"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country." A clip from the movie Gods and Generals, www.imdb.com/ti...
When the real incident occurred, Lee was clean-shaven and dark hared. He grew a beard and his hair went white in late 1861. But nobody today would recognize a clean-shaven, dark haired Robert E. Lee.
Lee knew this from his Mexican War experience. He had been almost a special assistant for Winfield Scott and had seen the toll it had taken on that tough old man. But for him his state allegiance trumped everything else. In 1861 Lee had hit that age when men tended to go gray. The beard was the fashion of the time. Lincoln had been elected as a clean-shaven man.
In a somewhat cruel irony, if Robert E. Lee had taken command of the Union Army, he could have ended the war swiftly and spared his homeland a lot of grief.
But would he though? Lee would probably be facing the same pressure from Congress that McDowell did, which he means Lee would still be marching with untrained soldiers. Would the results still be the same?
Jacob Martinez The Confederate rank and file would be just as green at this point. As with all things though, great successes have many fathers. And many of Lee's were just as much due to having competent corps commanders like Stonewall. Still, I think having access to vastly superior numbers and material would make the war a lot closer to the "home by Christmas" myth that they thought it would be. Without Lee in command, Richmond wouldn't have been nearly as fortified, and on the Union side, Lee would be able to fight the war on his terms.
Edgar Labra Depends on how you define honor. If you read his letters, you'll know that he loved the Union almost as much as he loved Virginia, and if he wanted to save Virginia from the devastation of war, taking command of the dominant side and ending the war swiftly definitely seems to me to be the nobler option, however hard it may be to wage war on your home state. If the war had been ended with a few decisive strokes by a respected member of the Southern gentry like Lee, without any glorious victories like Chancellorsville to remember, I doubt the wounds of the Civil War would have been as deep. One thing that I'm pretty sure of is that the war would have been swift, if not entirely bloodless. With McClellan to build the Union army and Lee to use it, the South would have been beaten ingloriously, without any grand, last stands or faint hopes of what might have been to build the myth of the Lost Cause with. It wouldn't be called "the Civil War" or "The War Between the States" or "The War of Northern Aggression". It would be known as, "That brief time the Southern leaders collectively lost their minds, and ol' Bob stuck a boot up their nether regions and showed them what real Southern honor looks like". He would have felt like crap about it, and his contemporaries might have hated him for it, but tragedies like that are what myths are built on. Myths of the nigh demigod-like nature of the Founding Fathers gave national character to a people that once prided themselves in being Englishmen. Myths are powerful things, and that myth would have fundamentally changed Southern culture for the better.
There is a reason why Robert E. Lee was never prosecuted after the war, and why history has judged him so well. Regardless of one's views toward secession and the war, it was his actions after the cessation of hostilities that showed his true grace and character. Tens of thousands of rebel soldiers looked to him after Appomattox for direction. He could have initiated guerrilla warfare or dragged the war on for years in an insurgent form. But he took the moral high ground and told his men to go home. Rejoin their families. Plow their fields. Accept the outcome of the war as gentlemen and begin to heal. Ulysses S. Grant is also credited with achieving a peaceful settlement as the war ended. He could have humiliated and disgraced the Confederate leadership with harsh terms of surrender. But he let them keep their rifles and their horses and sent them home. The United States would be a very different place now if not for the actions of those two men at the end of the war.
+Bobby Ricigliano Lee didn't get his citizenship back until July 22, 1975. He died stateless in 1870. President Gerald Ford signed the congressional resolution on July 24, 1975 calling it a 110 year oversight. If only he would have had Stone Wall Jackson at Gettysburg.
Lee’s ancestors who came from England were the first family of the Virginia colony of British America. This is why Robert E. Lee being a descendant of the Lee family was so attached to Virginia.
