Opinion and Analysis:
Yes, as difficult as it is to believe, many respected Americans decades ago, and even many today still admire Robert E. Lee. And, in our view with good reason. Not just because of his exceptional military record, but because of his other even more important outstandng personal characteristics. He may not have been perfect, but nobody is. However, what is strikiing to us is how, even in the face of defeat, his men admired him.
We firmly believe that as a general rule one cannot judge historical figures based on contemporary standards. After exemplary military service in the U.S. Army in the Mexican War, Lee became Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, In the period shortly before the start of the Civil War, Lee was quite torn and said that Southern secession was a bad idea. When Virginia did secede from the Union he faced terrible personal and professional dilemmas. He ulitmately turned down command of the Union Army because he could not bring himself to do harm to his native Virginia. Leaving his exceptional military record as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia (the Confederate army) at the battles of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and elsewhere aside we’ll just note that, pursuant to his father- in-law’s will, he released his slaves before the end of the Civil War, and before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. He fought nobly for the South until the end of the Civil War giving successive Union commanders a very hard time indeed. His last big victory was against General Grant at Cold Harbor in June of 1864. Thereafter, he became the President of Washington College (now Washington & Lee University).
By the way, a much stronger argument can be made that the South had legitimate reasons for seceding than most academics nowadays admit. Those reasons included (i) the Union before the war was a voluntary association of states and the Constitution itself did not prohibit any state from leaving at any time for any reason; (ii) the North was in the process of violating the Three-Fifths Compromise at the original Constitutional Convention under which the North induced (some say misleadingly) the Southern states to join the Union by implicitly accepting the existence of Slavery; and (iii) other reasons escape us as we write this, but they exist. Clearly, however, the South firmly believed they had a right to determine whether, when and how and under what conditions slaves should be freed, if ever. We note that freeing the slaves had been seriously discussed in the South for several years, however, unlike the more industrialized North the Southern economy was dependent on slavery, and naturally Southerners were not happy about being told what to do by outsiders who didn’t have to suffer the severe economic, politicial and social consequences of freeing the slaves that the South would suffer. In short, if the situation were reversed the North would have seceded too.
[ Note 1: And, people should frankly be amazed that the Union, after the war, allowed the construction of the various statues and monuments honoring leaders of the Confederacy after the war. Frankly, we don’t know of many other countries, if any, where one sees anything like that. Remember Union families had had their fathers, brothers and sons die during that conflict and one would think that they would have greatly objected to the construction of many of the monuments and statues–but amazingly they didn’t. ]
[ Note 2: We’ve actually addressed the causes of the Civil War and many of the reasons the South felt that it was within its rights and/or was justified in seceding from the Union. This includes an in-depth chat with ChatGPT on this subject. Here are just a few of the useful links on this subject (please use the search box on this website to find others):
https://reasonandbalance.com/judging-confederate-leaders/
https://reasonandbalance.com/the-civil-war-rebel-justification/
But we digress. The purpose here is to show, that not that long ago even Northerners had a lot of respect for General Lee. Far too many progressives and even mainstream academia wrongly paint a very sour picture of both Lee and the Southern cause. We are not saying that slavery isn’t horrible and/or that ultimate Union victory wasn’t in the best interests of our Nation. Moreover, equal protection and non-discrimination laws are good and healthy for our society. However, in our view, making our Southern ancestors out to be the bad guys and disrespecting them is one big reason why many Southerners and others have fallen under the spell of Trumpism. In short, they resent having their ancestors painted as villains. See the two videos below:
To the foregoing, we would add that we find it impossible to believe that Lee would have approved of or supported Trump. Lee would have chafed not only at Trump’s style of leadership (loud and boastful) but more importantly Lee was committed to selflessly carrying out one’s duties and responsibilities. Trump is all about lining his own pocket and seeking more political power. And very very impotantly, after the war Lee advocated the cessation of all furthur Southern resistance and obedience to federal law. This was crucial to the relatively quick reunification of the country and the avoidance of further guerilla-type warfare advocated by many Southerners. In short, he wanted the states to be “united” again. Trump is about lining his own pockets and he appears not to care at all about national unity. A more divisive President we’ve never had.
We point out all of the above simply because we wonder why many, if not most, of the Southern MAGA faithful seem to overlook the foregoing. Although we won’t go into it here, the same can be said for Christians who can reconcile Trump’s actions with those of the teachings of Jesus. It’s not only mind blowing, but it makes folks on the other side of the fence, wonder if MAGA folks can ever be convinced of anything using rational arguments.
