Superb stream, a marathon effort, many thanks Apostolic Majesty and Charlemagne. The recent destruction of Lee’s statue is exactly what our enemies wish for us.
One could easily gather that the sheer vitality of his imagery has been solely perpetuated by the admiration that many illustrious Harvard alumni (Boston Brahmins) have had for him. He was after all known among them as the Saint of the South. I recall a passage in 'Stars in Their Courses' by S. Foote, where one woman remembers gen. Lee by the following:"We had been honored by more than royalty.".
@natethegreat1999 as I understand it, the decision was taken while the war was going on. The guy who picked was a union general who had lost his son in the war. This wasn't melting his legacy. This was saying "Fxck you!" to a living active enemy...
@@davidstanford9933 So, do you know about the attack of fort sumter? He almost never lived there, in fact he didnt really "owned" it. He even wrote, that he hated the place. I also dont care about a slaveowner losing property, "his" slaves getting freed (upholding his father in laws promise) by far outweighs that. He could have avoided all of that (exept the slaves being freed) by not commiting treason btw. He knew that the estate would be occupied almost immedeatly in a war, but still chose the evil side and to fight against most of his family.
Being born in california with no ties to the south, Lee was a footnote to me growing up. I'm glad to have a resource like this to learn more about him.
This is a great episode on Robert e Lee and his life. I am a native Florida and my ancestors have been there since 1765. My ancestors were before the American revolution were in East Florida and of course we were there when the war between the states happened. Even though a lot of my ancestors did not have slaves. It was unthinkable. If the Confederate States actually won we would have gradual emancipation over the 5 year periods 1870 1875 1880 1885 189 and 1895. Obviously the former slaves and people who were not technically slaves of course we were together working and living all the way up to the present. In fact when I went to senior high school at the end of the 1970s we both talked and laughed about how the Hartley's had some slaves and yet we are together today because both black and white were together from 1861 until the present. I tried to have a comment sooner but my injuries and my disease prevented me from being able to do it earlier. This "presentation" is at best, wrong, and sometimes is malevolent and its purpose is to sell the newspapers so to speak. Until the last 10 years in the US Robert e Lee was hailed as a great General and a great statesmanship. In the last 10 years for for a euphemism they are neo-marxist for all intensive purposes. I was born in 1961 and Robert e Lee was one of my greatest heroes and will always be one of my greatest heroes. As far as the United States of America and the Confederate States of America were both neutral in the sense that there was not bad or good and one was more virtuous than the other. The only really malevolent actor in my estimation is Abraham Lincoln. Today you will see Lincoln's legacy with the new neo-marxist in federal and many of the state governments.
Thank you for this marvelous stream. Holding only a superficial understanding of the Civil War, I found this contrasted in the extreme with my previously held views on Lee. Outstanding.
The Left-Liberal model focuses on making each foe defeated in service to the cause of global equalitarianism out as a sort of demonic, yet incompetent force whose specter is ever present and must be constantly opposed with vigorous policing of thought. Lee is one of these figures to them, hence the essentially magical ritualism they partook in when destroying the statue.
Excellent stream. As an Englishman, my knowledge of the war between the states is meagre, but I know that the narrative around it, like all others, is a complete lie. I'm going to download this for a second listen at some point.
One thing that is passed over is how Lee was able to get a favorable surrender from the Union on his word from Grant's word. He was great in war and in peace. No wonder why he was seen as a demi-god among Southerners for the next century or more.
What a fascinating stream. I had two (known) ancestors that fought in the Civil War for the Confederacy. The one who served with the Army of Northern Virginia never came home. I hope the modern left reaps what it sows with the destruction of statues of men who are far better than they ever will be.
Great Stream! On Sharpsburg/Antietam y’all called it a confederate victory, but I would consider it a tactical Draw with an overall Union Strategic victory.
A.P. Hill won the day with that final charge! But I’m inclined to agree with you. Neither army really won, and neither were routed. But a major strategic loss for the South.
54:46 - describing Lee's personal qualities reminds me of Mrs Chesnut's description of him in the PBS film. She sees him basically as the reincarnation of King Arthur!
My family has been in the Deep South since the 1600s and I’m named after an Ancestor that shot and killed General Sedgwick. We are not allowed to know about our history especially that of the civil war unless it’s from the propagandistic perspective of US education and Lincoln worshipers. I’m under no delusion that the confederacy was that much different than the US government but to understand the civil war is to understand where we truly went wrong as a country and killed the idea of states rights.
Lol what are you on about? The Lost Cause is still taught in tons of southern schools. Even in Maryland I had a middle school teacher repeat the “states’ rights” bollocks about the Southern cause. The fact that nearly half of Americans (including you) still believe in the Southern propagandistic view of the war being about “states’ rights” (to do what?) puts to bed the idea that the narrative has been dominated by “yankee Lincolnites.”
@@Zarastro54 Maryland makes sense considering Maryland was hit harder than most by Lincoln’s authoritarianism. I grew up where the war started and it is nothing but condemnation for the south especially the confederacy and slavery as a main cause. I didn’t start changing my mind until I read Thomas J. Delorenzo. A man from New York and a forward writen by Walter Williams.
@@BalrogUdun Lol of course you’d bring up a hack like DiLorenzo. There’s hardly anything Lincoln did that ol’ Jeff Davis didn’t do himself considering there was a *war* going on. Hey, instead of modern day revisionists, why don’t you read some of the contemporary writings of secessionists at the time? Who better to understand their motivations than the men doing it themselves? Perhaps start with the declarations of causes of secession issued by the earliest states to do so (surely the documents specifically intended to state their causes would state their motivations?) and then some of the writings, letters, and speeches from the secession commissioners whose job it was specifically to garner support for secession? I’ll take primary sources directly from the horse’s mouth over secondary ones from a badly motivated modern author and self-avowed revisionist any day of the week.
Wonderful discussion. Thank you for raising it above the usual ad hominem attacks and name calling propagandists on either side. I frequently recommend a book by Charles Adams, “In the Course of Human Events”. It is an argument by a northern historian in support of the right of the Southern States to secede from the Union. Also, Thomas DiLorenzo has some well written works which balance the mythology surrounding Abraham Lincoln. Thanks once again for your channel.
Glad to see thucydides the historian getting a shout out! He and his American History co host are shit libs, but he has done an amazing amount of work in talking about ancient and byzantine history
I don’t know how to really feel about Lee. On his own, he seems a perfectly good person, virtuous and with character flaws that are quite typical of the period, like racism, so I don’t really feel the need to saddle him with that particular flaw above others in the period. The problem lies in where venerating Lee turns into venerating the Confederacy, where is that line and possibly, is there a line? Because, despite Lee’s potential/personal ideals, practically what he was fighting for was the preservation of slavery in the South. You simply cannot get past that fact, a German soldier or an Axis aligned soldier during the 40s may have had his own ideals, his own goals, but who are his masters? What’s he realistically, practically fighting for? Slavery is an evil, its an evil societally, its an evil morally, its an evil politically and its simply bad for an economy. It’s especially messed up when slavery is inherently tied to an arbitrary factor at birth, that you are born a slave and you will remain a slave unless you’re lucky. I find it funny how some on the left will effectively imply that the South’s ‘wealth’, was due to slavery and as such slavery was an economic boon, which its simply not but explains why Communist and Socialist regimes love their slaves. There is a very good reason why slavery was dropped for feudalism. There is no defence of slavery in my mind aside from the fact it was the horse they were currently saddled with, a horse that’d become increasingly attached to the Southern identity, which they were frankly increasingly refusing to let go and I can see no other fate for the confederacy other than to become a pariah state if it’d somehow managed to survive. So in my mind, you have to be very careful with a figure like Lee, imo you have to say that, in spite of his allegiances, personally he was a virtuous, humble man, to be admired for his virtues not for his choice of master.
