SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
In the June 1969 issue of Civil War History — Volume 5, Number 2, pages 116-132 — a renowned Southern historian attacked the legacy of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
"No single war figure stands in greater need of reevaluation than Lee," wrote Thomas L. Connelly, the late University of South Carolina professor. "One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee."
Connelly's essay was among the first academic musket shots fired on Lee's standing as an outmatched but not outwitted military genius presiding over a Lost Cause — a reputation celebrated in fawning biographies and monuments like the one removed Friday in New Orleans.
Was General Lee overrated? Get your armchair historian on...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Truth About Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee: He Wasn’t Very Good at His Job
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 110 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm EMOTIONAL now because I have MERCHANDISING CLOUT!!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @02:14AM (6 children)
Oh, in addition: I agree that keeping that symbol of injustice seems bad, however how about this suggestion: if the anti-statue-removal people don't want Lee's statue removed, how about if we put statues of Grant and Lincoln right next to it? Would they be in favor of that, or against? Then the descendants of slaves should in theory be mollified because next to the symbol of injustice is two symbols of the people who fought that injustice, but I'll bet the pro-Lee-statue people would be opposed. Why is it they like statues of Confederate generals, but they don't want statues of Union generals around? I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of them simply being racists of they don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:48AM (1 child)
right next to it, and bigger and much more prominent roo, perhaps looking down with a look of pity mixed with scorn as well. Especially Sherman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:00PM
Don't forget the statue of Benjamin Franklin Butler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @05:40AM
That's not a bad idea at all. Sort of reminds me of the Confederate memorial on Martha's Vineyard.
"WHAT?!" you say, "Another confederate memorial in Massachusetts? I thought Charlie Baker wanted to tear down the "only one" [bostonmagazine.com]."
Nope. There's a much more interesting confederate memorial on Martha's Vineyard. Even weirder -- it was dedicated by Union veterans in memory of their Confederate brethren. Photo here. [typepad.com]
The history of the thing is explained here [mvmagazine.com]. Basically, a Confederate veteran moved to Martha's Vineyard after the war and at some point paid to erect a monument in honor of Union soldiers. Some years later, the Union veterans returned the favor. There are other such joint monuments in the U.S. (example [wikipedia.org]), a relic of the rather widespread reconciliation events that occurred mostly in the early days of the 1900s when Unionist troops were too old to dance victory jigs anymore and both sides were eager to heal wounds -- hence the Martha's Vineyard monument's title "The Chasm Is Closed."
However, we no longer have the Ken Burns effect to erect public monuments to reconciliation through PBS documentaries... instead, division is the political order of the day. The statues are now seen as symbols of division and thus are being removed.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday June 12 2017, @06:09AM (1 child)
Tell you what, I'll put up a statue of Grant next to Lee's if you put a statue of Jefferson Davis in the Lincoln Memorial. Deal?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @04:35PM
Why should a traitor get a statue in the nation's capital?
Honestly, I think the Union did the wrong thing by re-admitting the Southern states. They should have remained occupied territory, with their citizens always kept as second-class citizens. If they still haven't figured out after over 150 years that slavery is wrong, then there's no hope for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @05:57PM
How about putting in a fountain with Calvin pissing?