I really don't or wish to hear him all day. I know that he is a very knowledgeable scholar on the civil war, and I do appreciate his insights and opinions. I don't like the way he believes his beliefs and thoughts are some how the absolute truth however. He has a knowledgeable opinion, but at the end of the day, it's his opinion. He's never served in a military, he's a product of the liberal modern mindset. It makes his thoughts out of context, and he seems to think his way of thinking is the end all or you're an idiot mindset. That's why he won't be remembered, and his books don't sell. He's a blowhard. He's done nothing except repeat others words.
It is reasonable to think that Lee acted as he did because of his loyalty to the social order in Virginia. Black slavery was part of that social order, and almost all white men in America thought that it was way that blacks could live with whites in that society. Lee was a very admirable man, and no less so because he supported the institution of slavery. On his own plantation his own slaves behaved in such an unruly manner that he would think by his own experience not be able to trust such people to be free. Maybe he ffelt about blacks the easy ,any aristocratic New Yorkers felt about the scurvy Irish immigrants in NYC
@@briantaylor7307 How many copies do his books sell, compared against others similarly situated? How may sold of his edited private memoir by Porter Alexander?
*Lee stuck with his State. He had circa 60 first cousins in Virginia on top of his immediate family. *When he resigned his commission, VA had not joined the CSA Lee vowed to defend his State of Virginia. *When he took his oath at West Point, it was to the United States and his promise to serve THEM...plural. When the "united" part no longer existed, where was his bound allegiance? To the northern states or the southern states? *Virginia ratified the Constitution with the proviso that if felt harmed by the arrangement, Virginia could resume the powers delegated to the Federal Govt, ie secede. (NY and RI had the same language) These ratifications were accepted without debate.
The United part NEVER WENT AWAY. These were states in rebellion and theirs was an illegitimate government. Gallagher is extraordinarily cavalier in granting the CSA legitimacy.
@@DouglasLyons-yg3lv Oh, they just forgot to mention "perpetual" in the new document. And they forgot to reject NY RI and VA who reserved the right to "resume powers" delegated to the federal government in their ratifications of the Constitution if felt harmed by the arrangement. Interesting version of history and facts.
No. You're distorting Virginia's ratification message, which actually reconfirms the Constitution's ordainment by declaring that "the people of THE United States" maintain their sovereignty. Meaning the cliche about US being a plural term until the slaveholders' rebellion was duly crushed is a wild overstatement. There were people who called for conditional, temporary, and/or partial ratification. They were slapped down, most famously by James Madison in his letter to Hamilton insisting that failure to ratify the Constitution "en toto and forever" was no ratification at all. Also, the traitors' phony constitution expressly forbid secession. Probably because they considered it essential to true liberty and not just a way to rebrand their treason to expand slavery, right?
@@EricKoonitsky-bd3hl The States ratified the Constitution Any resumption of powers delegated to the federal govt by the States would take the reverse path…first back to the State and then to the People of THAT State Madison made this clear in the Federalist Papers As for Madison’s informal opinion regarding en toto ratification, it does not negate the submission by VA’s legislators nor the acceptance without debate by the Convention. (also accepting NY and RI with same rservations) Why?
A very good presentation by a man who is clearly well educated in his field. In my opinion, Dr. Gallagher overcomplicates Lee's motivations with his "layers of loyalty" approach. Lee himself said quite simply that his ultimate decision was determined by his unwillingness to raise a sword against his own people. Being Virginia aristocracy, Lee had an absolutely massive spiderweb of relatives and friends throughout Virginia. Who among us would be willing to wage war against our family, friends, and neighbors?
I would have, no doubt. Some of my direct ancestors in TN were slavers. Then I had other ancestors who were unionists. The honorable side of my family tree.
Lee Adama Actually numbers mean something. 200,000 White Southerners, if you count the border states as Southern fought for the U.S. during the war. the C.S.A probably fielded around 750.000 soldiers all told in the war. Tack on the 100,000 white pro U.S. militia and draft dodgers that means 28% of your own side actively fight against you or avoids fighting for you. As I said numbers mean something.
@@jonhjohn799 ..I read his autobiography. Ian Smith made his decision, which I have to admire, and history must judge him in terms of what his motives were, in spite of the backlash he faced from Britain and other Comminwealth countries. Similarly, I felt for the Legiuonaires and the officers of the 1st REP, who had to dismantle their barracks which they had built, in addition to facing disbandment after defying France's decision to leave Algeria. Robert E. Lee was such an outstanding cadet at USMA, and I wonder about his motives in choosing to place his loyalty to his beloved Virginia, and side with the Confederacy. I wonder if there is honour in following one's heart, when faced with such choices.
Lee KNEW that despite what was said by the Virginia Legislature, that the IDEA of Lincoln calling up militia to put down the rebellion was illegal and unconstitutional, Lee KNEW that to be false, because his father along with Washington marched the militias of 4 states into W Penn during the Whiskey Rebellion and nobody ever complained that it was unconstitutional. He KNEW what VA was doing was wrong, he KNEW that he had taken an oath to DEFEND the US Constitution and he KNEW that violating that order constituted treason and he did it anyway. Loyalty doesn't matter when you have no honor to live up to your word.
"Duty is the most sublime word in the English language." Robert E. Lee As Mr. Dawson stated, he was a soldier loyal to his state. Where his state went so did he. If a state or territory could join the United States, the does it not follow they have a right to leave the USA? This speaker's constant referral to the "slave owning South" ignores Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. He did not want this war to be one over slavery. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South, where it could not enforced, but left over a million slaves in the North still enslaved.
Mark Burkley Lee was a commissioned Union officer and West Point graduate. His oath and duty was to the government that gave him his college education and career. His wife wouldn't have married him if he'd been a grunt in the Virginia militia. He was a traitor, plain and simple.
"He did not want this war to be one over slavery. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South, where it could not enforced..." The reason the Emancipation Proclamation only freed enslaved people in areas not controlled by U.S. forces is because it was predicated on being a war measure. That is the only reason he was able to get away with it at all! If he had attempted to include slaves outside of areas under Confederate control then he would have lost the support of Congress, the Supreme Court would have ruled it unconstitutional, and the very attempt would almost certainly have pushed Kentucky and possibly the other border states over the edge of secession. To put it plainly, he didn't extend emancipation to all enslaved people because he _couldn't!_ He couldn't do it as a matter of practical policy and also, he didn't believe he had the constitutional authority to end slavery across the board. However, he _always_ thought it was wrong and all his life expressed his own personal wish "that all men everywhere be free."
@@nora22000 So was Washington, Jefferson, Sam and John Adams (both of them), Henry, Paine, Harry Lee, etc. & so forth. we should dig up their graves, and hang the remains, shouldn't we? Traitor's are named by the victors, as are Heroes. Plain and simple.
@@nora22000 I believe he resigned. HIs oath and duty would have been fulfilled. How do you know his wife wouldn't have married him. He came from a respectable family, etc. I think you are blowing smoke.
@@tinmanx2222 Lee and his sycophants blow smoke. He was a traitor, and quartermaster Meigs turned Lee's plantation into a cemetery for his son and other Union dead to prove that point.
Starting with accepting, for the sake of argument, that the Confederacy was a nation, where does that lead us? With a hostile nation on the border of the United States, which fired on the Army of the United States, an act of war. The war came, the CSA lost, and the United States imposed its own interpretation of the status of the secessionist states. It is the same either way.
