Bringing down Robert E Lee

Even in his own lifetime Robert E Lee was the most beloved and the most hated figure to come out of the war for southern independence (Often miss labeled by the North as the civil war) Even started crazy abolitionist despised him because he was the US army officer that led the successful attack on mass murderer John Brown At Harpers Ferry.

John Brown's history of bloodshed was so well documented it is difficult to understand why he became the Christlike figure For abolitionist or for that matter modern day antifa and some members of black lives matter

Browns rampage of murder so terrorized several states that reasonable people on both sides of the slavery issue condemned him as a terrorist although he became a hero to the abolitionist much as did the author of the extremely distorted and dishonest uncle Tom's cabin

Brown like the abolitionists believed the Slaves in the South were ready to rise up and revolt against their Masters, when in fact most slaves were too Complacent 2 actually do so. in most cases those revolts that happened in the South were the result of abolitionist agitation Or those plantations where masters were particularly cruel to their slaves.

Brown Like the abolitionist had a skewed view of what slavery really was in the South based on Abolitionist literature that really had little to do with the day-to-day life of slaves such as uncle Tom's cabin or the so called and often fictionalized slave Diaries popular among northern readers

abolitionists saw Brown as a hero because he believed like they believed but they did not see the mass slaughter he conducted against innocent people in his rampage and so they saw him as their champion and he did Lee when Lee brought Brown to justice at Harpers Ferry.

artist of every ilk in that error sang the praises of Brown And condemned Lee much in the same way we see the deluded artist community of today kneeling and making heroes of people who like Brown had a twisted history.

some of the most prominent riders of that day with the exception of Hawthorne compared Brown to Jesus Christ Ann Lee to Satan.

Lee became even more of a villain in these deluded people’s eyes as the war transpired and he became the military champion of the south, they refusing to accept the fact that he despised slavery as much as they did, and was against the south’s succession until his beloved Virginia joined the rebellion.

These social justice warriors became even more infuriated with Lee when he outwitted the blood-thirsty grant right up to the moment he was forced to surrender in 1965, giving him a place among some of the greatest military strategists in the history of the world.

Abolitionists with the memory of elephants insisted Lee be hung as a traitor when the war concluded and became even more incensed when he took up the post as head of one of the south’s most prominent colleges.

For the south, Lee – who only lived five years after the conclusion of the war – became an enduring symbol of the south’s refusal to accept the dictates of the illegal 14th amendment and the reconstruction it entailed.

While the North managed to write their version of history so as to claim the south fought to maintain the institution of slavery, Lee remained a nagging reminder that the war was about self-determination, and resistance against the north that exploited the slave trade more than the south ever did.

Many of the statues that have been recently torn down by the modern-day social justice warriors were mounted at the end of the 19th century as tribute to what many southerners saw as a noble tradition. But long before 21st Century abolitionists began to tear these statues down, intellectuals in universities north and south waged a campaign against his reputation in an attempt to portray him as a supporter of slavery when he clearly was not.

No period in time has been so documented as the War for Southern Independence (as it is still called in the south) and its aftermath, although much of the more popular depictions such as the Burn’s PBS Civil War series or the New York Times 1619 Projects reflect only a northern view of that period, often distorting facts to fit the north’s justification for the slaughter of so many Americans. Even the beloved novel, Roots, is drenched in misinformation, made even worse by the recent remake of the movie.

Yet even with this massive misinformation campaign to suppress the alternate view the south provided, Lee remained untarnished – but not for lack of trying by scholars with questionable motives, and by university system north and south that has long ago adopted the northern interpretation as fact. Many of the scholars deliberately set out to find character flaws in Lee that would turn him into just another southerner in love with slavery – part of a kind of intellectual salted earth policy that would continue to grind down southern hopes for revivals much the same way carpetbaggers armed with the 14th amendment did to the southern culture.

The election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 sent shivers of dread through modern day abolitionist, who like the pre-civil war breed believe all whites – especially in the south – a racists and southern pride as a pseudo name for white supremacy, a phrase so often uttered by liberals it has become an unfortunate and dangerous chant, even among thoughtful Democrats.

Todays radicals in reaction to the Trump victory set out on a campaign to finish what their forefathers have done in their attempt to humiliate the south. These radicals sought to punish those people who supported Trump by removing all vestiges of resistance these statues symbolized. While we hear over and over how these statues offend people, the truth is they represent an unapologetic testimony to the spirit of the south that defied northern aggression even in defeat.

And once again Lee became the focus of wrath because his image remained untarnished despite a scholarly campaign behind the scenes to prove once and for all he was a racist, when history clearly shows he was not.

But the public outcry only followed decades of dedicated research by scholars determined to bring down Lee the way radicals have his statue, digging through the massive materials generated by the war and its aftermath for clues that might paint Lee in a more negative light – scholars often inventing misinformation when they could not find the smoking gun much the way Uncle Tom’s Cabin was created out of whispers of truth.