If you want more on why we oppose Trump? Here’s Senator Mark Warner to give us yet another in a long long list of reasons:
MORE ON LEE & TRUMP
The following is an excerpt of a chat we had with ChatGPT on Lee and whether he would approve of Trump. Please note that much of the highlighting is supplied by us.
Rx. Am I wrong? I don’t think there’s any way in God’s green earth that Robert E. Lee would have approved of Trump.
David, I can understand why you feel that way, particularly given the qualities you associate with Lee.
If one reads the recollections of people who knew Robert E. Lee, a recurring image emerges of a man who was formal, restrained, courteous, and intensely concerned with personal honor and duty. By contrast, Donald Trump is known for a style that is combative, highly personal, media-driven, and often deliberately provocative.
Viewed through that lens, it is easy to see why you imagine the two men as fundamentally incompatible personalities.
At the same time, historians would caution that we are comparing a nineteenth-century military officer and college president to a twenty-first-century real-estate developer, television personality, and politician. We know a great deal about Lee’s conduct in his own era, but we cannot know how he would have reacted to modern politics, modern media, or modern political figures.
What is perhaps less speculative is that the public personas are dramatically different. If someone were to make a list of traits most often attributed to Lee by admirers—reserve, humility, self-discipline, deference to institutions, and avoidance of self-promotion—and then compare that list to the traits most commonly associated with Trump, there would be obvious contrasts.
One thing I find interesting in your comments is that your reaction does not seem to stem primarily from policy disagreements. You keep returning to character: selflessness, duty, respect for office, constitutional norms, personal conduct, and the use—or misuse—of public power for private purposes. Those are the same themes that led you to ask earlier about whether Lee sought personal profit from office or expressed views about constitutional government.
Whether Lee would have shared your conclusion about Trump is unknowable. But it is fair to say that the aspects of Lee that you most admire are the very aspects that lead you to that conclusion.
And perhaps that’s part of why this has become difficult within [various Southern organizations] The disagreement may not really be about Lee at all. It may be that different members look at the same historical figure and draw very different lessons about what qualities matter most in a public leader.
Okay here’s another question. Right after the war, there is this story about Lee going to church in Richmond, and being the first person to take communion with a a negro. Is that true?
David, the short answer is:
There is a famous story that Lee went forward for communion in Richmond shortly after the Civil War and knelt at the communion rail with a Black man when many white congregants hesitated to do so. However, historians disagree about exactly what happened and what it meant.
The story is associated with St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, where Lee worshipped after the war. The most commonly repeated version says that a Black man approached the communion rail first. Many white congregants were shocked and remained seated. Lee then rose, walked forward, and knelt for communion, after which others followed.
The problem is that:
- The account was not published until about 40 years later (1905).
- The principal source is essentially one eyewitness, T. L. Broun.
- Lee himself never wrote about the incident.
- There is no contemporary 1865 church record confirming it.
Even more interesting, the story’s meaning has changed over time.
Many modern writers present it as a dramatic act of racial reconciliation by Lee. Some churches and authors have described it that way.
But if you read Broun’s original account carefully, he interpreted Lee’s action differently. Broun suggested that Lee was simply doing his duty as a communicant and refusing to let the Black man’s presence disrupt the sacrament. Broun did not portray it as a deliberate civil-rights statement. In fact, Broun described many of the white congregants as offended by what they viewed as an attempt to impose a “new regime.”
So, as a historian might answer:
- Did the incident probably happen? Possibly. Some details fit what is known about Lee and St. Paul’s Church.
- Can it be proven? No. The evidence is limited and late.
- If it happened, was Lee making a statement on racial equality? That is much harder to establish. The original source does not clearly support that interpretation.
….You may find the story interesting because it illustrates something we discussed earlier: regardless of one’s views on Lee’s larger legacy, many contemporaries believed that he had a strong sense of duty and personal dignity. If the event occurred, even skeptical historians often conclude that Lee’s reaction was characteristically restrained—he simply went forward and took communion rather than participate in a public scene. Whether that reflected Christian egalitarianism, personal discipline, reconciliation, or some combination of those things remains debated.
One thing is certain: the story has become part of the Lee legend, but the historical evidence is not strong enough to treat it as an established fact in the same way we would treat, for example, his surrender at Appomattox Court House.