We ´ve got the same problems in France. Statues of the Napoléon generals are removed by obscurs groups linked to all theses lgbtq etc movements, erasing our history, us true french. I call them revisionist without any amalgams. Funny the pictures of Charlemagne on your desk, I am linked by blood with the Carolingians. In France too bloodlines run deep hé hé. Cheers from France and thanks for your stream on this great man,general, husband and father. An absolute example of virtue in my opinion.
Another great pick, going to enjoy this! New to the channel but I'll hazard one guess at why you like Lee - there's a romantic epic quality about him, in fact he's quite Tolkien. Just a thought.
As always, everyone should support AM by subscribing to his channel, liking his videos, and comments. Also come and continue the conversation at the AM FanClub Discord: discord.gg/mrWnFBtu
Okay, so I meant I will digest this twelve days later. In summary, the rabid iconoclasm that has led to statue destruction and melting has literally and truthfully led to someone like myself - born and raised wayyy outside of Virginia - being more fond of General Lee than I otherwise would have. As Charlemagne said - destroying these statues means nothing when doing so brings an otherwise “outsider” to learn and respect who Lee was. Great stream, guys.
The man may have had the forgiving tendencies of a saint, but I think even He'd balk at how some people are acting like erasing any memory of his is the same as exorcising a demon and going into wild celebrations while doing so.
Lee was actually against memorializing and deifying himself or the Confederacy, as he (correctly) surmised that it would undermine reconciliation. In that vein, he’d probably be fine with the removal of statues he didn’t even want and his legacy remaining (NOT being erased) where it belongs, in history books.
@@brianboru2762 He wasn’t erased from history. A statue of him was removed from a public space. The entire argument around the removal is to relegate him to the history books and battlefield parks where he belongs.
@@Zarastro54his statue was litterally melted down. He is reviled as an evil man everywhere in normie land. He obviously would never have wanted this demonization is the south. To say any man of this period would like our society now is absurd.
@@Edwin-walkercringe7 Yeah, it was melted down because there is nowhere to put it and, as per Lee’s own wishes, shouldn’t have gone up in the first place. Guess what? He’s still in history books. He’s still in biographies and encyclopedias. Heck, he’s still got tons of statues on the battlefields where he belongs. No history is being erased in any meaningful way. I also don’t much care for the perceived opinion of someone 160 years ago on the modern day, who thought slavery was “necessary for the correction” of black people, and neither should you. Why should you care what people centuries ago would think of current society?
Dont understand 'Longstreet's insubordination' - The terrain on Lee's right flank in Ghettysburg day 3 was extremely difficult , but Longstreet ordered the attack even though he saw at best a meager chance of success... He also launches Picket's Charge - against all odds in the center - again no insubordination... Longstreet followed orders, two times followed with huge losses, against his better judgement - insubordination?
Longstreet was not as pro-active and he did not try to cut off the Union internal lines past the roundtops. Perhaps you could call it hindsight but the Union blundered by leaving their lines exposed as their cavalry was chasing Confederate cavalry which ironically drew the Union cav into a worse position by themselves getting lost and thus causing the Union cavalry to get lost. Had Jackson lived it is very likely his aggressive disposition would have lead to him discovering the exposed flank and then cutting into the Union position from the open fields behind the roundtops.
@@joepetto9488the entire battle of Gettysburg was unnecessary past the first day, and Longstreet was correct when he asserted that it was possible to steal a march around the roundtops and position the army of northern Virginia between the Union army and DC. Lee also had the opportunity to take DC after first Bull Run.
@@slimdiddyd Longstreet was not right that Lee could steal a march around the Union Forces at Gettysburg. Lee also wasn't in command of the Army at First Bull Run (he was in Western Virginia).
Bullshit about the slavery convo. This is pretty good but the whole denying of slavery intent undercuts the podcast. I think most historians know that?
I’m curious as to what Charlemagne bases his assertion that the “moderate” gradual emancipation model was the majority opinion in the South when Lincoln was demonized in the South despite holding that very opinion? Evidence would rather suggest that Lee’s position was in the outspoken _minority_ among his peers, and Charlemagne’s own “presentism” of not wanting his ancestors to be guilty of supporting a barbaric institution that is rightfully condemned nowadays has colored his interpretation of the realities of Southern opinion at the time. Likewise, this mindset has caused gaps in his as well as your characterization of the role of slavery in the South. Whether you intended to or not, you _did_ wind up downplaying its importance. You focused on the economic, but missed out on the social and moral aspects of slavery, which were equally as important in explaining the white Southern mindset. Noting that most Southerners were poor non-slave owning farmers paints an incomplete picture of the society. While "only" 1/3 of Southern households owned slaves [as per the 1860 census], non-owners _did_ benefit from the slave driven economy. The "poor farmers" often bought and sold goods from slave-owning businesses, traveled on roads built largely by slaves. Likewise, those who did not outright own slaves often rented them from those who did, and it was the aspiration of poor Southerners to one day own slaves just like nowadays where it's the goal of poor people to one day own a car or house. Slavery was part and parcel to the "civil society" that secessionists were trying to "protect." It was viewed as a _moral_ good and necessity that blacks were subjugated under white; similar to what Lee said, it was viewed as their "divinely ordained" place to be enslaved. Likewise, the idea of emancipation in _any_ capacity brought with it fears of job competition between free blacks and poor whites and miscegenation (black men "breeding" with white women). We know this through various letters, newspapers, and speeches from the time expressing these sentiments. These were very real concerns that served as a motivating factor at _ALL_ levels of white Southern society to defend slavery. After all, it wasn't rich planters who flooded Kansas to commit violence in the name of making it another slave state. The only "states' rights" nominally threatened by the election of Lincoln (but not even that) was the "right" to preserve slavery. Any other issues posited by revisionists come downstream of that central issue of slavery.
The farms of the Midwest had no slaves. If anything, the fact that midwestern food farms were successful and sustainable _without_ slave labor made the southern reliance on slave based cash crops even more abhorrent to them.
@@Zarastro54 This presumes that slavery is the lynchpin issue, which it was not. Rather it was about States rights, economics, culture and trade, all which the South and the Midwest were far more in alignment than with New England. The PR failure is allowing the Yankees to make slavery THE issue, but that didn't happen until after the war was well on its way.
@@robertmacdonaldch5105 You literally described WHY slavery was the lynchpin issue. “States’ rights” to do what? Around what did the Southern economy, trade, and culture focus? Slavery is the primary common denominator linking all of those issues. They are all inextricably linked to slavery. The secessionists at the time made very clear that slavery *WAS* indeed their primary concern. Sorry to burst your bubble.
@@Zarastro54 the right to govern their states and economies, and trade with whom they saw fit. This did not hinge on slavery, but on agruculture, which is the actual common denominator. Slave owners made up a tiny fraction of the South and of that fraction, and even smaller fraction were dependent on slave labor. Whereas nearly all the South did depend on farming. If it was all about slavery, why did the South have international support from nations who had already ended their use of slaves? like Britian
watched 2 hours of it but i'm truly sorry to say that Charlemagne is the wrong man for this job. I will not insult the channel's guests any further, but i cannot stand his commentary. apologies for the negativity. Wish all the best to you AM
yeah, he lost me when he mentioned the "paternal" nature of slavery. That in of itself is disgusting. Guess it was "paternal" to sell even the offspring they shired by r**e with their slave women. Lee also refused to accept black union soldiers as POWS and respect them as such.