If Lee was loyal to his state, I will give him that. He claimed that he could not draw his sword against Virginia. He gets points for that too. But, when he led an invasion into neutral Maryland (Antietam) and Gettysburg, he crossed a line that went from defending his home state to invading Union lands with rebellious forces. He is also credited with honor. If he was so honorable why did he intentionally ignore the oath he gave when he spent decades in the Republican army? I have never heard if he gave an oath to the CSA? As for Gallagher’s assertion that the CSA was a country, name one sovereign country that recognized it? This was a rebellion and a civil war, not a war between countries, but between citizens from different regions of the same country. Each person can view this war how he chooses. Lee, in my mind, was a rebel and was very lucky he was not hung for treason for at least rebelling again the US. Same goes for Jefferson Davis and anyone else that held office in the confederacy.
Yet he led Virginia in a war where the rebelling states fired the first shot. The fact is he was loyal to the institution of slavery. Nobody wants to say this but if you look at every states statements when seceding slavery was the overriding theme. It’s undeniable and it’s what bound the Confederacy together.
If I am not mistaken, the part Gary cited Lee's thought on slavery and the emancipation proclamation came after his failed attempt on the invasion on Maryland (having lost more than ten thousand men). This could have effected his attitude on the matter for the emancipation proclamation was seen as weapon used by Lincoln.
Lee was correct. The emancipation was Lincoln's decision to give the Confederacy a last chance at a negotiated conclusion to the war. After that the Union went on a total war footing with no further negotiations. Grant and Sherman's march soon followed.
@@GH-oi2jf and when the Constitutional Convention in session....and some states had ratified the Constitution....and some had not.....and they hadnt reached the 9 threshold.....what was the status of the Articles of Confederation?
Ah, yes. The crown colony of Virginia, nicknamed The Old Dominion for its unwavering loyalty to the British monarchy. The very definition of a free and independent state!
The concept of loyalty to the Union being a higher calling than state loyalty is not just a modern standard. It existed in Civil War times, too. It is a test that Robert E. Lee utterly failed. And he failed in other, perhaps more technical ways: for example, he abandoned his U.S. Army commission and fled to Virginia two days before the Army formally accepted his resignation (and after turning aside an offer to lead the Federal military forces). Inasmuch as he took a sacred oath to defend the U.S. Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he was thus guilty of treason. This was a sticking point that held up formal restoration of his citizenship until the Jimmy Carter era in the 1970s. Lee should have waited for his Army discharge before joining the rebels and taking up arms against the United States. This failure will forever be a black mark on his legacy because his "loyalty" to Virginia became, simultaneously, a seditious assault on the nation of his birth. For a "man of principle," this omission demonstrated a shocking lack of principle.
We don't have to. Slavery was widely understood as barbaric back then, which is a huge reason why no foreign country was willing to offer the slaveholders' rebellion diplomatic recognition. Remember, the traitors rejected the Declaration's 90 year old statement about all men being created equal for being too woke.
I admire Lee for fighting for his state. although a great deal of Southerners were for secession, especially those that did vote to secede, Lee like most Southerners we're not against the Union. And even though the South primarily fought to defend slavery, there were Southerners who also fought to defend slavery as well as Defend their land. in fact there were even sooutherners who did not fight for slavery at all, they only fought to defend their land.
There were also a great many men of the South who did not want to fight at all but got drafted. This idea that the South had an all-volenteer army is not true and has never been true. The draft proved so unpopular that many of the local militias formed to defend deserters and homecoming soldiers FROM THE CONFEDERACY.
Who decides what are "top comments?" I can only imagine with horror what did not make this list. If there is balance here, I fail to see it. Gallagher does more--and 150 students showing up for an 8:00 AM class on the Civil War is somewhat of a testament to the value if not the popularity of his course. I took an 8:00 AM class twice a week as a freshman and it was cold (heat on at 6 AM) and I vowed never to do it again. I suspect Gallagher does this so as to attract only the most dedicated students. The amount of disrespect shown a serious student of this period of conflict (and teacher) is ludicrous.
If Virginia and its' independence were more important to Lee than his country, why did he agree with Virginia entering a new Union with the other Confederate states under a Confederate Constitution that was essentially the same as the US Constitution except for the issue of slavery? Answer me that!
No states rights were differant you cloud not demand money or troops You cloud ask and very politely I might add also they almost did have 1 0r more States unite ! This was jerrsons greatest fear
The way I look at is it as this: Although being a citizen of a state was taken much more seriously than it is today. Lee took an oath to defend the United States when he became an officer of the US Army. He did not take sn oath to the army of Virginia. Although he resigned does not relieve him of this oath because his country was under attack since Sumpter. Resigning his commission was a means to an end of his support of succession, his support of slavery, his support of dissolution of the United States and his support of taking arms against its government and citizens.
The oath is to defend the Constitution and people. Whether Secession was legitimate was a matter of debate at the time, one only settled by force of arms.
You know it’s crazy to me that the people of the confederacy compared Lee to George Washington and that Lee himself could look on himself as a George Washington type figure BECAUSE Lee was working to destroy all That Washington had sacrificed for. He was working to break up the United States of America. Lee and ALL the loyalists in the Confederacy were members of a foreign enemy to The United States. It baffled me for years, though it’s been rectified now, that we had United States millitary posts named offer Confederate generals! Doesn’t That strike anyone else as odd? Considering the Confederacy was a country fighting against the USA and were enemies of the USA. Yet for decades we had Flrt Polk and Fort Bragg and Fort Stewart Fort Gordon and Fort Lee. They have all been renamed now just in the last 3 years. How odd would it be to have a Fort Hitler? Or a Fort Hirohito? Or a Fort Bismarck? It’s the same thing. I live 40 miles from the former Fort Polk in Louisiana. It’s since been renamed Fort Johnson. When i became old enough to understand who Polk was and who the base was named after I thought it extremely odd that we would name a US base after someone who fought to destroy the USA. Luckily for us all I wasn’t the only one with those feelings and the mistake hasnbenn rectified.
there is NO! question to Lees loyalty! he just refused to fight hisfriends family and home! he didnt believe conferates had the right to succeed he just cloudnt fight against his family!
@@nobonespurs As did most of the military officers who remained loyal to the US, when it comes to fighting against their oath and classmates. And most, the overwhelming majority, were racist as well. It was the culture of the day. That didn't always include support for slavery, though in many cases it did. And I see no evidence of racism in HDSME's post. Makes you evil ion my book. Until you support your accusation with verifiable evidence. Objective evidence
What about the constitution's oath to Lee? When your country steals your property without compensating you is that liberty and justice for all? Or is that simply an extension of slavery to all citizens?
That's fine - a few bucks. However, I was referring to the uncompensated "unconstitutional taking" that arguably started the war. Like wetland regulations in 1986 that resulted in the huge cluster-f known as WOTUS for example. When the feds pass a law that takes massive value that can simply not be compensated because of sheer numbers of those afflicted and sheer dollar amount - they simply pass it off as the will of the electorate. Sucks for the losers - too bad so sad? But you know? Sometimes the losers fight - particularly when the stakes are that high. How high? We are still struggling with civil rights and reparations that never happened when the south recovery was torched. No big deal I guess.@@GH-oi2jf
Wish the audio was better. And it would be if the dumb s.o.b. would stop the dramatics of trying to walk back and forth while holding the mic like a rapper on stage, and set the mic at the podium like a normal human being.
If R.E. Lee was supposed to be this great United States soldier before the war then why, at the age of 50, is he still just a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army? 50 is pretty old for the mid 19th century. He had been a soldier for almost 30 years at that point and only rose to LT Colonel?? He should have already been a Brigadeer General or a Colonel at least.
Shelby was a good storyteller and I like his novels, but when it comes to the Civil War he is a Lost Cause proponent and that aspect of his personality should be called out. He’s just wrong on so many levels. Professor Gallagher is spot-on with this entire lecture. Gallagher’s books are a must for anybody interested in understanding the history behind the war versus how the war is remembered.
