Civil War Memory

"Lee at 200": A Few Thoughts

Presented at the University of Virginia's symposium on Robert E. Lee's Life and Legacy

“This is sacred ground. It is a neutral place, no race, color, religion should be mentioned here.” This is how one person responded to a National Park Service survey which asked visitors to Arlington to assess the relevancy of slavery in properly interpreting life at the home of Robert E. Lee. Another visitor responded that slavery should be taught “only in schools” and another individual seriously suggested that “race has no place in the historical discussion and presentation of a slave plantation.” Across the Potomac River in Maryland, the newest Civil War monument to grace the town of Sharpsburg is of Lee on Traveler and includes the following at its base: “Robert E. Lee was personally against secession and slavery, but decided his duty was to fight for his home and the universal right of every people to self-determination.” I have no doubt that such a belief would have been news to Lee’s slave Wesley Norris.

The fact that such views continue to be embraced by Civil War enthusiasts is worth exploring if for no other reason than that it may tell us something about Lee’s relevance at the beginning of the 21st century. In the case of Lee I suspect that our defensiveness about race and slavery is a symptom of a broader resistance to anything that challenges our ideas of Lee’s moral perfection and ultimately our understanding of the Civil War. As historian John Coski noted in a recent Washington Post interview, "There's an old saw in the South of a little girl asking, ‘Mommy is Robert E. Lee from the Old Testament or the New?’" I agree with Coski that Lee has been so overly lavished with praise that we have turned him into an untouchable “marble man.” Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock there is no doubt that Lee has come under more serious scrutiny in recent years. Some of the attacks can be dismissed as uninteresting or lacking any scholarly merit. On the other hand, professional historians have introduced interpretive frameworks from psychology, gender studies, political science, and race studies, and although the results have not always held up under scrutiny they have managed to enrich our understanding of Lee’s life, the antebellum south, and the Civil War.

It is not surprising that the increase in Lee studies have brought about a backlash from certain corners within the Civil War community. For many people any challenge to the traditional interpretation of Lee or the Confederacy is tantamount to heresy. Consider the description of a symposium on R.E. Lee sponsored by the Stephen D. Lee Institute in northern Virginia which took place this past spring:

2007 marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Robert E. Lee, one of America’s most revered individuals. But opinions are changing in this era of Political Correctness. Was Lee a hero whose valor and leadership were surpassed only by his honor and humanity? Or was he a traitor whose military skill served a bad cause and prolonged an immoral rebellion against his rightful government? To many, Robert E. Lee is a remote figure, a marble icon. To others he was simply a great battlefield commander. But Lee was much more; his character shines brightly from the past, illuminating the present. The Symposium will cover Lee’s views on government and liberty, his humane attitudes toward race and slavery, Lee and the American Union, Lee as inspired commander and his relationship with the Army, Lee as a Christian gentleman, and the meaning of Lee for today.

It is difficult to imagine how a serious historical discussion is supposed to take place when the terms of the debate are framed around such meaningless concepts as “hero” and “villain.” The above description, however, is symptomatic of the difficulty that characterizes much of the discourse surrounding Lee’s life and legacy.

William W. Bergen on "Lee at 200"

Thanks to Bill Bergen for allowing me to share this talk which he will present tonight at the final session of the University of Virginia's seminar on Robert E. Lee.  Bill is Assistant Dean for Administrative Services for the University of Virginia's Law School.  Bergen has lectured widely and has served as an instructor at several of the University’s annual Civil War Conferences. He is the author of “The Other Hero of Cedar Creek: The ‘Not Specially Ambitious’ Horatio G. Wright,” a biographical essay appearing in Gary W. Gallagher's ed. The 1864 Shenandoah Campaign published by the University of North Carolina Press in 2006.

The Robert E. Lee of legend is perfect, imperturbable, stoic. But one can glimpse the restlessness of the man from a close reading of Lee’s private letters. Take, for example, his strange penchant for counting socks.

More than a dozen of Lee’s letters to Mary Custis Lee during the first five months of 1864 contain references to the homemade socks she had sent. Among the comments the General wrote back to the home front were “There were 67 pairs . . . instead of 64 as you supposed.” “the number of pairs scarcely ever agrees with your statement;” “There were only 23 pairs & not 25 as you stated. I opened the bag & counted them myself twice.” As Lee’s biographer Emory Thomas put it, “Confronted with massive problems, most of which he could not solve, Lee tended to refocus his attention simpler matters over which he did have some influence.” I don’t know about you, but I have had bosses like that; not for nothing did Lee’s staff call him “the tycoon” behind his back.

This seminar has examined Lee from several perspectives, and the overall effect has been to paint a more human portrait. Tonight’s topic is whether Lee matters in today’s world, and my task is to focus on the relevance of Lee the soldier. The answer to the question is easy: Lee is highly relevant. As Gen. John F.C. Fuller, one of Lee’s early and most distinguished military critics conceded, “few generals have been able to animate an army as [Lee’s] self-sacrificing idealism animated the Army of Northern Virginia . . . What this bootless, ragged, half-starved army accomplished is one of the miracles of history.” Lee was the indispensable man, and surely the Civil War would neither endured so long or been so bloody were it not for Lee's military brilliance. Lee’s military accomplishments guarantee that the study of what he did, and how he did it, will remain germane to the profession of arms for generations to come.

One approach to studying Lee’s significance is to identify the skills that he demonstrated as a soldier, and determine the extent to which one might emulate them. Some of these skills are teachable, at least to a point. Lee learned much at West Point, both as a student and as superintendent in the 1850’s. Graduating second in his class, Lee, like all top graduates, was assigned to the engineers, and he had a major hand in designing forts along the east coast. There he employed the drawing and drafting skills he was taught at the Point. This experience and education combined to develop what became in warfare an uncanny eye for terrain. We can see some of Lee’s power of observation at work in his surviving sketches.