These are all great videos but the music at the beginning is so loud that no one can put these on their sleep playlists. If you want repeat views, remove or significantly reduce the music at the beginning and end.
So the South's secession was sheer hubris? It was in their interests to accept the crippling Morel tariff? They had no interest in doing anything about the growing lack of representation in electoral affairs? By what means could they have stopped the North from swallowing the new states' economies without the continuity of slavery? From a black Northerner, your takes on secession are spineless and uninformed.
Statues in public areas are not representations of history, they signify what a society values and they encourage certain beliefs and narratives. The reason the south rose all these statues wasn't because Lee was a great noble man, it was because of romance for the war he was famous for. A necessary cause of that was was the south's secession done primarily as a rejection of losing a presidential election and to protect the institution of slavery that kept almost an entire race of people living in the south as slaves. The secession was anti-democracy, anti-freedom, racist, and traitorous. Such evil actions, which fairly or not Lee's statues represent and glorify, have no place in most public places. They would be great in a truly historical setting like a museum or a historical statue garden. I support removing such statues legally, not mob destruction.
"modern sensitivities" Unless one is a moral relativist, we can definitely judge historical actors morally. But we should simply have sympathy for how they would reach their wrong moral conclusions.
LC, I'm not sure if you are referring to---- judging Gen Lee or just historical actors in general. The US Civil War pitted the individual states right to secede versus the Union's right to hold on to them and re-conquer them if need be. This was an academic question up until 1861...Even some northern states had - at one time or another- threatened to secede prior to that time. If you are condemning Lee, I don't see why. He answered the secession question the same as most people from his region answered it. Unless there is something intrinsically evil in favoring local governments over the centralized federal bureaucracy then this was a civics question and NOT a moral question.
@@kneelingcatholic I was saying in general. It’s misleading to say “The US Civil War pitted the individual states right to secede versus the Union's right to hold on to them and re-conquer them if need be.” and leave it at that. Sure, this is true, but it was about much more than that. Why the south seceded matters. I am not condemning Lee, because I was speaking generally, but I don’t agree with what you said about his decision. Lee’s decision to fight for Virginia, and effectively the Confederacy, WAS a moral decision. Whether the south should have the right to secede by itself has moral elements, but so does why the south would risk war to secede. The south seceded primarily to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they told us at the time that was why they were seceding. That’s extremely anti-freedom and anti-human dignity to think slavery was okay in the first place, so those are negative moral marks right there. U.S. slavery was justified on the belief that blacks were inferior, so based on racism. The south seceded because they lost a presidential election and were afraid the new president would take away their slaves. That’s not how democracy works; you don’t just get to leave when you lose an election, so that is anti-democratic. Finally, by seceding they were in open rebellion against the United States of America, meaning, they were traitors. This isn’t just an ahistorical lookback, they knew they were rebelling. They accepted certain authority of the U.S. and then rejected it, rejected it with the threat of force to defend their new authority. They took over federal facilities. Lee agrees with me on this point. A few months before the Civil War he said, “Secession is nothing but revolution” and implied that it would be “treason”. The way he used revolution seems like how we would normally say rebellion. Lee also seems to be implying that secession itself is resorting to force: “I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force.” A larger quote: “The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?” ~ Lee leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/rachal/index.html The south didn’t simply secede on the principle of states rights. They weren’t thinking that we must stand up for states rights for the principle of states rights in and of itself. They weren’t inspired by the value of states rights. They wanted to maintain the institution of slavery. That is why the south risked war. That is why they seceded. Lee knew that. Lee knew that the south didn’t like the outcome of a presidential election, didn’t want Lincoln to take their slaves away, justified slavery based on racism, and were rebelling against the United States by non-Constitutional means. Despite knowing this, he chose loyalty to his beloved Virginia above all else. That is not simply a civics question, but a deeply moral choice. I don’t condemn Lee for his choice. I think we can clearly say that it was the morally wrong choice, but also understand him in his time and his culture and have sympathy with why he made that decision. And understand that he was in many ways a good man despite certain mistakes and blind spots. “He answered the secession question the same as most people from his region answered it.” Most people answering a question a certain way doesn’t make it moral or not a moral question. Most Nazi guards went ahead and slaughtered Jews. Therefore, any Nazi guard did nothing morally wrong by following orders and doing what all the other guards did. Of course this is nonsense. I’m sympathetic toward the guard who was pumped full of Nazi propaganda, lived in a time when antisemitism was rampant, who likely would be punished if he didn’t follow orders, and who saw everyone else doing the same thing, but pulling that lever to gas the Jews was still wrong. It doesn’t matter how many other people made the same decision.
you can't judge anything, 'cause you approach everything from a pre-set third hand faux moral framework to bolster your ego and consequently know nothing.
@@kneelingcatholic I was saying in general. It’s misleading to say “The US Civil War pitted the individual states right to secede versus the Union's right to hold on to them and re-conquer them if need be.” and leave it at that. Sure, this is true, but it was about much more than that. Why the south seceded matters. I am not condemning Lee, because I was speaking generally, but I don’t agree with what you said about his decision. Lee’s decision to fight for Virginia, and effectively the Confederacy, WAS a moral decision. Whether the south should have the right to secede by itself has moral elements, but so does why the south would risk war to secede. The south seceded primarily to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they told us at the time that was why they were seceding. That’s extremely anti-freedom and anti-human dignity to think slavery was okay in the first place, so those are negative moral marks right there. U.S. slavery was justified on the belief that blacks were inferior, so based on racism. The south seceded because they lost a presidential election and were afraid the new president would take away their slaves. That’s not how democracy works; you don’t just get to leave when you lose an election, so that is anti-democratic. Finally, by seceding they were in open rebellion against the United States of America, meaning, they were traitors. This isn’t just an ahistorical lookback, they knew they were rebelling. They accepted certain authority of the U.S. and then rejected it, rejected it with the threat of force to defend their new authority. They took over federal facilities. Lee agrees with me on this point. A few months before the Civil War he said, “Secession is nothing but revolution” and implied that it would be “treason”. The way he used revolution seems like how we would normally say rebellion. Lee also seems to be implying that secession itself is resorting to force: “I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force.” A larger quote: “The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?” ~ Lee leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/rachal/index.html The south didn’t simply secede on the principle of states rights. They weren’t thinking that we must stand up for states rights for the principle of states rights in and of itself. They weren’t inspired by the value of states rights. They wanted to maintain the institution of slavery. That is why the south risked war. That is why they seceded. Lee knew that. Lee knew that the south didn’t like the outcome of a presidential election, didn’t want Lincoln to take their slaves away, justified slavery based on racism, and were rebelling against the United States by non-Constitutional means. Despite knowing this, he chose loyalty to his beloved Virginia above all else. That is not simply a civics question, but a deeply moral choice. I don’t condemn Lee for his choice. I think we can clearly say that it was the morally wrong choice, but also understand him in his time and his culture and have sympathy with why he made that decision. And understand that he was in many ways a good man despite certain mistakes and blind spots. “He answered the secession question the same as most people from his region answered it.” Most people answering a question a certain way doesn’t make it moral or not a moral question. Most Nazi guards went ahead and slaughtered Jews. Therefore, any Nazi guard did nothing morally wrong by following orders and doing what all the other guards did. Of course this is nonsense. I’m sympathetic toward the guard who was pumped full of Nazi propaganda, lived in a time when antisemitism was rampant, who likely would be punished if he didn’t follow orders, and who saw everyone else doing the same thing, but pulling that lever to gas the Jews was still wrong. It doesn’t matter how many other people made the same decision.