Yet some of his family members joined the Union. His cousin Samuel Lee was a Union admiral. When asked why he stayed with the Union, Sam Lee said _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission papers, I will join the Confederacy."_
no all the english left america for canada after the french won in 1776, robert lees ancestors probably changed their last name to an english sounding name to fit in he was most likely irish mexican german and black like all americans
So his Virginian family tradition had existed for what..about a century? Whoopey doo! As a European I always thought all that civil war talk of honour and tradition as it related to states that had been around for barely a historical heartbeat was weird. Human Pride and Prejudice is a very strange thing.
HIS FATHER WAS " LIGHTHORSE " HARRY LEE WHO FOUGHT WITH WASHINGTON DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND GENERAL LEE AT THE TIME A COLONEL ALSO FOUGHT IN THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY RARELY TALKED ABOUT
"There is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war." - Quote by Robert E. Lee
@@bluebandit5586 Yeahhh no he didn't and when he was instructed by the will to release them, he petitioned Virginian courts to extend the deadline. I have a source to this if you're not convinced. There is also a quote saying he deemed slavery beneficial for blacks.
@@emc448 theres also a quote saying he would release every slave in the US if he could to prevent the civil war, sooooo.... You cant mount an attack on his character sir. He was one of the most inspirational leaders in our history
i.e. a confederation. The popular saying goes that, before the War, the United States *are*. After the War, the United States *is*. If the United States is a confederation of sovereign States, they can rightfully secede at any time. And if they cannot secede, they are not sovereign, and they are unduly ruled by the national authority. Many don't realize, but the outcome of the Civil War marked a fundamental Constitutional change in the United States. It wasn't a change in the Written Constitution. It was a change in the Unwritten Constitution, the Constitution of the de facto, the Constitution of Empire.
@Jayden Dan Dominquez sure he didn‘t. Just like maybe von Mannstein and Guderian wanted to lead the Prussian Army, not the Army of Hitler. It just so happens that those turned out to be the same thing. Whoops
@Jayden Dan Dominquez im not just callimg it what it is. Personally I wished they had of killed all those Fucking slave owners they were an abomination of humanity the atrocities they did to my people was inexcusable period and all their descendants continued the shit with 100 yrs of Jim crow. Fuck them all
@@dinkyb2000 you should spend more time reading and less time commenting. You have no frame of reference for 19th century senses of duty and loyalty which were to thier home states more so than the union. That's why it was no surprise that top generals stuck with the south. Not only that they were being asked to invade thier own homes. Based on your comments I know you are not someone to understand nuance and I'm wasting my time but oh well...
@@lochlan241 Kentucky was so strategically important that Lincoln was supposed to have said "I would like to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky".
I always wished Robert Duvall had played Lee in Gettysburg. I'm not saying that Martin Sheen did a bad job. But Duvall seemed born to play Robert E. Lee. He even looks like him.
I think it wiser, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Robert E Lee. A good man who served an evil cause.
@@jamesmiller5331 Yes, especially the accursed brood of vipers known as Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island. Makes you bluebellies really chubby in the pants, don't it?
@@martincastro7406 are you kidding there just is you could be like Lee who aquired probably about a few million (maybe) in today's world which is considered wealthy but then you have the really wealthy prominent familys which I imagine around that time were cotton and coal families that proabaly were around billionaires in today's world that had alot of pull and tossed dumb money at politicians to back there plans
@@martincastro7406 to be honest not much has changed but anyway back at that the radical democratic party and those promonent southern families influenced the succession and there you have the Civil War where they publicized the reason to go to war as northern aggression (which it was) and the north well what ever lie they came up with anyway
@@martincastro7406 honestly I don't know about how much he got but from what I found Im pretty sure his fame and experience as a military leader was more influential than his wealth
honestly I think Robert E Lee was one of the most honorable men who ever lived. He opposed slavery and supported reunification of the North and South as One Nation, but he refused to raise the sword against Virginia. He never cursed, never drank or smoked, rarely ever lost his temper and commanded great respect and admiration among his man.