In some cases, such as one essay that depicted on the University of Virginia website is completely fabricated, making conclusions about Lee that better research show just aren’t true. But because these scholarly lies are posted on scholarly sites, these become evidence against Lee especially in regard to his position on slavery, the revolution and his position on both in the aftermath of the war. One site claimed to have a slave letter depicting Lee as forcing slaves into hard labor in order to get as much profit out of them before he was required to set them free – a conclusion contradicted even by some of Lee’s harshest critics.

Lee because the executor of father-in-law’s estate in 1857 with the mandate that he set them free within five years, something he accomplished despite the outbreak of the war – and with kindness according to several scholars who otherwise disliked Lee.

Lee didn’t just set them free; he gave each of them money in order to cover some of the costs associated with travel and relocation. A number of these former slaves even kept up correspondence with him from places as far away as Africa, thanking him for his kindness.

Lee reportedly did not own slaves of his own – although several scholars claim otherwise – but his wife’s family did.

Lee, however, did relocate some escaped slaves – a matter of controversy since favorable historians claim he sent them to another plantation where they would not be a risk of reprisals.

Some scholars have pointed to the fact that officers under Lee’s command re-enslaved free blacks and captured escaped slaves during some of the battles Lee oversaw. But even the most diehard anti-Lee scholars could not prove he knew anything about these any more than historians could prove Union Gen. Grant knew about union soldiers under his command gang-raping black women on raids in the south – although the Union Gen. overseeing the occupation of New Orleans did instruct his troops to treat all southern women as if they were prostitutes.

The single most durable monument to Lee, however, came in 1934 with the publishing of a four volume biography by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Douglas Freeman, a biography that elevated Lee to international stature, and further infuriated the politically-correct northern establishment determined to put Lee in his place among other racists.

But as universities became havens for liberal scholars, the effort to discredit Lee and Freeman seems to have intensified sparking a whole new wave of anti-southern scholarship and books dedicated specifically to prove Freeman wrong.

Freeman’s work drew on a dearth of information never before presented, taking 20 years to assemble, and shaping volumes so rich in detail and research that these volumes represent the most accurate betrayal of Lee, and one so positive as to stir up the wrath of Anti-Lee scholars.

Two of the most ambitious efforts to discredit Lee and Freeman came in the second half of the 20th century, “Man of Metal” and “Lee Considered.”

The author of “Lee Considered” actually professed to admire Lee and then went on to completely misrepresent Freeman’s scholarship and to make suppositions about Lee barely if at all supported by evidence. “Lee Considered” attempts to prove that Lee actually supported slavery (even though there is ample evidence to show he did not) and that Lee secretly plotted to join the confederacy at a time when Lee’s letters professed to oppose the dissolution of the Union.

The author in attempting to discredit Freeman’s work, claimed Freeman did not question Lee’s claims taking Lee’s statements as the final word on any subject, when Freeman clearly did question Lee’s claims.

What Freeman said, however, was that he would not impose his own beliefs about what historical characters thought but would rely on documented evidence to convey what Lee thought.

“Lee Considered,” however, is so loaded with the author’s assumption as to be dishonest, most of which have little or no documented evidence to support the author’s conclusions. A phrase in one sentence in one letter out of the thousands of letters Lee wrote became justification for extensive and otherwise unsubstantiated claims that Lee actually supported slavery. This conclusion by the author allowed the author to further extend his unjustified accusations to claim Lee agreed that the war was about the preservation of slavery, when Lee clearly and on more than one occasion, said the war was about the south’s ability to determine its own destiny.

“Lee Considered” went on to accuse Lee of secretly plotting to take a lead role in the military operations, this solely based on the short time frame between Lee’s resigning his military commission with the north and his accepting a commission to oversee the Confederate troops in Virginia.  There absolutely no documented evidence to support these claims either, but this does not stop the author from using his conclusions early in the book to justify even more ludicrous conclusions later on.

The available documentation shows that Lee agonized over the breakup of the union but decided he would not lead the Union army against his home state. He also clearly stated on many occasions that he was opposed to slavery and agreed with the emancipation of slaves in a timely manner.

Despite claims made by supposedly repeatable scholars (mostly selling a northern view of Lee and the war) Lee did not mistreat his slaves – and appears not to have actually owned any, but served as caretaker for those his father-in-law left him and those owned by other members of his family.

As Freeman noted, Lee had very little interaction with slaves prior to his being serving as administrator for his father in laws’ estate.

While Freeman’s admiration for Lee is unmistakable, his work relies on the most extensive volume of documents of any Lee biography before or since, delving into areas of Lee’s life no biographer bothered with before or since.

Lee was not perfect and some of the other volumes on his military career show he made some serious blunders – such as ignoring the west campaign during the war as well as things he did at Gettysburg. But these are the stuff that make up mortals.

Yet despite the rage by social justice warriors and regardless of how many of his statues they demolish, Lee’s reputation remains untarnished, an icon not just to the south, but to any lost but noble cause, a man who did not fight to preserve slavery, but for the right for the south to determine its own destiny.

Until the new abolitionists and their questionably ethnic scholars come up with real evidence to dispute Freeman’s research, Lee remains one of the great monumental figures of American history.