General Lee was not a slave holder/owner. His war was not over slavery nor did he fight for the cause to own slaves despite those who hate the South love to assert. His was unequivocally loyal to his beloved Virginia and for the sovereign right for the states to govern themselves without the increased subjugation by the federal government. A long and complicated stroy. General Lee cannot be historically stained by slavery, as those who have a personal vindetta against him repeatedly enjoy attempting. Neither Lee nor Stonewall Jackson were slave holders. It's interesting how some self-proclaimed "experts" love to herald slavery. True motives eventually surface......
Good information, and a mostly good video; I think it suffers a bit from the almost apocalyptic "Jaws"-like music in the background. Perhaps some music of the Civil War era might have been more appropriate. I had a history professor in Community College, a fascinating guy, who flat-out called Robert E. Lee a traitor. After all, Lee forsook his obligations to his Country to take up arms with his state, rejecting the idea of the United States; and the professor was quite right, there. Obviously, that's a very black-and-white way of looking at things, and I don't fault Professor Jones for saying that. I'm not sure if I would call Lee a traitor, but I feel he made the wrong decision and I am saddened by his choice. If he had stayed in the U. S. Army and helped put down the rebellion, perhaps there would have been less bloodshed and an earlier end to the War. On the other hand, if the War had been put down quickly, perhaps slavery would have been perpetuated, as President Lincoln's first obligation was to keep the Union intact and didn't consider emancipation as a possible goal until later in the War. Oh, well; alternative history is interesting to contemplate, but we'll never really know. I sometimes wonder, though, if things would have been better had Lee made a different decision.
Lee’s story wasn’t written by the victor, as some of these comments imply; nor was the story which led up to the civil war. It was written and continues to be written, by the losers, trying desperately to justify their reason for fighting. They claim was about states rights, not slavery; which was the right to own and continue to own slaves They claim they were fighting an invading northern war of aggression; literally months leading to the firing of Fort Sumpter, the South seized arms, garrisons, forts, and other federal property - at the end of muskets, sabers, and bayonets…the definition of aggression. They claim the south was rampaged and looted by the invading federal forces…conveniently leaving out Confederate forces also rampaged and looted towns and cities…one of the famous one being Jeb Stuart, whose rampaging took the eyes away from the army and made Lee blind leading to Gettysburg. - But most text books don’t mention these things….especially those books made for schools, especially those which are currently majority printed out in Texas, a former pro slavery state. - Lees stance on slavery has changed, depending on who writes the book - but his own letters make it clear: In a letter written to his wife in 1856, in which he called slavery a “moral & political evil.” It sounds unequivocal enough, but then Lee expands on his reasoning: “I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.”
@@JackHawkinswritesWHO caused those deaths? It was the north that invaded the South. If AL had not exceeded his imagined duties few would have died on either side.
Kind of a click baity title...this is all we hear about Lee in history. Actually it's a basic skin deep narrative of Robert Lee. It still doesn't tell me anything we typically already don't know about Lee in standard history. Nothing about his ugly side, his mistakes, faults. I find all that very much necessary in garnering more understanding and even respect for the historical figure of Lee. The annoying Confederate larpers and their white washed history has actually backfired on them. They have typically depicted Robert E Lee as a flawless saintly person who is placed in his predicament by noble intentions. People tend not to believe that and become skeptical of such an image and looks unrelatable. In fact Lee beat up female slaves, did direct frontal attacks, got outclassed by McClellan in some battles, suffered heart attacks, etc. When I read that, I get a better understanding. This is why Ulysses S Grant is liked so much. They don't depict him as some perfect figure. He's a guy who was an alcoholic, struggled with depression from missing his family, had people talk trash behind his back and we love him for it. Grant looks more like a dude that's real and not some fake figure floating on a cloud like Lee.
Japan and the south right good analogy .... for that matter you could stick Germany on that list ... they all had a resource problem that wouldn't let them succeed in their aspirations
@@Paulftate - I was referring to the South and Japan (re)writing history from the loser's perspective. Germany, beyond a few generals and oddballs, never did that.
As a Means of supporting our efforts please hit the LIKE & SUBSCRIBE button.🤍🙏
Lee left Stratford Hall when he was two years old. He was raised in Alexandria, VA on Oronoco Street.
General Lee was not a slave holder/owner. His war was not over slavery nor did he fight for the cause to own slaves despite those who hate the South love to assert. His was unequivocally loyal to his beloved Virginia and for the sovereign right for the states to govern themselves without the increased subjugation by the federal government. A long and complicated stroy. General Lee cannot be historically stained by slavery, as those who have a personal vindetta against him repeatedly enjoy attempting. Neither Lee nor Stonewall Jackson were slave holders. It's interesting how some self-proclaimed "experts" love to herald slavery. True motives eventually surface......