SteveTheF - Prof. Gallagher’s style is to mock mythology, and some people don’t like his style, but Foote is fair game to an academic historian. Laymen think of Foote as the historian of the Civil War because of the recognition he got from Burns’ documentary series, but he was not a historian. He was a mere storyteller. Longstreet would require another lecture. This lecture is about Lee.
I may be cynical, but his financial assets lie in Virginia. Also the Southern sense of honor was different. For the North is was your standing with God. In the South it was your standing with your peers.
@DouglasLyons-yg3lv The North had Calvinism. The Southern upper classes had the Episcopal church, which was conservative and aimed at maintaining the social order. I read someone saying that and thought it was an interesting concpt.I know there are lot of bible-thumpers in the South, but I am referring to the world of the Gentlemen and their code of honor.
Must have been cold and flu season at the time of this lecture. 😂 I started to get annoyed with all the people coughing. 😂 I guess these people never heard of a cough drop.
I commonly see Social Media posts such as “Who else is willing to say ‘I support the Constitution of the United States’. Let’s make this go Viral”. I understand multiple and sometimes conflicting allegiances, but for military officers an oath of alliance is not situational. Robert E. Lee was a noble traitor.
The loyalty question was simple: Lee upheld his oath to defend the Constitution while Lincoln and every Union soldier did not. We were a federal republic and a voluntary union of free and independent States. Lincoln got it all wrong. The founders would be appalled that any State would be coerced to stay in the Union. The founders' writings, the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federal Papers, James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc., etc., made this crystal clear! Thank God an unintended consequence of the War was that the slaves were set free. It was an egregious evil. However, Lincoln and Congress emphatically and repeatedly made the point the War wasn't about slavery, but suppressing secession. In doing so, Lincoln destroyed the founders' voluntary Union and the Constitution. Lee fought to preserve the Constitution's principles. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the federal republic that was created. If you find any of what I've written objectionable, I encourage you to learn about our "wonderful" 16th president in The Real Lincoln, by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo. It will certainly leave you wondering why you weren't told the truth about him, our history, and the Constitution. To the victors shamefully went the writing of the history.
The traitors' pretend constitution expressly prohibited secession. Why? James Madison said the Constitution could be ratified "forever and en toto" or not at all. Did James Madison not understand the "crystal clear" intent of the founders?
Also where were these freed people supposed to live? Who would hire them for pay? How would they clothe themselves? Feed themselves? Healthcare? You miss the mark with your assumption based on very elementary thinking as to Lees obviously complex thought processes.
Lee like many other Southerners had the logical reservations.... If these freed men had no means of providing for their families.... they'd eventually take what they need from the widows of Confederate soldiers. But that would necessitate the feds involving themselves in the mess they created and dropped square in the laps of Southerners who by this point were destitute, homeless, starving and forced to sell off their land to survive.
Further... the single farmer couldn't compete... that's exactly it but you take a left here.... So you expect me to believe that people would go and die for someone else to keep their slaves? You're completely missing the average southern man's perspective... life prior to this war... The Irish have much more at stake here than another man's slave... you once again assume the average southerner to be a more elemental thinker... simply not the case
None of this speaks of the barbarism of the Union forces under the orders of General Sherman wrought upon a purely civilian population of women and children in the south but especially those women in the state of Georgia. Nearly 2,000 mill workers from New Manchester and Roswell Georgia were detained and held in a makeshift confinement camp where they were eventually crammed into cattle cars and shipped north then turned out into the streets in the wintertime. Most were never seen by their families again.
Traitor He could have just not participated in the war if he did not want to attack his home state, and upheld his oath to the USA. And when he did command the Army of North Virginia, he invaded Maryland and pillaged Pennsylvania-he wasn't "just" defending Virginia.
Lee fought for Virginia because he had family spread all throughout Virginia... He wasn't going to bring war into his home state! & you can also say the CSA fired the 1st shots of Ft. Sumter yet the Union invaded the South! When Lee actually took over the Union basically had Richmond surrounded... Lee defeated one army after another freeing them to move into the North... But I dont believe Lee fought for the southern states to be able to keep slaves even though thats what Liberals think everyone whom fought for the CSA represented... Just fighting to keep slavery which wasn't the case... For some yes for others no.... Like Braxton Bragg I think he was in it purely to keep Slavery intact as he went onto create the KKK after the Civil War... Others like Lee, Longstreet, Stonewall, Hood, etc I dont believe they joined the CSA just to keep slavery intact! Im sure u all know who Winfield Scott is... He was our main General along with Taylor against Mexico when they brought back Santa Anna... This is the war where all the Generals who fought against each other during the civil war all fought together against mexico... Anyways Winfield Scott said without Lee who i forget his rank at the time... He wasn't yet a General... He said without Lee they most likely wouldn't have made it all the way to Mexico City! We completely defeated Mexico. People like to say well out army was picking on a smaller one... BS! Go back & look at the # of troops Mexico had compared to what we invaded Mexico with... Also the battle of Vera Cruz... These were tough hard battles but because of all our brilliant commanders we kicked Mexico's ass & took most of their land! Longstreet & Grant were good friends fighting against Mexico! Then it was Grant who finally get the Union together & started using the Unions manpower they way they always should've! Winfield Scott also who praised Lee during Mexican war... Or Polks war as others call it... Scott said when Lee refused to lead the army Lincoln was raising & decided to join the CSA... Scott said it was the biggest mistake Lee will ever make! Lee lost damn near everything in the Civil War... By the End he lost his homes in Virginia... he had like 3 or 4 sons all captured by the Union! Yet I think in the couple yrs he lived after the Civil War... I think the only thing he regretted was his orders at Gettysburg... I highly doubt that regretted taking over command of the CSA even though they lost! I think its truly sad that maybe the best american general behind Patton is having his statues torn down.... It truly disgusts me!
@@willoutlaw4971So was Washington, Jefferson, Sam and John Adams (both of them), Henry, Paine, Harry Lee, etc. & so forth. we should dig up their graves, and hang the remains, shouldn't we? Traitor's are named by the victors, as are Heroes.
Loyalty 2 his Soldiers should have been Foremost by General Lee. He sacrificed his men in Napoleonic style attacks. In his defense he may have not totally understood the rifled barrelled musket with it's bullet minie bone shattering effect. But, How in the world can an educated Military man such as THE General Lee not have grasped this?. General Longstreet did. This warrior ball bustin Kickin' Yankee ass Tactician who used up his soldiers in battles srikes as a mystery of General Lee Strategy. Also as a battlefield Tactician of the highest order He should have husbanded his Men considering how the North's miltary manpower dwarfed South's manpower. He bled the CSA Army of Northern Virginia white...
ALL the generals should have understood the rifled musket meant the and of massed infantry attacks, but few did. That lesson wasn't really learned until After WWI. How that happened I'll never understand.
@@briansass4865 My comment of General Lee's fiasco at Gettysburg answers your question of what wars have been won by ceding tactical offensive to an opponent. Read History of Warfare. (None)
@@garyguyton7373 smooth bore rifles in Napoleon warfare were accurate to 80 yards. Rifled barrels came along later. These rifled barrels could kill at long distance.
@@lnm7276 Eventually, strategic and tactical defense must switch over to the offensive in order to subdue any adversary willing to take sustained losses to keep their cause alive. Read more than that one book.
At the very begining of his lecture he argues that the CS was a dif. nation ,at that point if u r a sane individual u know that (no matter if he is a highly educated person or even a genious in his scientific object ) u listen to a person who is so passionate on this matter that cant serv the truth and objectivity which r the main elements of history science (Thucidides). So simply u stop listening .
