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...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:06AM (4 children)
It seems to be the season to beat up on the South.
What makes this new historian right where others were wrong?
I suspect not much. But he want to make a name for himself.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @01:18AM
From the summary:
This isn't a new argument at all. The "new historian" is actually dead, and the article from the summary was published nearly 50 years ago. What's "new" is: (1) for some reason a reporter (not a historian) at the Washington Post wants to take a bunch of academic literature that has (justifiably in many cases) noted some flaws Lee had and instead reinterpret them as meaning that Lee was incompetent ("not very good at his job"), and (2) we're trying to get people to take down Confederate monuments at the moment, and Robert E. Lee has a LOT of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:38AM (2 children)
It lost! Get over it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:39AM
So did American Indians. Yet I'm sure you're not snidely saying the same thing to them, dickhead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:31PM
Germany lost WWI and beating them up for it didn't work out so well.
So there was a do over called WWII.
This rewriting of history to feel better is not a smart move.
It's kind of like asking for a ham fisted do over on the reconciliation that made a United States after the civil war.
PC is not always C. Usually this is harmless, but rubbing the White South's nose in this is a repeat in reverse of the sin you are claiming to correct.
It seems a smarter plan than disappearing Lee would be to put up a more balanced exhibit to teach history instead of hiding it.