Gen. Lee inherited multiple slaves from his mother.
Both were great.
The house that Lee surrendered in was owned by Wilmer McLean not William McLean.
Good information, and a mostly good video; I think it suffers a bit from the almost apocalyptic "Jaws"-like music in the background. Perhaps some music of the Civil War era might have been more appropriate.
I had a history professor in Community College, a fascinating guy, who flat-out called Robert E. Lee a traitor. After all, Lee forsook his obligations to his Country to take up arms with his state, rejecting the idea of the United States; and the professor was quite right, there. Obviously, that's a very black-and-white way of looking at things, and I don't fault Professor Jones for saying that. I'm not sure if I would call Lee a traitor, but I feel he made the wrong decision and I am saddened by his choice. If he had stayed in the U. S. Army and helped put down the rebellion, perhaps there would have been less bloodshed and an earlier end to the War. On the other hand, if the War had been put down quickly, perhaps slavery would have been perpetuated, as President Lincoln's first obligation was to keep the Union intact and didn't consider emancipation as a possible goal until later in the War. Oh, well; alternative history is interesting to contemplate, but we'll never really know. I sometimes wonder, though, if things would have been better had Lee made a different decision.
Lee’s story wasn’t written by the victor, as some of these comments imply; nor was the story which led up to the civil war. It was written and continues to be written, by the losers, trying desperately to justify their reason for fighting.
They claim was about states rights, not slavery; which was the right to own and continue to own slaves
They claim they were fighting an invading northern war of aggression; literally months leading to the firing of Fort Sumpter, the South seized arms, garrisons, forts, and other federal property - at the end of muskets, sabers, and bayonets…the definition of aggression.
They claim the south was rampaged and looted by the invading federal forces…conveniently leaving out Confederate forces also rampaged and looted towns and cities…one of the famous one being Jeb Stuart, whose rampaging took the eyes away from the army and made Lee blind leading to Gettysburg.
-
But most text books don’t mention these things….especially those books made for schools, especially those which are currently majority printed out in Texas, a former pro slavery state.
-
Lees stance on slavery has changed, depending on who writes the book - but his own letters make it clear:
In a letter written to his wife in 1856, in which he called slavery a “moral & political evil.” It sounds unequivocal enough, but then Lee expands on his reasoning:
“I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.”
What is wrong with TH-cam?? No video will go past 50 seconds!
Lee controversial? He was anything but controversial.
Hmmm. A rebel and treasonous person isn't controversial. Need help determining what history you are reading.
@@leonhoover695 Exactly. It's all a matter of perspective.
A traitor too the nation who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. A truly despicable person
@@JackHawkinswritesTiresome blah-blah-blah
@@JackHawkinswritesWHO caused those deaths? It was the north that invaded the South. If AL had not exceeded his imagined duties few would have died on either side.
Kind of a click baity title...this is all we hear about Lee in history. Actually it's a basic skin deep narrative of Robert Lee. It still doesn't tell me anything we typically already don't know about Lee in standard history. Nothing about his ugly side, his mistakes, faults. I find all that very much necessary in garnering more understanding and even respect for the historical figure of Lee. The annoying Confederate larpers and their white washed history has actually backfired on them. They have typically depicted Robert E Lee as a flawless saintly person who is placed in his predicament by noble intentions. People tend not to believe that and become skeptical of such an image and looks unrelatable. In fact Lee beat up female slaves, did direct frontal attacks, got outclassed by McClellan in some battles, suffered heart attacks, etc. When I read that, I get a better understanding.
This is why Ulysses S Grant is liked so much. They don't depict him as some perfect figure. He's a guy who was an alcoholic, struggled with depression from missing his family, had people talk trash behind his back and we love him for it. Grant looks more like a dude that's real and not some fake figure floating on a cloud like Lee.
Too many adjectives usually means the effort to dress up poor content.
History is written by the winner's. Sad but true. All we are told is in lieburys.
Matter of interpretation ... for instance? Think of black crime during that era ...
Actually The South and Japan would disagree with that first statement.
Japan and the south right good analogy .... for that matter you could stick Germany on that list ... they all had a resource problem that wouldn't let them succeed in their aspirations
@@Paulftate - I was referring to the South and Japan (re)writing history from the loser's perspective. Germany, beyond a few generals and oddballs, never did that.
Lee did not accept defeat. Longstreet understood the change, but Lee did not. Sad, but true.