Savas Chatzivasileiadis - Properly educated people can listen to someone who holds a different point of view on some subject and give it some consideration. In fact, that is the whole point of academic discourse - to consider a subject from all angles and try to extract the best understanding from these different viewpoints. Prof. Gallagher insists on thinking of the Confederacy as a nation in order to understand the Confederate leaders. The Union leaders, from Lincoln on down, did not consider the Confederacy legitimate, of course, and always treated them as states of the US in rebellion. If you don’t like Gallager’s model, just ignore it and listen to the rest of what he has to say. You will never find an academic who agrees with your view on every point. If there were one, why would you listen to him?
He starts off by explaining that we have many loyalties and then, to make his Yankee point he's going to omit the loyalties that may explain Lee followed Virginia for any reason other than slavery. "Lee has many loyalties but for the purpose of me explaining the reason he stayed with Virginia I'm going to focus on Four, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, and Slavery and by the end you'll see he left because of Slavery, therefor tear down his statues, plow his grave, etc.
Let me elaborate. There is a long, slow moving effort to diminish the fact that slavery wasn't the key reason southerners fought for the Confederacy. Gallagher's presentation is a perfect example of this tactic. Sorry if you think I was "loopy" however, it was a youtube comment, not a critical essay. I purposely made it short and exaggerated. My point is that despite the overwhelming evidence that Southerners like R.E.L. joined the Confederacy for a variety of reasons most Northern historians continue to pound the slavery issue. It appears to me they are trying to lump certain motivations into the lost cause myth. Their thesis seems to be, "if it is a reason other than slavery, it is part of the lost cause". Am I wrong?
Lee was the worst possible kind of traitor. A 'favorite son' icon, he repudiated the nation that made him and took up arms against his own country. He could have refused to serve the confederates also, if his real commitment WAS "not to fight against Virginia."
As was Washington, Jefferson, Sam and John Adams (both of them), Henry, Paine, Harry Lee, etc. & so forth. we should dig up their graves, and hang the remains, shouldn't we? Traitor's are named by the victors, as are Heroes. Plain and simple. The issue of the legitimacy of secession was a matter of opinion at the time, decided by force of arms. Had Lee refused to support no one and walked away from the whole mess, he would have been cowardly as well as treasonous, to one side or the other.
@@garyguyton7373 Lee was the loser, as you point out. A traitor. All the others were winners, Founders. Lee tried to help found a fascist, feudal slaveocracy, but he and his slaveowning planter confederates were soundly defeated. May they burn in a hot place along with all their sympathizers.
@@nora22000 The founders were losers, just as much, as much as the Confederacy. The nation of free people living in a limited, democratic republic was and is a total failure. May Lincoln and all his ilk rot in the same Hell as the slavers of any time, anywhere. Lincoln preserved the Union. He didn't come close to accomplishing anything else. He freed the slaves? NO. He made us all slaves. To the government
@@nora22000 I am confident that there are both Union & Confederate souls in heaven as well as hell. We are not the judges of where anybody spends wternity
Lee was first loyal to Virginia. he didn't choose her because of being a part of slaveholding elite. he opposed slavery for unique christian reasons. he said it was immoral and should not exist if Christianity was more popular in the south which he hoped it would be. He rejected his wives slaves. This guy is a poor historian. he simply didn't want force to end slavery against the souths will. He was right. Lee was a very honest and consistent , high virtue, man. He didn't lie about motives and opinions. This is another left wing ethnic "historian' trying to make a name by attacking a man not here now. Lee did break contract and betray America and kill Americans. Yet that was common. This canadian says there should be equal time to answer this guy by this university place. .
Historians are just people using data or not. i know the data. He only had a slave for his wife but she was a friend and stayed with them after '65., He clearly opposed slavery.Thats not important however. The killing of people is the important thing. Was he a murderer for shooting yankees? I think thats possible. However that means most people on both sides. However this guy is just wasting ones tiome in this revisionist history attack on Lee. Did he read the history on Lee ? or what he thinks is welcome in leftwing circles.
I still admire and have a lot of respect for the General, but that doesn't mean the speaker is wasting our time with nonsensical points. I think he's well researched and credible, and just because his personal opinions don't jive with your own, doesn't invalidate his take. If you only accept information that confirms your preconceived bias, then you're being stubbornly narrow minded and making an admission that you would rather remain blissfully ignorant than be challenged and receptive to counter thought; while that is your fundamental American right, it's also not indicative of possessing greater wisdom, so try thinking about that before you react to what you were not prepared to hear.
He acknowledged that there were contradictions and the relationships cannot be adequately defined by just a few quotes. I do disagree with the judgement he draws upon these conclusions, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate it as inherently incorrect.
That is what every member of Virginia would have said if he stayed loyal to the Union. Which would you rather? Friends, neighbors, church members, family, and associates calling you a traitor, or some ignorant person 160 years from now?
You wouldn't know a traitor if you saw one! You are just mad because Mr. LEE was so much higher above your class that you would have to stand on your mama's shoulders just to kiss his A**
@@kevinwalls3871idk about the rest of you but I would not take up arms against the flag of the United States even if my own mother asked me to do so. Much less some slimy state reps in Tallahassee.
Okay Grant lost 50,000 in 1 month vs. Lee's 30,000 something in the same mouth. Lee was the center of the Confederate army everyone believed that was the man to beat. So yes he lost more man, but was in most of the biggest battles of the war. Lee fought a lot of battles against 2 to 1 odds Grant fought most of hes 1 to 2 odds. Shiloh, Grant was evenly matched and was losing tell reinforcements showed up. Not a great victory. He never had a conclusive battle won against Lee again outnumbering the enemy. So yes Grant was a butcher in many ways.
I could listen to Gary talk all day.
JFK was complete conspiracy theory BS, and not even good conspiracy BS. I agree with your comment that he often makes people's questions seem stupid.
I really don't or wish to hear him all day. I know that he is a very knowledgeable scholar on the civil war, and I do appreciate his insights and opinions. I don't like the way he believes his beliefs and thoughts are some how the absolute truth however. He has a knowledgeable opinion, but at the end of the day, it's his opinion. He's never served in a military, he's a product of the liberal modern mindset. It makes his thoughts out of context, and he seems to think his way of thinking is the end all or you're an idiot mindset. That's why he won't be remembered, and his books don't sell. He's a blowhard. He's done nothing except repeat others words.
It is reasonable to think that Lee acted as he did because of his loyalty to the social order in Virginia. Black slavery was part of that social order, and almost all white men in America thought that it was way that blacks could live with whites in that society. Lee was a very admirable man, and no less so because he supported the institution of slavery. On his own plantation his own slaves behaved in such an unruly manner that he would think by his own experience not be able to trust such people to be free. Maybe he ffelt about blacks the easy ,any aristocratic New Yorkers felt about the scurvy Irish immigrants in NYC
Leonardo - If Gallagher slimed Oliver Stone, that’s a big plus..
@@briantaylor7307 How many copies do his books sell, compared against others similarly situated? How may sold of his edited private memoir by Porter Alexander?
4:45 Professor Gallagher starts here.
Gary is the GOAT
*Lee stuck with his State. He had circa 60 first cousins in Virginia on top of his immediate family.
*When he resigned his commission, VA had not joined the CSA
Lee vowed to defend his State of Virginia.
*When he took his oath at West Point, it was to the United States and his promise to serve THEM...plural. When the "united" part no longer existed, where was his bound allegiance? To the northern states or the southern states?
*Virginia ratified the Constitution with the proviso that if felt harmed by the arrangement, Virginia could resume the powers delegated to the Federal Govt, ie secede. (NY and RI had the same language) These ratifications were accepted without debate.
The United part NEVER WENT AWAY. These were states in rebellion and theirs was an illegitimate government. Gallagher is extraordinarily cavalier in granting the CSA legitimacy.