Slavery was paternalistic and "not bad". Charlemagne, of course according to slavers. That's a wack take from the "lost cause" revisionist staple. I grew up in the South. MOST slave interviews stressed how terrible it was, otherwise they wouldn't of had so many run away. Can't believe no one checked you on that. Gross
guess I didn't "add" anything cause I don't worship and saw him for what he was lol. Confederate loving southerners are the biggest sore losers of history. The painting of the antebellum south as innocent or praiseworthy is disgusting. He didn't even recognize black union soldiers as being worthy of being POWS. Which makes him a war criminal. Glad they turned his home into Arlington national cemetery. @@findmeacrosstheroom
@@zaki2dunya321 I didn't get the impression the speaker thought chattel slavery in the South was "not bad". Nor did I hear any "worshiping" of Lee. Additionally, both speakers condemned the state secessions.
@@connorcreeganHe literally said that slavery wasn’t “horrendous conditions” with “constant mistreatment” of the slaves. In typical Lost Cause fashion, he is experiencing the cognitive dissonance of realizing that slavery is bad, but needing to make it sound not as bad as it was so that his ancestors don’t look monstrous.
@@Zarastro54 Is that equivalent saying slavery was "not bad"? I dunno, when taken as a whole, their statements seem to me like an attempt to understand a complex phenomenon. My guess is that you probably had a different high school history experience than most of the listeners here, who were probably exclusively fed Northern propaganda and that you are interpreting what is going on here as the simple regurgitation of the Southern propaganda you were exposed to. I have the impression that the same is the case for OP. That's understandable I suppose.
I fear the hosts may be cherry-picking the beliefs of certain southerners to conclude that the south in general saw slavery as temporary and that their goal was to gradually end slavery and set the blacks free.
@@greg_4201 The whole podcast is irrelevant in a sense. But, my comment is relevant to the podcast. I fear they are making a mistake in some of their claims about history, despite overall having a very informative and good podcast. If the south wasn't going to gradually end slavery, then slavery could have existed a very very long time without the Civil War.
@@greg_4201 Slavery is an important part of U.S. and world history. I'm not sure why you're saying it's irrelevant. It was also the reason the south seceded and why Lee had to join what he saw as a revolution to defend and remain loyal to his beloved Virginia.
@@lonecandle5786 sorry, but I draw the line at discussing anything serious with an alleged adult that thinks the US Civil War was about slavery... that's too far beyond the pale to be salvageable without writing essays. I've left a couple of other comments if you want to at least be pointed in the right direction. I won't reply here again.
people who aggressively attack slavery and daemonise slave holders are objectively amoral, and exactly the type of people who would be ardently defending it were it legal and institutionalised. reason being they are simply attaching themselves to what they view as a popular trend that is sold as being 'moral' so as to appear virtuous by association. it's impossible to genuinely know a lot of history, i.e the development of civilization as we know it, and be decidedly 'anti' slavery... it's not really a moral issue, but a practical one. I lose respect for people who lack the balls, and the basic masculine social responsibility, to just say they couldn't care less one way or the other about slavery and speak about it factually and objectively.
It should also be noted that Lee’s Gettysburg campaign was only “kind” in regards to the white northern population. Lee’s army kidnapped and enslaved over 1000 free Northern black people and there are many accounts from Pennsylvanians witnessing their black neighbors being terrorized and dragged away into bondage. In that vein, Lee did engage in some “foraging” that was far worse than anything Sherman ever did, and likewise made clear the _true_ ultimate intent behind the Confederacy to preserve and uphold slavery. Thusly, your romantic idea that Lee stood for the “protection of personal property” must have an asterisk beside it, because it was only a _certain type_ of people he cared to respect the rights of.
Of course merely describing a society with slavery is to run cover for it - just so long as you ignore the entire historical context. I note that no one ever accuses me of apologia when I cover the Ottomans or the Romans (slave empires of much greater scale) - and I know why. I can't imagine you would consider Roman and Ottoman civil society as imaginary in the same breath. History becomes incomprehensible when one's perspective is so blinkered, when one is solely informed by modern political discourse.
@@ApostolicMajesty the ramifications of slavery in the Ottoman Empire are not lingering. Us Americans are still struggling to fully humanize people from Africa. This context you ignore. Your source material has been rejected by American historians as deeply flawed, racist rewriting of history to justify an immoral labor system. Do better.
@@craigscott6196 Let me make this abundantly clear. The ramifications of slavery in the Ottoman Empire led to deaths of millions of Christians, and the dispossession of many ethnic diasporas. Christians in the middle east are now facing extinction. Slavery in the former provinces of the empire EXISTS TODAY! The Ottomans perpetrated the enslavement of Africans before the arrival of slaves in North America. How dare you accuse you me of ignoring context when you are fixated on American exceptionalism to the point of chauvinism.
Have you watched the video? Its not mythmaking to analyse a person beyoned the 1 moment in history they come up and then judge them on what side they fall. Simply digging deeper into R.E. Lee the man isnt protecting the goverment he came to fight for. The video even shows how he dint srive woth that goverment in his own way. It reminds me of the line "its easy to be a saint in paradise" So let me rewrite that. Its easy to be cast as a devil when serving in hell.
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
Superb stream, a marathon effort, many thanks Apostolic Majesty and Charlemagne. The recent destruction of Lee’s statue is exactly what our enemies wish for us.
One could easily gather that the sheer vitality of his imagery has been solely perpetuated by the admiration that many illustrious Harvard alumni (Boston Brahmins) have had for him. He was after all known among them as the Saint of the South.
I recall a passage in 'Stars in Their Courses' by S. Foote, where one woman remembers gen. Lee by the following:"We had been honored by more than royalty.".
You cannot melt down the glory of Lee
Sure you can, the land around his old house honors the dead men that he fought so hard to oppress.
no it doesn't. It honors the men who fought on both sides@@natethegreat1999
@natethegreat1999 as I understand it, the decision was taken while the war was going on. The guy who picked was a union general who had lost his son in the war.
This wasn't melting his legacy. This was saying "Fxck you!" to a living active enemy...
@@natethegreat1999 actually honors dead people who invaded his homeland and stole his home. Real righteous cause you got there
@@davidstanford9933 So, do you know about the attack of fort sumter? He almost never lived there, in fact he didnt really "owned" it. He even wrote, that he hated the place. I also dont care about a slaveowner losing property, "his" slaves getting freed (upholding his father in laws promise) by far outweighs that. He could have avoided all of that (exept the slaves being freed) by not commiting treason btw. He knew that the estate would be occupied almost immedeatly in a war, but still chose the evil side and to fight against most of his family.
Being born in california with no ties to the south, Lee was a footnote to me growing up. I'm glad to have a resource like this to learn more about him.
This is a great episode on Robert e Lee and his life. I am a native Florida and my ancestors have been there since 1765. My ancestors were before the American revolution were in East Florida and of course we were there when the war between the states happened. Even though a lot of my ancestors did not have slaves. It was unthinkable. If the Confederate States actually won we would have gradual emancipation over the 5 year periods 1870 1875 1880 1885 189 and 1895. Obviously the former slaves and people who were not technically slaves of course we were together working and living all the way up to the present. In fact when I went to senior high school at the end of the 1970s we both talked and laughed about how the Hartley's had some slaves and yet we are together today because both black and white were together from 1861 until the present. I tried to have a comment sooner but my injuries and my disease prevented me from being able to do it earlier. This "presentation" is
at best, wrong, and sometimes is malevolent and its purpose is to sell the newspapers so to speak. Until the last 10 years in the US Robert e Lee was hailed as a great General and a great statesmanship. In the last 10 years for for a euphemism they are neo-marxist for all intensive purposes. I was born in 1961 and Robert e Lee was one of my greatest heroes and will always be one of my greatest heroes. As far as the United States of America and the Confederate States of America were both neutral in the sense that there was not bad or good and one was more virtuous than the other. The only really malevolent actor in my estimation is Abraham Lincoln. Today you will see Lincoln's legacy with the new neo-marxist in federal and many of the state governments.