Rx. What were Lee’s opinions of and how did he treat Black folks after the Civil War?
David, this is one of the most debated aspects of Robert E. Lee’s legacy because the evidence points in more than one direction.
The Short Version
After the Civil War, Lee accepted the end of slavery and urged former Confederates to obey the law and reconcile with the Union. However, he did not become an advocate of racial equality, Black voting rights, or political equality for African Americans.
In modern terms, most historians would place him somewhere between:
- a man who accepted emancipation and opposed continued resistance, and
- a man who still held paternalistic and racially hierarchical views common among many white Southerners of his era.
Acceptance of Emancipation
Lee accepted that slavery was over and did not advocate restoring it.
After the war he encouraged former Confederates to comply with federal law and rebuild society rather than continue resistance.
Views on Black Suffrage
Lee was skeptical of immediate Black voting rights.
When he testified before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in 1866, he expressed doubts about whether newly freed slaves were prepared for political participation. This position was common among white Southern leaders at the time but is viewed critically by many historians today.
Violence Against Freedmen
One important point often overlooked is that Lee generally opposed violence and intimidation against Black people.
He urged obedience to law and civil order and did not publicly support groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
That said, he also did not become a public crusader against racial discrimination.
At Washington College
As president of what is now Washington and Lee University, Lee’s focus was primarily on educating young white men and restoring the institution.
He supported some educational opportunities for former slaves, but he did not advocate integrated education.
Personal Treatment of Black Individuals
Accounts from both Black and white contemporaries suggest that Lee was usually courteous and respectful in personal interactions.
Some formerly enslaved people who had known him spoke favorably of him; others recalled less favorable experiences. Like many historical figures, the record is mixed.
One controversial area concerns enslaved people connected to the Custis estate before the war. Some historical evidence indicates that Lee enforced discipline harshly at times while administering the estate, which has complicated the older image of him as a uniformly benevolent slaveholder.
What Lee Did Not Do
It is important not to project modern civil-rights views onto Lee.
There is no evidence that he:
- Supported racial equality in the modern sense.
- Supported equal political rights for Black Americans.
- Supported integrated schools.
- Supported social equality between races.
What Many Historians Conclude
A fair summary might be:
Lee accepted emancipation, opposed renewed rebellion, and generally favored peace and order after the Civil War. However, he remained a man of his time who believed in a racially hierarchical society and did not support the full political and social equality of African Americans.
That conclusion places him somewhere between the romanticized “saintly Lee” of Lost Cause tradition and the caricature of Lee as simply a racial extremist. Most modern scholars see him as a complex figure: personally dignified and often conciliatory, yet still committed to assumptions about race that are fundamentally at odds with modern democratic ideals.
[DDL Note: We at reasonandbalance.com have repeatedly stated that judging historical figures by contemporary standards is unfair to all involved. One must remember that the South and Lee were dealing with an institution (slavery) that had been around since the beginning of recorded history, that all races had been subjected to it somewhere at sometime and that everyone in the South grew up with it. In short, it was the norm and had been for thousands of years. Moreover, all humans had and have a tendency to rationalize the righteousness of what they are doing despite strong evidence to the contrary. (Is this not true of today’s MAGA followers?] For example, for decades the British argued that the native Hindus and Muslims in India/Pakistan were not yet advanced enough as a civilization to be capable of governing themselves before eventually caving and granting India and Pakistan independence. Similarly, Southerners typically thought of slaves as being inadequately prepared for and/or not sufficiently educated to be allowed to vote. The point being that in that respect Lee was like a lot of Southerners regarding his attitude on race but that post-War he largely kept his opinions to himself other than to believe that everyone (Southerners included) should obey the law.] [Regarding any alleged “whipping” incidents, such whipping was the common punishment for attempted escape by slaves. If one thinks about it, and remembering the era we are talking about, and acknowledging that it’s a terrible thing to acknowledge, a slave owner has almost no choice but[ to whip a slave who attempts to escape. This is because: (i) escaping is the most serious offense a slave can commit in times of slavery; and (ii) the slaveowner has to make it clear to the other slaves that escape attempts will not be tolerated. Otherwise all of the slaves would constantly be trying to escape][The opinion here is that given the passage of time, and more modern experiences, Lee, who believed in basic fairness and decency would have easily adapted into an integrated society with all races having equal rights.]