@@DouglasLyons-yg3lv
Volunteeringly united....."these united states" from the WP oath ante bellum.
@@DouglasLyons-yg3lv
Oh, they just forgot to mention "perpetual" in the new document.
And they forgot to reject NY RI and VA who reserved the right to "resume powers" delegated to the federal government in their ratifications of the Constitution if felt harmed by the arrangement.
Interesting version of history and facts.
No. You're distorting Virginia's ratification message, which actually reconfirms the Constitution's ordainment by declaring that "the people of THE United States" maintain their sovereignty. Meaning the cliche about US being a plural term until the slaveholders' rebellion was duly crushed is a wild overstatement.
There were people who called for conditional, temporary, and/or partial ratification. They were slapped down, most famously by James Madison in his letter to Hamilton insisting that failure to ratify the Constitution "en toto and forever" was no ratification at all.
Also, the traitors' phony constitution expressly forbid secession. Probably because they considered it essential to true liberty and not just a way to rebrand their treason to expand slavery, right?
@@EricKoonitsky-bd3hl
The States ratified the Constitution
Any resumption of powers delegated to the federal govt by the States would take the reverse path…first back to the State and then to the People of THAT State
Madison made this clear in the Federalist Papers
As for Madison’s informal opinion regarding en toto ratification, it does not negate the submission by VA’s legislators nor the acceptance without debate by the Convention. (also accepting NY and RI with same rservations) Why?
A very good presentation by a man who is clearly well educated in his field. In my opinion, Dr. Gallagher overcomplicates Lee's motivations with his "layers of loyalty" approach. Lee himself said quite simply that his ultimate decision was determined by his unwillingness to raise a sword against his own people. Being Virginia aristocracy, Lee had an absolutely massive spiderweb of relatives and friends throughout Virginia. Who among us would be willing to wage war against our family, friends, and neighbors?
War within a family is quite common
I would have, no doubt. Some of my direct ancestors in TN were slavers. Then I had other ancestors who were unionists. The honorable side of my family tree.
1/3 of Officers from Virginia stayed in the U.S. Army. *mental note*
Yeah, well the commander of vicksburg was a yankee that came south. Your numbers mean nothing.
Lee Adama Actually numbers mean something. 200,000 White Southerners, if you count the border states as Southern fought for the U.S. during the war. the C.S.A probably fielded around 750.000 soldiers all told in the war. Tack on the 100,000 white pro U.S. militia and draft dodgers that means 28% of your own side actively fight against you or avoids fighting for you. As I said numbers mean something.
Ian smith of rhodesia
@@jonhjohn799 ..I read his autobiography. Ian Smith made his decision, which I have to admire, and history must judge him in terms of what his motives were, in spite of the backlash he faced from Britain and other Comminwealth countries. Similarly, I felt for the Legiuonaires and the officers of the 1st REP, who had to dismantle their barracks which they had built, in addition to facing disbandment after defying France's decision to leave Algeria. Robert E. Lee was such an outstanding cadet at USMA, and I wonder about his motives in choosing to place his loyalty to his beloved Virginia, and side with the Confederacy. I wonder if there is honour in following one's heart, when faced with such choices.
Lee KNEW that despite what was said by the Virginia Legislature, that the IDEA of Lincoln calling up militia to put down the rebellion was illegal and unconstitutional, Lee KNEW that to be false, because his father along with Washington marched the militias of 4 states into W Penn during the Whiskey Rebellion and nobody ever complained that it was unconstitutional. He KNEW what VA was doing was wrong, he KNEW that he had taken an oath to DEFEND the US Constitution and he KNEW that violating that order constituted treason and he did it anyway. Loyalty doesn't matter when you have no honor to live up to your word.
"Duty is the most sublime word in the English language." Robert E. Lee As Mr. Dawson stated, he was a soldier loyal to his state. Where his state went so did he. If a state or territory could join the United States, the does it not follow they have a right to leave the USA? This speaker's constant referral to the "slave owning South" ignores Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. He did not want this war to be one over slavery. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South, where it could not enforced, but left over a million slaves in the North still enslaved.
Mark Burkley Lee was a commissioned Union officer and West Point graduate. His oath and duty was to the government that gave him his college education and career. His wife wouldn't have married him if he'd been a grunt in the Virginia militia. He was a traitor, plain and simple.
"He did not want this war to be one over slavery. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South, where it could not enforced..."
The reason the Emancipation Proclamation only freed enslaved people in areas not controlled by U.S. forces is because it was predicated on being a war measure. That is the only reason he was able to get away with it at all!
If he had attempted to include slaves outside of areas under Confederate control then he would have lost the support of Congress, the Supreme Court would have ruled it unconstitutional, and the very attempt would almost certainly have pushed Kentucky and possibly the other border states over the edge of secession.
To put it plainly, he didn't extend emancipation to all enslaved people because he _couldn't!_
He couldn't do it as a matter of practical policy and also, he didn't believe he had the constitutional authority to end slavery across the board. However, he _always_ thought it was wrong and all his life expressed his own personal wish "that all men everywhere be free."
@@nora22000 So was Washington, Jefferson, Sam and John Adams (both of them), Henry, Paine, Harry Lee, etc. & so forth. we should dig up their graves, and hang the remains, shouldn't we? Traitor's are named by the victors, as are Heroes. Plain and simple.
@@nora22000 I believe he resigned. HIs oath and duty would have been fulfilled. How do you know his wife wouldn't have married him. He came from a respectable family, etc. I think you are blowing smoke.
@@tinmanx2222 Lee and his sycophants blow smoke. He was a traitor, and quartermaster Meigs turned Lee's plantation into a cemetery for his son and other Union dead to prove that point.
Lecture starts at about 4:50.
Gracias!
Very good this professor. A no-nonsence guy.
Gary Gallager is a CSA hater and it bleeds through in everything he says. He is anything but a good professor or historian.
@@StephenPaulTroup he’s a revisionist historian. I’ll take Shelby Foote before this guy any day.
@@lukewarme9121 The guy who said the KKK didn't really hate black people?
Starting with accepting, for the sake of argument, that the Confederacy was a nation, where does that lead us? With a hostile nation on the border of the United States, which fired on the Army of the United States, an act of war. The war came, the CSA lost, and the United States imposed its own interpretation of the status of the secessionist states. It is the same either way.
If Lee was loyal to his state, I will give him that. He claimed that he could not draw his sword against Virginia. He gets points for that too. But, when he led an invasion into neutral Maryland (Antietam) and Gettysburg, he crossed a line that went from defending his home state to invading Union lands with rebellious forces.
He is also credited with honor. If he was so honorable why did he intentionally ignore the oath he gave when he spent decades in the Republican army? I have never heard if he gave an oath to the CSA?
As for Gallagher’s assertion that the CSA was a country, name one sovereign country that recognized it? This was a rebellion and a civil war, not a war between countries, but between citizens from different regions of the same country. Each person can view this war how he chooses. Lee, in my mind, was a rebel and was very lucky he was not hung for treason for at least rebelling again the US. Same goes for Jefferson Davis and anyone else that held office in the confederacy.
Yet he led Virginia in a war where the rebelling states fired the first shot.
The fact is he was loyal to the institution of slavery. Nobody wants to say this but if you look at every states statements when seceding slavery was the overriding theme. It’s undeniable and it’s what bound the Confederacy together.
poor audio
If I am not mistaken, the part Gary cited Lee's thought on slavery and the emancipation proclamation came after his failed attempt on the invasion on Maryland (having lost more than ten thousand men). This could have effected his attitude on the matter for the emancipation proclamation was seen as weapon used by Lincoln.