Looking forward to listening to this! Robert E. Lee was a great man.
Anything about Robert E Lee will always get my attention.
Absolutely incredible stream. Lee was a man for the ages that we should all emulate. Thank you AM and Charlemagne
Thank you for this marvelous stream. Holding only a superficial understanding of the Civil War, I found this contrasted in the extreme with my previously held views on Lee. Outstanding.
The Left-Liberal model focuses on making each foe defeated in service to the cause of global equalitarianism out as a sort of demonic, yet incompetent force whose specter is ever present and must be constantly opposed with vigorous policing of thought. Lee is one of these figures to them, hence the essentially magical ritualism they partook in when destroying the statue.
Such a great stream. Thank you both for this incredible show.
Fantastic stream.
They can destroy the material but not the spirit.
Excellent stream. As an Englishman, my knowledge of the war between the states is meagre, but I know that the narrative around it, like all others, is a complete lie. I'm going to download this for a second listen at some point.
How is the entire narrative of the war a complete lie?
In Gio's voice: "FIVE HOURS?"
I like to think AM has yet to reach his true form.
One thing that is passed over is how Lee was able to get a favorable surrender from the Union on his word from Grant's word. He was great in war and in peace. No wonder why he was seen as a demi-god among Southerners for the next century or more.
AM and Charlemagne is a dream team. Very nice stuff.
Thank you both so much for this! I'd like to get ahold of a copy of the biography you've mentioned for my son to read when he is older.
What a fascinating stream. I had two (known) ancestors that fought in the Civil War for the Confederacy. The one who served with the Army of Northern Virginia never came home. I hope the modern left reaps what it sows with the destruction of statues of men who are far better than they ever will be.
This was thoroughly enjoyable thank you very much!!
Great Stream! On Sharpsburg/Antietam y’all called it a confederate victory, but I would consider it a tactical Draw with an overall Union Strategic victory.
A.P. Hill won the day with that final charge! But I’m inclined to agree with you. Neither army really won, and neither were routed. But a major strategic loss for the South.
54:46 - describing Lee's personal qualities reminds me of Mrs Chesnut's description of him in the PBS film. She sees him basically as the reincarnation of King Arthur!
My family has been in the Deep South since the 1600s and I’m named after an Ancestor that shot and killed General Sedgwick. We are not allowed to know about our history especially that of the civil war unless it’s from the propagandistic perspective of US education and Lincoln worshipers. I’m under no delusion that the confederacy was that much different than the US government but to understand the civil war is to understand where we truly went wrong as a country and killed the idea of states rights.
Deo Vindice friend. Your ancestor made one helluva shot.
Lol what are you on about? The Lost Cause is still taught in tons of southern schools. Even in Maryland I had a middle school teacher repeat the “states’ rights” bollocks about the Southern cause. The fact that nearly half of Americans (including you) still believe in the Southern propagandistic view of the war being about “states’ rights” (to do what?) puts to bed the idea that the narrative has been dominated by “yankee Lincolnites.”
He hit an elephant at that distance.
@@Zarastro54 Maryland makes sense considering Maryland was hit harder than most by Lincoln’s authoritarianism. I grew up where the war started and it is nothing but condemnation for the south especially the confederacy and slavery as a main cause. I didn’t start changing my mind until I read Thomas J. Delorenzo. A man from New York and a forward writen by Walter Williams.
@@BalrogUdun Lol of course you’d bring up a hack like DiLorenzo. There’s hardly anything Lincoln did that ol’ Jeff Davis didn’t do himself considering there was a *war* going on. Hey, instead of modern day revisionists, why don’t you read some of the contemporary writings of secessionists at the time? Who better to understand their motivations than the men doing it themselves? Perhaps start with the declarations of causes of secession issued by the earliest states to do so (surely the documents specifically intended to state their causes would state their motivations?) and then some of the writings, letters, and speeches from the secession commissioners whose job it was specifically to garner support for secession? I’ll take primary sources directly from the horse’s mouth over secondary ones from a badly motivated modern author and self-avowed revisionist any day of the week.
I rarely comment, but thank you for this livestream
-A kind southerner
This was one for the ages.
Outstanding. Cheers from VA.
Fantastic stream and guest!
The encyclopedia brittanica of youtube, brilliant thanks
Enjoyed every minute. Terrific man, terrific stream, terrific hosts.
I hope you guys do a discussion on Sherman's march to the sea and then to meet up with Grant.
Excellent discussion.
Wonderful discussion. Thank you for raising it above the usual ad hominem attacks and name calling propagandists on either side. I frequently
recommend a book by Charles Adams, “In the Course of Human Events”. It is an argument by a northern historian in support of the right of the Southern States to secede from the Union. Also, Thomas DiLorenzo has some well written works which balance the mythology surrounding Abraham Lincoln. Thanks once again for your channel.
Another great stream.
Light horse Larry 😅
Glad to see thucydides the historian getting a shout out! He and his American History co host are shit libs, but he has done an amazing amount of work in talking about ancient and byzantine history
great stream
Mississipi had the highest per capita income in the US guys. The south was rich.
Yea one tends to be rich when you have slavery. The UK paid reparations not to the slaves but to the slave owners to free their slaves. 😵💫💀
@@trvst5938 Having cotton makes you rich not just having slavery. Plenty of other places had slavery that weren't so rich.
After they were bailed out by the Rothschilds
Great stream chaps, cheers.
I don’t know how to really feel about Lee. On his own, he seems a perfectly good person, virtuous and with character flaws that are quite typical of the period, like racism, so I don’t really feel the need to saddle him with that particular flaw above others in the period.
The problem lies in where venerating Lee turns into venerating the Confederacy, where is that line and possibly, is there a line? Because, despite Lee’s potential/personal ideals, practically what he was fighting for was the preservation of slavery in the South. You simply cannot get past that fact, a German soldier or an Axis aligned soldier during the 40s may have had his own ideals, his own goals, but who are his masters? What’s he realistically, practically fighting for?
Slavery is an evil, its an evil societally, its an evil morally, its an evil politically and its simply bad for an economy. It’s especially messed up when slavery is inherently tied to an arbitrary factor at birth, that you are born a slave and you will remain a slave unless you’re lucky. I find it funny how some on the left will effectively imply that the South’s ‘wealth’, was due to slavery and as such slavery was an economic boon, which its simply not but explains why Communist and Socialist regimes love their slaves. There is a very good reason why slavery was dropped for feudalism.
There is no defence of slavery in my mind aside from the fact it was the horse they were currently saddled with, a horse that’d become increasingly attached to the Southern identity, which they were frankly increasingly refusing to let go and I can see no other fate for the confederacy other than to become a pariah state if it’d somehow managed to survive.
So in my mind, you have to be very careful with a figure like Lee, imo you have to say that, in spite of his allegiances, personally he was a virtuous, humble man, to be admired for his virtues not for his choice of master.
We ´ve got the same problems in France. Statues of the Napoléon generals are removed by obscurs groups linked to all theses lgbtq etc movements, erasing our history, us true french. I call them revisionist without any amalgams.
