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: 2) by driverless on Monday June 12 2017, @06:19AM (1 child)
Like any country, they had their good and bad generals. August von Mackensen is respected in Serbia despite the fact that he was an enemy commander because of his behaviour towards the Serbs (Google "Serbian Heroes Rest Here" / "ОВДЕ ПОЧИВАЈУ СРПСКИ ЈУНАЦИ"). Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck was another example, highly respected by both friend and foe alike because of his conduct.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @06:37AM
Thank you for that. I've heard of Mackensen, but know almost nothing about him. I had never heard of this monument before. My studies have been from the Anglo point of view, most of the time. There was a time, when good officers were taught to respect the enemy. If the enemy could make you bleed, he was a worthy opponent, and worthy of respect. If the enemy couldn't bleed you, then of course, there was no glory in oppressing him.
Today, we have forgotten all of that. Today, all enemies are ignorant barbarians. Today, we are mostly Indian Fighters, with that (then common) attitude, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."