Lee was correct. The emancipation was Lincoln's decision to give the Confederacy a last chance at a negotiated conclusion to the war. After that the Union went on a total war footing with no further negotiations. Grant and Sherman's march soon followed.
is the microphone he is holding even on? he gets quieter every time he moves away from the podium.
Lets not forget that Virginia predated the "federal experiment" by nearly 100 years.
Yes, but Virginia was an original signer of the Articles of Confederation, which declared the “perpetual Union” of the United States.
@@GH-oi2jf
and when the Constitutional Convention in session....and some states had ratified the Constitution....and some had not.....and they hadnt reached the 9 threshold.....what was the status of the Articles of Confederation?
@@GH-oi2jf
No mention of "perpetual" in the Constitution.
Ah, yes. The crown colony of Virginia, nicknamed The Old Dominion for its unwavering loyalty to the British monarchy. The very definition of a free and independent state!
How can we judge Lee or the South by today’s standards? I don’t know how anybody can?
The concept of loyalty to the Union being a higher calling than state loyalty is not just a modern standard. It existed in Civil War times, too. It is a test that Robert E. Lee utterly failed. And he failed in other, perhaps more technical ways: for example, he abandoned his U.S. Army commission and fled to Virginia two days before the Army formally accepted his resignation (and after turning aside an offer to lead the Federal military forces). Inasmuch as he took a sacred oath to defend the U.S. Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he was thus guilty of treason. This was a sticking point that held up formal restoration of his citizenship until the Jimmy Carter era in the 1970s. Lee should have waited for his Army discharge before joining the rebels and taking up arms against the United States. This failure will forever be a black mark on his legacy because his "loyalty" to Virginia became, simultaneously, a seditious assault on the nation of his birth. For a "man of principle," this omission demonstrated a shocking lack of principle.
well, we can "judge" George Washington for supporting the War of Independence in 1776 so I guess we can make some judgements about the actions of 1861
We don't have to. Slavery was widely understood as barbaric back then, which is a huge reason why no foreign country was willing to offer the slaveholders' rebellion diplomatic recognition. Remember, the traitors rejected the Declaration's 90 year old statement about all men being created equal for being too woke.
I admire Lee for fighting for his state. although a great deal of Southerners were for secession, especially those that did vote to secede, Lee like most Southerners we're not against the Union. And even though the South primarily fought to defend slavery, there were Southerners who also fought to defend slavery as well as Defend their land. in fact there were even sooutherners who did not fight for slavery at all, they only fought to defend their land.
What else were they supposed to do?
There were also a great many men of the South who did not want to fight at all but got drafted. This idea that the South had an all-volenteer army is not true and has never been true. The draft proved so unpopular that many of the local militias formed to defend deserters and homecoming soldiers FROM THE CONFEDERACY.
Who decides what are "top comments?" I can only imagine with horror what did not make this list. If there is balance here, I fail to see it. Gallagher does more--and 150 students showing up for an 8:00 AM class on the Civil War is somewhat of a testament to the value if not the popularity of his course. I took an 8:00 AM class twice a week as a freshman and it was cold (heat on at 6 AM) and I vowed never to do it again. I suspect Gallagher does this so as to attract only the most dedicated students. The amount of disrespect shown a serious student of this period of conflict (and teacher) is ludicrous.
If Virginia and its' independence were more important to Lee than his country, why did he agree with Virginia entering a new Union with the other Confederate states under a Confederate Constitution that was essentially the same as the US Constitution except for the issue of slavery? Answer me that!
He didn't
The Confederate constitution is the same but different then the U.S. in many ways on is that the president has one term for 6 years as a example.
He obeyed the civilian government of the state government of Virginia.
No states rights were differant you cloud not demand money or troops
You cloud ask and very politely I might add also they almost did have 1 0r more
States unite ! This was jerrsons greatest fear
Lee was more loyal to the side that virginia was on
The way I look at is it as this: Although being a citizen of a state was taken much more seriously than it is today. Lee took an oath to defend the United States when he became an officer of the US Army. He did not take sn oath to the army of Virginia. Although he resigned does not relieve him of this oath because his country was under attack since Sumpter. Resigning his commission was a means to an end of his support of succession, his support of slavery, his support of dissolution of the United States and his support of taking arms against its government and citizens.
The oath is to defend the Constitution and people. Whether Secession was legitimate was a matter of debate at the time, one only settled by force of arms.
Apparently Lee thought otherwise. I believe that the family name and history in virginia had something to do with his decision to resign.
You know it’s crazy to me that the people of the confederacy compared Lee to George Washington and that Lee himself could look on himself as a George Washington type figure BECAUSE Lee was working to destroy all
That Washington had sacrificed for. He was working to break up the United States of America. Lee and ALL the loyalists in the Confederacy were members of a foreign enemy to
The United States. It baffled me for years, though it’s been rectified now, that we had United States millitary posts named offer Confederate generals! Doesn’t
That strike anyone else as odd? Considering the Confederacy was a country fighting against the USA and were enemies of the USA. Yet for decades we had Flrt Polk and Fort Bragg and Fort Stewart Fort Gordon and Fort Lee. They have all been renamed now just in the last 3 years. How odd would it be to have a Fort Hitler? Or a Fort Hirohito? Or a Fort Bismarck? It’s the same thing. I live 40 miles from the former Fort Polk in Louisiana. It’s since been renamed Fort Johnson. When i became old enough to understand who Polk was and who the base was named after I thought it extremely odd that we would name a US base after someone who fought to destroy the USA. Luckily for us all I wasn’t the only one with those feelings and the mistake hasnbenn rectified.
there is NO! question to Lees loyalty! he just refused to fight hisfriends family and home! he didnt believe conferates had the right to succeed
he just cloudnt fight against his family!
but he fought against his oath and his classmates, he was evil and racists as are you
@@nobonespurs As did most of the military officers who remained loyal to the US, when it comes to fighting against their oath and classmates. And most, the overwhelming majority, were racist as well. It was the culture of the day. That didn't always include support for slavery, though in many cases it did. And I see no evidence of racism in HDSME's post. Makes you evil ion my book. Until you support your accusation with verifiable evidence. Objective evidence
@@garyguyton7373 supporters of racists are racist
HDSME - You must have slept through this lecture.
Nick Werle Why is everybody racist because they have a different opinion?
So much for lee's west point oath to the U.S.
What about the constitution's oath to Lee? When your country steals your property without compensating you is that liberty and justice for all? Or is that simply an extension of slavery to all citizens?
@@jeffmilroy9345- Lee’s heirs were eventually compensated for the property which became Arlington National Cemetery.
That's fine - a few bucks. However, I was referring to the uncompensated "unconstitutional taking" that arguably started the war. Like wetland regulations in 1986 that resulted in the huge cluster-f known as WOTUS for example. When the feds pass a law that takes massive value that can simply not be compensated because of sheer numbers of those afflicted and sheer dollar amount - they simply pass it off as the will of the electorate. Sucks for the losers - too bad so sad? But you know? Sometimes the losers fight - particularly when the stakes are that high. How high? We are still struggling with civil rights and reparations that never happened when the south recovery was torched. No big deal I guess.@@GH-oi2jf
So much for Washington's oath to the British crown you think ol chap
@@GH-oi2jf They had no choice take what they offer or lump it.
I wish somebody had turned on the mike he is holding in his hand.
Wish the audio was better. And it would be if the dumb s.o.b. would stop the dramatics of trying to walk back and forth while holding the mic like a rapper on stage, and set the mic at the podium like a normal human being.
If R.E. Lee was supposed to be this great United States soldier before the war then why, at the age of 50, is he still just a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army? 50 is pretty old for the mid 19th century. He had been a soldier for almost 30 years at that point and only rose to LT Colonel?? He should have already been a Brigadeer General or a Colonel at least.