Funny the pictures of Charlemagne on your desk, I am linked by blood with the Carolingians. In France too bloodlines run deep hé hé.
Cheers from France and thanks for your stream on this great man,general, husband and father. An absolute example of virtue in my opinion.
Thank you both for a phenomenal stream.
I came to a short realisation incapsulated in one sentence. "Its easy to cast a person serving in hell as a devil"
I hope in the future you two have a stream about General Sherman
Another great pick, going to enjoy this! New to the channel but I'll hazard one guess at why you like Lee - there's a romantic epic quality about him, in fact he's quite Tolkien. Just a thought.
Come on boys Robert E lee needs our help
Heroic effort. From this Virginian, thank you.
Another great stream. Keep up the great work. 👍 Peace ✌🏻
As always, everyone should support AM by subscribing to his channel, liking his videos, and comments. Also come and continue the conversation at the AM FanClub Discord:
discord.gg/mrWnFBtu
The capital was moved to Virginia to keep the Virginians on side It was the largest state in the confederacy.
Lee was an absolute Legend no doubt but in my humble opinion he was second to Stonewall Jackson. I recommmend the book "Rebel Yell"!
Wonderful. Great work
Hoping to digest this one in full during the weekend/early next week!
Okay, so I meant I will digest this twelve days later. In summary, the rabid iconoclasm that has led to statue destruction and melting has literally and truthfully led to someone like myself - born and raised wayyy outside of Virginia - being more fond of General Lee than I otherwise would have. As Charlemagne said - destroying these statues means nothing when doing so brings an otherwise “outsider” to learn and respect who Lee was. Great stream, guys.
you are just amazing.
The man may have had the forgiving tendencies of a saint, but I think even He'd balk at how some people are acting like erasing any memory of his is the same as exorcising a demon and going into wild celebrations while doing so.
Lee was actually against memorializing and deifying himself or the Confederacy, as he (correctly) surmised that it would undermine reconciliation. In that vein, he’d probably be fine with the removal of statues he didn’t even want and his legacy remaining (NOT being erased) where it belongs, in history books.
@@Zarastro54 Fair enough, but the ecstatic celebration of erasing him from history would give any man pause I think.
@@brianboru2762 He wasn’t erased from history. A statue of him was removed from a public space. The entire argument around the removal is to relegate him to the history books and battlefield parks where he belongs.
@@Zarastro54his statue was litterally melted down. He is reviled as an evil man everywhere in normie land.
He obviously would never have wanted this demonization is the south. To say any man of this period would like our society now is absurd.
@@Edwin-walkercringe7 Yeah, it was melted down because there is nowhere to put it and, as per Lee’s own wishes, shouldn’t have gone up in the first place. Guess what? He’s still in history books. He’s still in biographies and encyclopedias. Heck, he’s still got tons of statues on the battlefields where he belongs. No history is being erased in any meaningful way.
I also don’t much care for the perceived opinion of someone 160 years ago on the modern day, who thought slavery was “necessary for the correction” of black people, and neither should you. Why should you care what people centuries ago would think of current society?
Dont understand 'Longstreet's insubordination' -
The terrain on Lee's right flank in Ghettysburg day 3 was extremely difficult , but Longstreet ordered the attack even though he saw at best a meager chance of success...
He also launches Picket's Charge - against all odds in the center - again no insubordination...
Longstreet followed orders, two times followed with huge losses, against his better judgement - insubordination?
This is mostly in reference to his inaction on the first two days at Gettysburg.
Longstreet was not as pro-active and he did not try to cut off the Union internal lines past the roundtops. Perhaps you could call it hindsight but the Union blundered by leaving their lines exposed as their cavalry was chasing Confederate cavalry which ironically drew the Union cav into a worse position by themselves getting lost and thus causing the Union cavalry to get lost. Had Jackson lived it is very likely his aggressive disposition would have lead to him discovering the exposed flank and then cutting into the Union position from the open fields behind the roundtops.
@@joepetto9488the entire battle of Gettysburg was unnecessary past the first day, and Longstreet was correct when he asserted that it was possible to steal a march around the roundtops and position the army of northern Virginia between the Union army and DC. Lee also had the opportunity to take DC after first Bull Run.
@@slimdiddyd Longstreet was not right that Lee could steal a march around the Union Forces at Gettysburg. Lee also wasn't in command of the Army at First Bull Run (he was in Western Virginia).
@@ApostolicMajestyLongstreet delayed his attacks in contradiction to clear and understood orders to the contrary. Insubordination.
The long awaited AM American hostory stream
Lee offered battle at Antietam so if he was defeated there it would have been self inflicted
Bullshit about the slavery convo. This is pretty good but the whole denying of slavery intent undercuts the podcast. I think most historians know that?
I’m curious as to what Charlemagne bases his assertion that the “moderate” gradual emancipation model was the majority opinion in the South when Lincoln was demonized in the South despite holding that very opinion? Evidence would rather suggest that Lee’s position was in the outspoken _minority_ among his peers, and Charlemagne’s own “presentism” of not wanting his ancestors to be guilty of supporting a barbaric institution that is rightfully condemned nowadays has colored his interpretation of the realities of Southern opinion at the time.
Likewise, this mindset has caused gaps in his as well as your characterization of the role of slavery in the South. Whether you intended to or not, you _did_ wind up downplaying its importance. You focused on the economic, but missed out on the social and moral aspects of slavery, which were equally as important in explaining the white Southern mindset. Noting that most Southerners were poor non-slave owning farmers paints an incomplete picture of the society. While "only" 1/3 of Southern households owned slaves [as per the 1860 census], non-owners _did_ benefit from the slave driven economy. The "poor farmers" often bought and sold goods from slave-owning businesses, traveled on roads built largely by slaves. Likewise, those who did not outright own slaves often rented them from those who did, and it was the aspiration of poor Southerners to one day own slaves just like nowadays where it's the goal of poor people to one day own a car or house. Slavery was part and parcel to the "civil society" that secessionists were trying to "protect." It was viewed as a _moral_ good and necessity that blacks were subjugated under white; similar to what Lee said, it was viewed as their "divinely ordained" place to be enslaved. Likewise, the idea of emancipation in _any_ capacity brought with it fears of job competition between free blacks and poor whites and miscegenation (black men "breeding" with white women). We know this through various letters, newspapers, and speeches from the time expressing these sentiments. These were very real concerns that served as a motivating factor at _ALL_ levels of white Southern society to defend slavery. After all, it wasn't rich planters who flooded Kansas to commit violence in the name of making it another slave state. The only "states' rights" nominally threatened by the election of Lincoln (but not even that) was the "right" to preserve slavery. Any other issues posited by revisionists come downstream of that central issue of slavery.
One of the greatest mistakes of the South is their PR. They should have been able to win the primarily farm based economy of the Midwest on their side
The greatest mistake was not advancing after bull run.
The farms of the Midwest had no slaves. If anything, the fact that midwestern food farms were successful and sustainable _without_ slave labor made the southern reliance on slave based cash crops even more abhorrent to them.
@@Zarastro54 This presumes that slavery is the lynchpin issue, which it was not. Rather it was about States rights, economics, culture and trade, all which the South and the Midwest were far more in alignment than with New England. The PR failure is allowing the Yankees to make slavery THE issue, but that didn't happen until after the war was well on its way.
@@robertmacdonaldch5105 You literally described WHY slavery was the lynchpin issue. “States’ rights” to do what? Around what did the Southern economy, trade, and culture focus? Slavery is the primary common denominator linking all of those issues. They are all inextricably linked to slavery. The secessionists at the time made very clear that slavery *WAS* indeed their primary concern. Sorry to burst your bubble.
