fact about the Civil War has been mostly ignored. Everyone still thinks it was about slavery.

[beckysueb]

Your words are probably wasted on the closed minds that refuse to understand why the Civil War was fought.

[beckysueb]

I just hate these stereotypes of the southern people. Its just stupid. Southern people are a gentle people, and the pace is slower here, but the people have integrity, are intelligent and have alot of pride for the most part. They don't take handouts here like they do up north. They are good decent Godfearing people.

[Non-Sequitur]

The general bone of contention on these threads is:

a) The South shoulda/coulda/woulda won.
b) It didn't.
c) Not yet anyway.
;0)

Yeah, the South is going to rise again one of these years. Or so I keep hearing.

[Non-Sequitur]

...but rather, they had "striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government."

I hate to say that Richard Taylor was wrong, but he didn't know what he was talking about. For most of this nation's history prior to the rebellion the South had exerted a disproportionate level of influence over the governmen. The 3/5ths rule on slaves gave the South almost a million additional people for census purposes, and gave them far more congressmen then they would otherwise have had. And as for the rest of the government, well, Alexander Stephens said it best:

"But, again, gentlemen, what have we to gain by this proposed change of our relation to the general government? We have always had the control of it, and can yet, if we remain in it, and are as united as we have been. We have had a majority of the Presidents chosen from the South; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen from the North. We have had sixty years of Southern Presidents to their twenty-four, thus controlling the Executive department. So of the judges of the Supreme Court, we have had eighteen from the South, and but eleven from the North; although nearly four-fifths of the judicial business has arisen in the Free States, yet a majority of the Court has always been from the South. This we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interests in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro tern.) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of the Representatives, from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country. Nor have we had less control in every other department of the general government. Attorneys, Generals we have had fourteen, while the North have had but five. Foreign ministers we have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four. While three-fourths of the business which demands diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the Free States, from their greater commercial interests, yet we have had the principal embassies, so as to secure the world markets for our cotton, tobacco and sugar on the best possible terms. We have had a vast majority of the higher offices of both army and navy, while a larger proportion of the soldiers and sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of Clerks, Auditors and Comptrollers filling the Executive department; the records show for the last fifty years, that of the three thousand thus employed, we have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we have but one-third of the white population of the Republic.' Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; it is that of revenue, or means of supporting government. From official documents, we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected for the support of government has uniformly been raised from the North."

What Taylor is basically complaining about is that the south feared that they, as the minority, could no longer control the actions of the majority. And that is no reason for rebellion.

[Non-Sequitur]

I just hate these stereotypes of the southern people. Its just stupid. Southern people are a gentle people, and the pace is slower here, but the people have integrity, are intelligent and have alot of pride for the most part. They don't take handouts here like they do up north. They are good decent Godfearing people.

But apparently lacking a sense of humor.

[Non-Sequitur]

Your words are probably wasted on the closed minds that refuse to understand why the Civil War was fought.

We do understand. We understand the reasons given by the Southern leadership before the Southern rebellion began, and we understand the revisionist reasons given by Southern leaders after they lost.

[Tribune7]

I think one of the great ironies of history is that the Lee family freed its slaves and the Grant family didn't.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think one of the great ironies of history is that the Lee family freed its slaves and the Grant family didn't.

Ya got that backwards.

[Larry Lucido]

Lee's birthday on 19 January (or Stonewall Jackson's on 21 January)? Lee's birthday is still officially marked in some Southern states, but the great and good general seems to be slipping from America's consciousness, or at least from America's esteem.

Hmm, article complains about a birthday going unnoticed, eleven days after the birthday. Wouldn't it have been better to publish this, oh, I don't know, maybe January 18 (or earlier)? I guess The American Spectator will be announcing Mardi Gras sometime around February 28.

[Tribune7]

Phooey on you.

[Larry Lucido]

By the way, he was an upstanding man, who chose the wrong side. Heroism requires good decisions.

[Tribune7]

Nope. Lee freed his slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation. Grant's wife still had her slaves after the Civil War ended.