While superintendent, library records show Lee read French military histories and the campaigns of Napoleon, and engaged faculty members in discussion. He apparently consulted with his venerable engineering professor, Dennis Hart Mahan, about the importance of field fortifications in warfare. Those lessons would be put to use repeatedly during the Civil War as a means to help equal the odds against a numerically superior foe and to allow for a reserve that Lee could use to launch an attack. So Lee never stopped studying for a war he knew might never come. Contrast this approach to that of his subordinate, Richard Ewell, a West Pointer who once said that in the old army "I learned all about commanding fifty United States dragoons and forgot everything else.”

Remembering Lee

Tonight is the final session of what has been an excellent month-long symposium on Robert E. Lee at the University of Virginia.  As part of the final session I will be giving a very short talk along with Bill Bergen and a professor from Washington and Lee University.  While I am not happy with what I've prepared I do plan to post it later in the day. 

Painting of Lee by Daniel Dos Santos

Still Standing is Standing Right in Front of Me

That's right, my copy of the new documentary Still Standing: The Stonewall Jackson Story has arrived. I plan to give it a thorough review very soon so stay tuned.  My comments about one line from the trailer caused quite an irrational outburst on a few fronts.  First, I never claimed to have seen the movie when I commented on the idea that Stonewall Jackson should be seen as the "champion of enslaved men and women."  No amount of argument, whether its religious, historical or moral could possibly convince me otherwise.  Sorry, I just have a problem with the idea that a slaveowner can be properly labeled as such.  I don't know, call me old-fashioned. 

Books Reviewed

I've included a new page on the sidebar that lists all the books I've reviewed in the area of Civil War history going back to 1997.  I probably spend too much time reading books as opposed to doing research, which I find to be an incredibly lonely experience.  On a number of occasions I've read a fellow blogger criticize the current state of Civil War studies.  It is hard to imagine what he has in mind given my conviction that the quality of books published has never been better.  Most of the books that you will find on this list are university press books which is intentional on my part.   

The Battle Continues for Dixie Dawn's Soul

Check it out here and click on the comments for each post.  Fellow blogger David Woodbury and Mark Ferguson continue to challenge Anonymous on every idiotic point made and there is no sign that Dixie Dawn is picking up on any of it.  Unfortunately, this is a battle that David and Mark cannot win as references to "liberal historians", "revisionists", "PC", will always trump serious historical analysis.  In the end it's a lost cause. 

Fun Weekend in Store

Let's see, I have 79 student comments to write by next Tuesday, fifteen letters of recommendation to write by Nov. 1 and one paper on Robert E. Lee to write by next Wednesday.  Finally, I have to write a report on why we should dump the AP program. 

In other words, don't expect to see anything along the lines of entertaining, insulting, or informative posts over the next week or so. 

And We Wonder Why Textbooks are So Expensive

My blogging buddy Rebecca Goetz blogged about this some time ago [scroll down], but given what happened yesterday I just had to chime in.  Yesterday our department received two packages from Norton publishers.  I received one and my department chair the other.  Both packages included the second edition of Eric Foner's Give Me Liberty! which I am currently using in my AP classes.  Keep in mind that my department chair does not teach American history so she gave me her copy.  Also in her package was a copy of the 7th edition of America: A Historical Narrative by Tindall and Shi.  Since she has no use for the book she gave it to me.  That makes two copies of the 7th ed., one copy of the 6th ed., and one copy of the Fourth ed. that are currently gracing my bookshelves here at school.  Keep in mind that I've received these books over the past two years.  Has Tindall and Shi really changed that much that they feel a need to send multiple copies to people who will never use it in class. 

Why not send emails out to instructors and professors asking if they are interested in receiving sample copies.  By the way the hardcover version of Give Me Liberty! is $97.50 while America: A Historical Narrative is $50.  I can't tell you how much fun it is when a textbook representative calls me only to hear that I don't use them in half of my classes.  There is this awkward pause followed by the uneasy question, "So what do you do in those classes?"  Ten minutes later he wished he never asked that question.

"Stonewall Jackson Sex"

Someone found my blog by doing a Google search of "Stonewall Jackson Sex".  Civil War Memory is the first site listed and I couldn't be more pleased.

Questions Matter

I had one of those special moments today in my first period class where a student's question forced me to completely change gears.  We are reading sections of Joseph Ellis's Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation and focusing specifically on a chapter called "The Silence" which covers the 1790 debate in the House of Representatives over slavery and the slave trade.  Even before we started one of my students asked why the book is called Founding Brothers instead of Founding Fathers.  I absolutely love these moments.  It was a wonderful question so I spent the next 20 minutes going around the class asking for their opinions on the matter.  I was pleasantly surprised as most of the students had something to say.  They tended to focus on the intention of the author to bridge the great divide that exists between the generations that followed and the awed reverence that we are taught to extend to these men.  One of Ellis's goals in the book is to describe these men as every inch a part of this world; they lived during extraordinary times, but they were men with the same weaknesses and agendas that drive leaders regardless of time and place.  Students thought that describing them as brothers rather than fathers helped to make this point.  This doesn't mean that we should not respect their accomplishments; in fact it is this acknowledgment that helps place their accomplishments in sharper relief.  Students pointed out that the idea of a father implies or demands respect and/or admiration.  I should have known to begin this book with that very question, but it is nice to know that I can count on my students every once in a while to point out what I miss. 

One of the things I've noticed this year in going textless is that more of my students are engaged in what they are reading.  This can be seen clearly in the sophistication of their questions and the one discussed above is just one example.