@@Zarastro54 the right to govern their states and economies, and trade with whom they saw fit. This did not hinge on slavery, but on agruculture, which is the actual common denominator. Slave owners made up a tiny fraction of the South and of that fraction, and even smaller fraction were dependent on slave labor. Whereas nearly all the South did depend on farming. If it was all about slavery, why did the South have international support from nations who had already ended their use of slaves? like Britian
The confederacy and Emperor Jefferson I have been vindicated by history.
One of the greatest Men, not just Americans, that ever lived. My 2nd favorite American after Lindbergh.
watched 2 hours of it but i'm truly sorry to say that Charlemagne is the wrong man for this job. I will not insult the channel's guests any further, but i cannot stand his commentary. apologies for the negativity. Wish all the best to you AM
yeah, he lost me when he mentioned the "paternal" nature of slavery. That in of itself is disgusting. Guess it was "paternal" to sell even the offspring they shired by r**e with their slave women. Lee also refused to accept black union soldiers as POWS and respect them as such.
The old false wictim/false witness shakedown. Lee was a great American.
Did you change the intro music?
Please don't stop talking. Hownam I going to fall asleep again?
The south had larger militias than the north guys. The idea that the confederate army was crap at the start of the war is not accurate.
What percentage of White men who fought for the South did not own slaves?
70-75% …it was mainly the political/rich people who owned slaves…they also didn’t fight
These are all great videos but the music at the beginning is so loud that no one can put these on their sleep playlists. If you want repeat views, remove or significantly reduce the music at the beginning and end.
Thanks
Was joe johnston any good?
@Robert_L_Peters Joe Johnston aka The Great Retreater
@@danielkitchens4512 Sherman thought he was alright
So the South's secession was sheer hubris? It was in their interests to accept the crippling Morel tariff? They had no interest in doing anything about the growing lack of representation in electoral affairs? By what means could they have stopped the North from swallowing the new states' economies without the continuity of slavery? From a black Northerner, your takes on secession are spineless and uninformed.
o/* hats off gents.
Tobago
why can't so many Americans say cavalry? 😆
Statues in public areas are not representations of history, they signify what a society values and they encourage certain beliefs and narratives. The reason the south rose all these statues wasn't because Lee was a great noble man, it was because of romance for the war he was famous for. A necessary cause of that was was the south's secession done primarily as a rejection of losing a presidential election and to protect the institution of slavery that kept almost an entire race of people living in the south as slaves. The secession was anti-democracy, anti-freedom, racist, and traitorous. Such evil actions, which fairly or not Lee's statues represent and glorify, have no place in most public places. They would be great in a truly historical setting like a museum or a historical statue garden. I support removing such statues legally, not mob destruction.
"modern sensitivities" Unless one is a moral relativist, we can definitely judge historical actors morally. But we should simply have sympathy for how they would reach their wrong moral conclusions.
LC,
I'm not sure if you are referring to---- judging Gen Lee or just historical actors in general.
The US Civil War pitted the individual states right to secede versus the Union's right to hold on to them and re-conquer them if need be. This was an academic question up until 1861...Even some northern states had - at one time or another- threatened to secede prior to that time.
If you are condemning Lee, I don't see why. He answered the secession question the same as most people from his region answered it. Unless there is something intrinsically evil in favoring local governments over the centralized federal bureaucracy then this was a civics question and NOT a moral question.
@@kneelingcatholic
I was saying in general.
It’s misleading to say “The US Civil War pitted the individual states right to secede versus the Union's right to hold on to them and re-conquer them if need be.” and leave it at that. Sure, this is true, but it was about much more than that. Why the south seceded matters.
I am not condemning Lee, because I was speaking generally, but I don’t agree with what you said about his decision.
Lee’s decision to fight for Virginia, and effectively the Confederacy, WAS a moral decision. Whether the south should have the right to secede by itself has moral elements, but so does why the south would risk war to secede. The south seceded primarily to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they told us at the time that was why they were seceding. That’s extremely anti-freedom and anti-human dignity to think slavery was okay in the first place, so those are negative moral marks right there. U.S. slavery was justified on the belief that blacks were inferior, so based on racism. The south seceded because they lost a presidential election and were afraid the new president would take away their slaves. That’s not how democracy works; you don’t just get to leave when you lose an election, so that is anti-democratic. Finally, by seceding they were in open rebellion against the United States of America, meaning, they were traitors. This isn’t just an ahistorical lookback, they knew they were rebelling. They accepted certain authority of the U.S. and then rejected it, rejected it with the threat of force to defend their new authority. They took over federal facilities. Lee agrees with me on this point. A few months before the Civil War he said, “Secession is nothing but revolution” and implied that it would be “treason”. The way he used revolution seems like how we would normally say rebellion. Lee also seems to be implying that secession itself is resorting to force: “I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force.”
A larger quote: “The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?” ~ Lee
leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/rachal/index.html
The south didn’t simply secede on the principle of states rights. They weren’t thinking that we must stand up for states rights for the principle of states rights in and of itself. They weren’t inspired by the value of states rights. They wanted to maintain the institution of slavery. That is why the south risked war. That is why they seceded. Lee knew that. Lee knew that the south didn’t like the outcome of a presidential election, didn’t want Lincoln to take their slaves away, justified slavery based on racism, and were rebelling against the United States by non-Constitutional means. Despite knowing this, he chose loyalty to his beloved Virginia above all else. That is not simply a civics question, but a deeply moral choice.
I don’t condemn Lee for his choice. I think we can clearly say that it was the morally wrong choice, but also understand him in his time and his culture and have sympathy with why he made that decision. And understand that he was in many ways a good man despite certain mistakes and blind spots.
“He answered the secession question the same as most people from his region answered it.” Most people answering a question a certain way doesn’t make it moral or not a moral question. Most Nazi guards went ahead and slaughtered Jews. Therefore, any Nazi guard did nothing morally wrong by following orders and doing what all the other guards did. Of course this is nonsense. I’m sympathetic toward the guard who was pumped full of Nazi propaganda, lived in a time when antisemitism was rampant, who likely would be punished if he didn’t follow orders, and who saw everyone else doing the same thing, but pulling that lever to gas the Jews was still wrong. It doesn’t matter how many other people made the same decision.
you can't judge anything, 'cause you approach everything from a pre-set third hand faux moral framework to bolster your ego and consequently know nothing.
@@kneelingcatholic I was saying in general.
It’s misleading to say “The US Civil War pitted the individual states right to secede versus the Union's right to hold on to them and re-conquer them if need be.” and leave it at that. Sure, this is true, but it was about much more than that. Why the south seceded matters.
I am not condemning Lee, because I was speaking generally, but I don’t agree with what you said about his decision.
Lee’s decision to fight for Virginia, and effectively the Confederacy, WAS a moral decision. Whether the south should have the right to secede by itself has moral elements, but so does why the south would risk war to secede. The south seceded primarily to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they told us at the time that was why they were seceding. That’s extremely anti-freedom and anti-human dignity to think slavery was okay in the first place, so those are negative moral marks right there. U.S. slavery was justified on the belief that blacks were inferior, so based on racism. The south seceded because they lost a presidential election and were afraid the new president would take away their slaves. That’s not how democracy works; you don’t just get to leave when you lose an election, so that is anti-democratic. Finally, by seceding they were in open rebellion against the United States of America, meaning, they were traitors. This isn’t just an ahistorical lookback, they knew they were rebelling. They accepted certain authority of the U.S. and then rejected it, rejected it with the threat of force to defend their new authority. They took over federal facilities. Lee agrees with me on this point. A few months before the Civil War he said, “Secession is nothing but revolution” and implied that it would be “treason”. The way he used revolution seems like how we would normally say rebellion. Lee also seems to be implying that secession itself is resorting to force: “I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force.”
