Marshall, TPM "Some Thoughts on Public Memory" (re R E Lee)

[NRaleighLiberal]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/some-thoughts-on-public-memory#more-1076726

By JOSH MARSHALL Published AUGUST 14, 2017 9:41 PM

Debates over public memory and the valorization of history are often complicated and politically vexed. But on the margins, in extreme cases, they are often pretty straightforward. For any subject of controversy, the first question we should ask is: What is the person known for? How did they earn a place in our collective public remembrance?

As Thomas Jefferson’s involvement in slavery has become increasingly difficult to dismiss as simply a product of his times and as his use of one of his own slaves as his lifelong concubine has become more surely confirmed as fact, Jefferson’s place in the national pantheon has come in for increasing criticism. In his case, we have a mixed ledger. He is the author of the Declaration of Independence, the prime driver of the Northwest Ordinance, a significant anti-slavery document, Secretary of State, President. He was also a lifelong slaveholder with all that entailed. With Jefferson you have numerous acts which are high points in our national story joined with an integral involvement with our greatest national shame. This will be a long public discussion.

What is Robert E. Lee known for? This is what I mean by the margins of the debate. Lee is known for one thing: being the key military leader in a violent rebellion against the United States and leading that rebellion to protect slavery. That’s it. Absent his decision to participate in the rebellion he’d be all but unknown to history. He outlived the war by only five years. There’s simply no positive side of the ledger to make it a tough call. The only logic to honoring Lee is to honor treason and treason in the worst possible cause.


Lincoln and his war cabinet had little question what Lee deserved. Look at Arlington National Cemetery. That’s Lee’s plantation. The federal government confiscated it and dedicated it as a final resting place for those who died defending the United States. It is a solemn, poetically rich, final and ultimately righteous verdict on his role in our national life. The entire project was very much by design: to punish Lee and shame him in public memory for betraying the United States. (During the Civil War, a Freedman’s Village was also established on the estate for ex-slaves making their transition to freedom.) The generals, particularly Union Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs who spearheaded the effort, wanted to be certain the Lees would never be able to reclaim their estate. Making it into a hallowed national cemetery was a good way to accomplish that.


snip

last paragraph -

It has always been a canard that anyone is banishing history with these changes. But public memory isn’t simply history. It is a public recitation, often written onto the landscape, about what we revere and what we regret about who we are and what we come from. None of this is to say that Lee’s battles aren’t of interest. Nor is it to say what Lee was like as a private person. But neither is why he is celebrated in cast metal statuary across the South. There’s one reason. And by any measure for us today it is a bad reason. It is not even close.

[Lithos]

1. Stupid

Lee was a major force in promoting a peaceful reconstruction.

[hlthe2b]

2. I totally agree with Marshall's assessment of the monuments/statues...

but in fairness, I'd have to agree it is a little bit one-sided re: Lee. I'm not promoting Lee in any way, but it is true that he did work towards peaceful reunification up to and including his own professed wish that no monuments to the confederacy be erected nor displayed at funerals, including his own. That latter point only underscores how inappropriate and hypocritical these monuments are--outside museums or historical battlefields.

[Lithos]

3. Agreed

That is my point.

[Orrex]

4. Were the monuments raised to celebrate Lee's contribution to Reconstruction?

[Lithos]

5. That is a different subject

Statues are erected by others for many reasons, some good and some bad. There meanings also change over time again to suit various revisionists.

Lee the man is a worthy figure of study and I think someone who can be considered a good statesman. The irony here is there is a huge gulf between what I believe is Lee's greatest achievement which was his post war actions as a man of peace and reconstruction vs the hate of these racist revisionists. Lee I believe would be appalled.

[Orrex]

7. Interesting then, that history was written by the losers in this case

They glorify him as the icon of the Confederacy and southern independence, hence the statues venerating him not as a reconstructionist statesman but as a republic-shattering general.

[Lithos]

8. Not really true

In Virginia, he is treated a little differently where his tenure as the President of Washington (now Washington-Lee) university is well regarded.

[Orrex]

10. Well that is very interesting (not sarcasm)

Every day, learning something new. Thanks!

[WinkyDink]

6. Well, if that ain't rich! "The young nation experienced bloodshed of a magnitude that has not been

equaled since by any other American conflict."

"The Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict. The unprecedented violence of battles such as Shiloh, Antietam, Stones River, and Gettysburg shocked citizens and international observers alike. Nearly as many men died in captivity during the Civil War as were killed in the whole of the Vietnam War. Hundreds of thousands died of disease. Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls."

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-casualties
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So after being THE military commander in charge of perpetrating these horrors, Lee should be regarded as somehow also a man of peace, that his post-war actions mitigate his treason and perfidy?

TL, TL, Bobby Lee.

P.S. His Wikipedia page seems to have been written by residents from below the Mason-Dixon Line. Wars have always seen great generals and brilliant strategists; however, what side they were on matters, both for their legacy and for our learning.

[Lithos]

9. To add

Lee made sure there was no guerilla war which would have caused the suffering and war to go on well past 1865.

Not the best, but good enough for this point.

https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/april-8-1865-lee-rejects-guerrilla-warfare/

And third, if you're looking at Wikipedia, then you should be always be prepared for something which is academically wanting.

[WinkyDink]

11. Re: Wiki, Oh, I know! And me with the Britannica upstairs!

[WinkyDink]

12. Reality Check: "The Myth of the Kindly General Lee"----

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

"The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

There is little truth in this."

[Lithos]

14. Meh - filler article

The book itself portrayed Lee much in the same way Jefferson was portrayed - as a complex individual who lived in a different time. The Atlantic article offers none of the context, opting to pick out various points in isolation and judge him in a modern light. This practice has proven the bane of people such as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.

Lee, was a pragmatist and knew the war was over and that change was coming to the South. It was he who led the South into Reconstruction rather than continue on in a bitter guerilla war. Lee also made it a point to change to one of leading a struggling college back to a great institute as he felt education was the means to having the South join the North as a unified country. While he may have viewed Blacks as generally inferior intellectually, it was hardly a trait he shared alone - example being both Grant and Lincoln. Even so, he had a very strong sense of fairness one example being where he did expel several white students who had harassed black students.

[oasis]

13. Lee was a treasonous mercenary. nt