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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:39AM (1 child)
This happens a lot because the further out you get from a historical event or a person's lifetime, the less control there is over what you dig up. New letters surface and people are willing to say things about dictators that weren't safe to say while the tyrant was in control of the country. But, after the dictator has been deposed, there's freedom to badmouth away and often times the new leadership encourages it.
In terms of Lee, I'm not really familiar enough with what's been written and the general historical documentation that exists. But, re-evaluating somebody of that stature is essential to having an accurate understanding of American history and have some idea what might happen in the future with similar individuals.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 12 2017, @12:01PM