A larger quote: “The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?” ~ Lee
leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/rachal/index.html
The south didn’t simply secede on the principle of states rights. They weren’t thinking that we must stand up for states rights for the principle of states rights in and of itself. They weren’t inspired by the value of states rights. They wanted to maintain the institution of slavery. That is why the south risked war. That is why they seceded. Lee knew that. Lee knew that the south didn’t like the outcome of a presidential election, didn’t want Lincoln to take their slaves away, justified slavery based on racism, and were rebelling against the United States by non-Constitutional means. Despite knowing this, he chose loyalty to his beloved Virginia above all else. That is not simply a civics question, but a deeply moral choice.
I don’t condemn Lee for his choice. I think we can clearly say that it was the morally wrong choice, but also understand him in his time and his culture and have sympathy with why he made that decision. And understand that he was in many ways a good man despite certain mistakes and blind spots.
“He answered the secession question the same as most people from his region answered it.” Most people answering a question a certain way doesn’t make it moral or not a moral question. Most Nazi guards went ahead and slaughtered Jews. Therefore, any Nazi guard did nothing morally wrong by following orders and doing what all the other guards did. Of course this is nonsense. I’m sympathetic toward the guard who was pumped full of Nazi propaganda, lived in a time when antisemitism was rampant, who likely would be punished if he didn’t follow orders, and who saw everyone else doing the same thing, but pulling that lever to gas the Jews was still wrong. It doesn’t matter how many other people made the same decision.
Slavery was paternalistic and "not bad". Charlemagne, of course according to slavers. That's a wack take from the "lost cause" revisionist staple. I grew up in the South. MOST slave interviews stressed how terrible it was, otherwise they wouldn't of had so many run away. Can't believe no one checked you on that. Gross
Dumb take. You've added nothing to the discussion.
guess I didn't "add" anything cause I don't worship and saw him for what he was lol. Confederate loving southerners are the biggest sore losers of history. The painting of the antebellum south as innocent or praiseworthy is disgusting. He didn't even recognize black union soldiers as being worthy of being POWS. Which makes him a war criminal. Glad they turned his home into Arlington national cemetery. @@findmeacrosstheroom
@@zaki2dunya321 I didn't get the impression the speaker thought chattel slavery in the South was "not bad". Nor did I hear any "worshiping" of Lee. Additionally, both speakers condemned the state secessions.
@@connorcreeganHe literally said that slavery wasn’t “horrendous conditions” with “constant mistreatment” of the slaves. In typical Lost Cause fashion, he is experiencing the cognitive dissonance of realizing that slavery is bad, but needing to make it sound not as bad as it was so that his ancestors don’t look monstrous.
@@Zarastro54 Is that equivalent saying slavery was "not bad"? I dunno, when taken as a whole, their statements seem to me like an attempt to understand a complex phenomenon. My guess is that you probably had a different high school history experience than most of the listeners here, who were probably exclusively fed Northern propaganda and that you are interpreting what is going on here as the simple regurgitation of the Southern propaganda you were exposed to. I have the impression that the same is the case for OP. That's understandable I suppose.
I fear the hosts may be cherry-picking the beliefs of certain southerners to conclude that the south in general saw slavery as temporary and that their goal was to gradually end slavery and set the blacks free.
who cares? it's irrelevant
@@greg_4201 The whole podcast is irrelevant in a sense. But, my comment is relevant to the podcast. I fear they are making a mistake in some of their claims about history, despite overall having a very informative and good podcast. If the south wasn't going to gradually end slavery, then slavery could have existed a very very long time without the Civil War.
No 🤦🏻♂️ Slavery is irrelevant
@@greg_4201 Slavery is an important part of U.S. and world history. I'm not sure why you're saying it's irrelevant. It was also the reason the south seceded and why Lee had to join what he saw as a revolution to defend and remain loyal to his beloved Virginia.
@@lonecandle5786 sorry, but I draw the line at discussing anything serious with an alleged adult that thinks the US Civil War was about slavery... that's too far beyond the pale to be salvageable without writing essays.
I've left a couple of other comments if you want to at least be pointed in the right direction.
I won't reply here again.
24:00
people who aggressively attack slavery and daemonise slave holders are objectively amoral, and exactly the type of people who would be ardently defending it were it legal and institutionalised. reason being they are simply attaching themselves to what they view as a popular trend that is sold as being 'moral' so as to appear virtuous by association.
it's impossible to genuinely know a lot of history, i.e the development of civilization as we know it, and be decidedly 'anti' slavery... it's not really a moral issue, but a practical one.
I lose respect for people who lack the balls, and the basic masculine social responsibility, to just say they couldn't care less one way or the other about slavery and speak about it factually and objectively.
It should also be noted that Lee’s Gettysburg campaign was only “kind” in regards to the white northern population. Lee’s army kidnapped and enslaved over 1000 free Northern black people and there are many accounts from Pennsylvanians witnessing their black neighbors being terrorized and dragged away into bondage. In that vein, Lee did engage in some “foraging” that was far worse than anything Sherman ever did, and likewise made clear the _true_ ultimate intent behind the Confederacy to preserve and uphold slavery. Thusly, your romantic idea that Lee stood for the “protection of personal property” must have an asterisk beside it, because it was only a _certain type_ of people he cared to respect the rights of.
This was a very disturbing effort to justify slavery to maintain an imaginary civil society.
A society with slavery is never civil.
Of course merely describing a society with slavery is to run cover for it - just so long as you ignore the entire historical context. I note that no one ever accuses me of apologia when I cover the Ottomans or the Romans (slave empires of much greater scale) - and I know why. I can't imagine you would consider Roman and Ottoman civil society as imaginary in the same breath. History becomes incomprehensible when one's perspective is so blinkered, when one is solely informed by modern political discourse.
@@ApostolicMajesty the ramifications of slavery in the Ottoman Empire are not lingering.
Us Americans are still struggling to fully humanize people from Africa. This context you ignore.
Your source material has been rejected by American historians as deeply flawed, racist rewriting of history to justify an immoral labor system.
Do better.
@@craigscott6196 Let me make this abundantly clear. The ramifications of slavery in the Ottoman Empire led to deaths of millions of Christians, and the dispossession of many ethnic diasporas. Christians in the middle east are now facing extinction. Slavery in the former provinces of the empire EXISTS TODAY! The Ottomans perpetrated the enslavement of Africans before the arrival of slaves in North America. How dare you accuse you me of ignoring context when you are fixated on American exceptionalism to the point of chauvinism.
Pompous armchair historian engaged in hagiography, not history.
Your engagement with the historiography is lazy and you should be embarrassed.
To be clear this video is not history. This is myth making, glorifying a despicable human being.
Robert E. Lee was not a despicable human being...in fact he was 100 times more of a man, more of a human being than you are and you'll ever be
Have you watched the video? Its not mythmaking to analyse a person beyoned the 1 moment in history they come up and then judge them on what side they fall.
Simply digging deeper into R.E. Lee the man isnt protecting the goverment he came to fight for. The video even shows how he dint srive woth that goverment in his own way.
It reminds me of the line "its easy to be a saint in paradise"
So let me rewrite that. Its easy to be cast as a devil when serving in hell.
To be clear you are soft and nothing you say will be taken seriously
Really enjoying this immensely detailed discussion. I'm only partly into it but very much looking forward to the next part.🌉