Amazing how Gallagher displays no insight of Longstreet. He also does great injustice of knocking Shelby Foote by mocking him.
You can measure and man not only by his friends, but his enemies.
Shelby was a good storyteller and I like his novels, but when it comes to the Civil War he is a Lost Cause proponent and that aspect of his personality should be called out. He’s just wrong on so many levels. Professor Gallagher is spot-on with this entire lecture. Gallagher’s books are a must for anybody interested in understanding the history behind the war versus how the war is remembered.
SteveTheF - Prof. Gallagher’s style is to mock mythology, and some people don’t like his style, but Foote is fair game to an academic historian. Laymen think of Foote as the historian of the Civil War because of the recognition he got from Burns’ documentary series, but he was not a historian. He was a mere storyteller.
Longstreet would require another lecture. This lecture is about Lee.
I may be cynical, but his financial assets lie in Virginia. Also the Southern sense of honor was different. For the North is was your standing with God. In the South it was your standing with your peers.
I would say you have that backwards. And the southern institution of most value was free labor, aka slavery.
@DouglasLyons-yg3lv The North had Calvinism. The Southern upper classes had the Episcopal church, which was conservative and aimed at maintaining the social order. I read someone saying that and thought it was an interesting concpt.I know there are lot of bible-thumpers in the South, but I am referring to the world of the Gentlemen and their code of honor.
Must have been cold and flu season at the time of this lecture. 😂
I started to get annoyed with all the people coughing. 😂 I guess these people never heard of a cough drop.
so, what is new here?
Long Live ROBERT E LEE!!!
I commonly see Social Media posts such as “Who else is willing to say ‘I support the Constitution of the United States’. Let’s make this go Viral”. I understand multiple and sometimes conflicting allegiances, but for military officers an oath of alliance is not situational. Robert E. Lee was a noble traitor.
The loyalty question was simple: Lee upheld his oath to defend the Constitution while Lincoln and every Union soldier did not. We were a federal republic and a voluntary union of free and independent States. Lincoln got it all wrong. The founders would be appalled that any State would be coerced to stay in the Union. The founders' writings, the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federal Papers, James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc., etc., made this crystal clear!
Thank God an unintended consequence of the War was that the slaves were set free. It was an egregious evil. However, Lincoln and Congress emphatically and repeatedly made the point the War wasn't about slavery, but suppressing secession. In doing so, Lincoln destroyed the founders' voluntary Union and the Constitution. Lee fought to preserve the Constitution's principles. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the federal republic that was created.
If you find any of what I've written objectionable, I encourage you to learn about our "wonderful" 16th president in The Real Lincoln, by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo. It will certainly leave you wondering why you weren't told the truth about him, our history, and the Constitution. To the victors shamefully went the writing of the history.
The traitors' pretend constitution expressly prohibited secession. Why? James Madison said the Constitution could be ratified "forever and en toto" or not at all. Did James Madison not understand the "crystal clear" intent of the founders?
Also where were these freed people supposed to live?
Who would hire them for pay?
How would they clothe themselves?
Feed themselves?
Healthcare?
You miss the mark with your assumption based on very elementary thinking as to Lees obviously complex thought processes.
The South did not want any any planned orderly emancipation. Events overtook this.
29:58
Lee like many other Southerners had the logical reservations....
If these freed men had no means of providing for their families.... they'd eventually take what they need from the widows of Confederate soldiers.
But that would necessitate the feds involving themselves in the mess they created and dropped square in the laps of Southerners who by this point were destitute, homeless, starving and forced to sell off their land to survive.
Further... the single farmer couldn't compete... that's exactly it but you take a left here....
So you expect me to believe that people would go and die for someone else to keep their slaves?
You're completely missing the average southern man's perspective... life prior to this war...
The Irish have much more at stake here than another man's slave... you once again assume the average southerner to be a more elemental thinker... simply not the case
None of this speaks of the barbarism of the Union forces under the orders of General Sherman wrought upon a purely civilian population of women and children in the south but especially those women in the state of Georgia.
Nearly 2,000 mill workers from New Manchester and Roswell Georgia were detained and held in a makeshift confinement camp where they were eventually crammed into cattle cars and shipped north then turned out into the streets in the wintertime.
Most were never seen by their families again.
Traitor
He could have just not participated in the war if he did not want to attack his home state, and upheld his oath to the USA.
And when he did command the Army of North Virginia, he invaded Maryland and pillaged Pennsylvania-he wasn't "just" defending Virginia.
The best defense is a good offense. He was defending his home of Virginia!!! If he had not invaded the Union surely would have!!!
Lee spent the early part of the war attacking...his fellow Virginians. Why? To prevent their secession from Virginia and "the confederacy"!
Lee fought for Virginia because he had family spread all throughout Virginia... He wasn't going to bring war into his home state! & you can also say the CSA fired the 1st shots of Ft. Sumter yet the Union invaded the South! When Lee actually took over the Union basically had Richmond surrounded... Lee defeated one army after another freeing them to move into the North...
But I dont believe Lee fought for the southern states to be able to keep slaves even though thats what Liberals think everyone whom fought for the CSA represented... Just fighting to keep slavery which wasn't the case... For some yes for others no.... Like Braxton Bragg I think he was in it purely to keep Slavery intact as he went onto create the KKK after the Civil War... Others like Lee, Longstreet, Stonewall, Hood, etc I dont believe they joined the CSA just to keep slavery intact!
Im sure u all know who Winfield Scott is... He was our main General along with Taylor against Mexico when they brought back Santa Anna... This is the war where all the Generals who fought against each other during the civil war all fought together against mexico... Anyways Winfield Scott said without Lee who i forget his rank at the time... He wasn't yet a General... He said without Lee they most likely wouldn't have made it all the way to Mexico City! We completely defeated Mexico. People like to say well out army was picking on a smaller one... BS! Go back & look at the # of troops Mexico had compared to what we invaded Mexico with... Also the battle of Vera Cruz... These were tough hard battles but because of all our brilliant commanders we kicked Mexico's ass & took most of their land! Longstreet & Grant were good friends fighting against Mexico! Then it was Grant who finally get the Union together & started using the Unions manpower they way they always should've! Winfield Scott also who praised Lee during Mexican war... Or Polks war as others call it... Scott said when Lee refused to lead the army Lincoln was raising & decided to join the CSA... Scott said it was the biggest mistake Lee will ever make! Lee lost damn near everything in the Civil War... By the End he lost his homes in Virginia... he had like 3 or 4 sons all captured by the Union! Yet I think in the couple yrs he lived after the Civil War... I think the only thing he regretted was his orders at Gettysburg... I highly doubt that regretted taking over command of the CSA even though they lost! I think its truly sad that maybe the best american general behind Patton is having his statues torn down.... It truly disgusts me!
All confederate monuments should be removed from American soil. These people were traitors who should have been hung for treason.
@@willoutlaw4971So was Washington, Jefferson, Sam and John Adams (both of them), Henry, Paine, Harry Lee, etc. & so forth. we should dig up their graves, and hang the remains, shouldn't we? Traitor's are named by the victors, as are Heroes.
Lee was loyal. Anybody who says different doesn't know Lee.
Lee was a super loyal good man.
Loyalty 2 his Soldiers should have been Foremost by General Lee. He sacrificed his men in Napoleonic style attacks. In his defense he may have not totally understood the rifled barrelled musket with it's bullet minie bone shattering effect. But, How in the world can an educated Military man such as THE General Lee not have grasped this?. General Longstreet did. This warrior ball bustin Kickin' Yankee ass Tactician who used up his soldiers in battles srikes as a mystery of General Lee Strategy. Also as a battlefield Tactician of the highest order He should have husbanded his Men considering how the North's miltary manpower dwarfed South's manpower. He bled the CSA Army of Northern Virginia white...
ALL the generals should have understood the rifled musket meant the and of massed infantry attacks, but few did. That lesson wasn't really learned until After WWI. How that happened I'll never understand.
What wars have been won by ceding the tactical offensive to the opponent?
@@briansass4865 My comment of General Lee's fiasco at Gettysburg answers your question of what wars have been won by ceding tactical offensive to an opponent. Read History of Warfare. (None)
@@garyguyton7373 smooth bore rifles in Napoleon warfare were accurate to 80 yards. Rifled barrels came along later. These rifled barrels could kill at long distance.
@@lnm7276 Eventually, strategic and tactical defense must switch over to the offensive in order to subdue any adversary willing to take sustained losses to keep their cause alive. Read more than that one book.
At the very begining of his lecture he argues that the CS was a dif. nation ,at that point if u r a sane individual u know that (no matter if he is a highly educated person or even a genious in his scientific object ) u listen to a person who is so passionate on this matter that cant serv the truth and objectivity which r the main elements of history science (Thucidides). So simply u stop listening .
Savas Chatzivasileiadis - Properly educated people can listen to someone who holds a different point of view on some subject and give it some consideration. In fact, that is the whole point of academic discourse - to consider a subject from all angles and try to extract the best understanding from these different viewpoints.
Prof. Gallagher insists on thinking of the Confederacy as a nation in order to understand the Confederate leaders. The Union leaders, from Lincoln on down, did not consider the Confederacy legitimate, of course, and always treated them as states of the US in rebellion. If you don’t like Gallager’s model, just ignore it and listen to the rest of what he has to say.
You will never find an academic who agrees with your view on every point. If there were one, why would you listen to him?
He starts off by explaining that we have many loyalties and then, to make his Yankee point he's going to omit the loyalties that may explain Lee followed Virginia for any reason other than slavery. "Lee has many loyalties but for the purpose of me explaining the reason he stayed with Virginia I'm going to focus on Four, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, and Slavery and by the end you'll see he left because of Slavery, therefor tear down his statues, plow his grave, etc.
Your paraphrase is loopy. He did not focus only on slavery. Also Gallagher does not support the removal of CSA statues.
Let me elaborate. There is a long, slow moving effort to diminish the fact that slavery wasn't the key reason southerners fought for the Confederacy. Gallagher's presentation is a perfect example of this tactic. Sorry if you think I was "loopy" however, it was a youtube comment, not a critical essay. I purposely made it short and exaggerated. My point is that despite the overwhelming evidence that Southerners like R.E.L. joined the Confederacy for a variety of reasons most Northern historians continue to pound the slavery issue. It appears to me they are trying to lump certain motivations into the lost cause myth. Their thesis seems to be, "if it is a reason other than slavery, it is part of the lost cause". Am I wrong?
@@kevinwalls3871 Yeah. You're wrong.
@@JPW3 Possibly. Now tell me why.
A lot of Virginia-born officers stayed in the US army.
Lee was the worst possible kind of traitor. A 'favorite son' icon, he repudiated the nation that made him and took up arms against his own country. He could have refused to serve the confederates also, if his real commitment WAS "not to fight against Virginia."
As was Washington, Jefferson, Sam and John Adams (both of them), Henry, Paine, Harry Lee, etc. & so forth. we should dig up their graves, and hang the remains, shouldn't we? Traitor's are named by the victors, as are Heroes. Plain and simple. The issue of the legitimacy of secession was a matter of opinion at the time, decided by force of arms. Had Lee refused to support no one and walked away from the whole mess, he would have been cowardly as well as treasonous, to one side or the other.
@@garyguyton7373 Lee was the loser, as you point out. A traitor. All the others were winners, Founders. Lee tried to help found a fascist, feudal slaveocracy, but he and his slaveowning planter confederates were soundly defeated. May they burn in a hot place along with all their sympathizers.
@@nora22000 The founders were losers, just as much, as much as the Confederacy. The nation of free people living in a limited, democratic republic was and is a total failure. May Lincoln and all his ilk rot in the same Hell as the slavers of any time, anywhere. Lincoln preserved the Union. He didn't come close to accomplishing anything else. He freed the slaves? NO. He made us all slaves. To the government
@@nora22000 I am confident that there are both Union & Confederate souls in heaven as well as hell. We are not the judges of where anybody spends wternity
Lee was first loyal to Virginia. he didn't choose her because of being a part of slaveholding elite.
he opposed slavery for unique christian reasons. he said it was immoral and should not exist if Christianity was more popular in the south which he hoped it would be.
He rejected his wives slaves.
This guy is a poor historian.
he simply didn't want force to end slavery against the souths will.
He was right.
Lee was a very honest and consistent , high virtue, man.
He didn't lie about motives and opinions.
This is another left wing ethnic "historian' trying to make a name by attacking a man not here now.
Lee did break contract and betray America and kill Americans.
Yet that was common.
This canadian says there should be equal time to answer this guy by this university place.
.
So a Historian uses actual letters, statements & facts. You use BS delusional opinion for salve for your shitty Hero. He owned slaves FFS. Get a clue.
Historians are just people using data or not.
i know the data.
He only had a slave for his wife but she was a friend and stayed with them after '65.,
He clearly opposed slavery.Thats not important however.
The killing of people is the important thing.
Was he a murderer for shooting yankees?
I think thats possible. However that means most people on both sides.
However this guy is just wasting ones tiome in this revisionist history attack on Lee.
Did he read the history on Lee ? or what he thinks is welcome in leftwing circles.
I still admire and have a lot of respect for the General, but that doesn't mean the speaker is wasting our time with nonsensical points. I think he's well researched and credible, and just because his personal opinions don't jive with your own, doesn't invalidate his take. If you only accept information that confirms your preconceived bias, then you're being stubbornly narrow minded and making an admission that you would rather remain blissfully ignorant than be challenged and receptive to counter thought; while that is your fundamental American right, it's also not indicative of possessing greater wisdom, so try thinking about that before you react to what you were not prepared to hear.
I'm Canadian.
I'm attacking what this poor historian said. Wiser or not its a correction.
At this day and time there shouldn't be such errors.
He acknowledged that there were contradictions and the relationships cannot be adequately defined by just a few quotes. I do disagree with the judgement he draws upon these conclusions, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate it as inherently incorrect.
Lee was a traitor against his country, he even feels that way after the end of the war of the rebellion
That is what every member of Virginia would have said if he stayed loyal to the Union. Which would you rather? Friends, neighbors, church members, family, and associates calling you a traitor, or some ignorant person 160 years from now?
You wouldn't know a traitor if you saw one! You are just mad because Mr. LEE was so much higher above your class that you would have to stand on your mama's shoulders just to kiss his A**
WRONG
@@kevinwalls3871idk about the rest of you but I would not take up arms against the flag of the United States even if my own mother asked me to do so. Much less some slimy state reps in Tallahassee.
this guy is the epitome of scalawag ... if he is from the south.
Joe Citizen jj
Joe Citizen - If you are still fighting the Civil War - it’s over. You lost.
@@GH-oi2jf ... all rights were lost in the civil war ... but you are too stupid to know that.
Look around.
Okay Grant lost 50,000 in 1 month vs. Lee's 30,000 something in the same mouth. Lee was the center of the Confederate army everyone believed that was the man to beat. So yes he lost more man, but was in most of the biggest battles of the war. Lee fought a lot of battles against 2 to 1 odds Grant fought most of hes 1 to 2 odds. Shiloh, Grant was evenly matched and was losing tell reinforcements showed up. Not a great victory. He never had a conclusive battle won against Lee again outnumbering the enemy. So yes Grant was a butcher in many ways.