I don't call that honor, I call it abandonment of principles. Staying out of the war is one thing, but he joined the other side and fought for a movement that aimed to preserve slavery.
Pan Z Absolutely it was. Read some of the declarations of secession by some of those states. By preserving slavery they were trying to preserve their economy as well as their social order which slavery helped to define.
PyonBoy two states in the south had voted and abolished slavery and the north had one slave state and this was during the war. only a small group of people had slaves and the rest of thd country had high unemployment and the people wanted slavery gone and jobs available and had the war been a draw slavery wouldve been gone in a mettwr of time. the south wouldnt let the north tell it what to do as no state should and should have the say in their state. this war wad about getting rid of state rights and that is exactly what it did.
John Doe ^ 84% of whites in the South were not in a family that owned any slaves. Most were farmers of some sorts. Slaves were usually owned by the rich owners of large plantations. Many Southerners were against slavery for ethical and economic reasons, and many Northerners were even pro slavery (the North even had 4 slave states during the civil war). Clearly, the Northern states we had slaves would've joined the South in the Civil War had the war been about slavery
There’s an alternate History where Lee takes command of the Union army, and the war is remembered as an insurrection ended after the battle of Bull Run.
Lee was against the Confederacy but he cared about his home state and would defend his home. He wasn't a war monger by any means, he wanted to solve this through diplomacy, unfortunately the rest of the country made up its mind.
Stoach Giacco That wouldve caused chaos within the United States Army since Robert E. Lee was very well respected by both the United States and Confederate states
Which he likely would. Lee and Grant were in many ways almost polar opposites. Lee was really in his best command in the field but lacked in overall strategy and political aspects of being a supreme commander. Also he can fairly be said to be perhaps too risk-averse. Grant was the best grand strategist of the Civil war and knew how to fight his army's corner in the politics to get supplies men and money he needed, and he was driven to end the war ASAP, but he was at best an above-average battlefield commander. And McClellan was a fine regimental and perhaps divisional commander, who was also personally brave (he did display casual disregard for his own safety when called for during the Mexican war), but his true great ability was to build an army for other men to then use. So if Grant gets his command early, has Lee to make the actual battle plans and execute them, and McClellan to build them both the Army of Potomac, then the war would be bagged and done with by 1862
@@bbqbros3648 it very much depend on who is lost and when. If substantial part of the core of carrier soldiers was lost in early war Union would be in BIG trouble
You're right. Lee didn't grow his beard until the winter of 61/62 when he was in command of troops in the mountains of western Virginia (now West Virginia).
I wish these movies would stick hard to the facts. Reality deserves respect and is always more interesting, and it is in the details. BTW, See "History Buffs" TH-cam channel for analysis of movies, what they get right, what they get wrong. It's fantastic. One of my favorites: Master and Commander.. and the episode on that is great.
I imagine they had him wear a beard here so he actually looks more like Robert E. Lee and less like Robert Duvall. In telling this great story his beard or lack thereof is more or less irrelevant.
Out of 8 US Army colonels from Virginia in 1861, Lee was the only one who joined the Confederacy. Even among the 15 US Army Colonels from all Confederate states, Lee was just 1 of 3 who turned against the Union. Some people act as if Lee's choice was inevitable or the default thing anyone in his position would do, but in fact he was an outlier.
Perhaps so, but unlike a lot of other officers on both sides he was acting out of heartfelt conviction rather than an opportunity for fame or personal power.
@@johnmarcucci1719 But there were plenty acting out of heartfelt conviction who made the opposite choice, including his own cousin, Admiral Samuel Lee. When Sam Lee was asked why he stayed in the Union, he replied _"When I find the word Virginia in my comission, I will join the Confederacy."_
@@TheStapleGunKid and I respect his conviction, and I'm glad that I have never had to make a choice like that, between the homeland where I was raised and the nation to which I owe everything I have in this world.
@@johnmarcucci1719 Oh I have no doubt it's an agonizing choice, especially since Lee initially said he opposed secession. But I just get sick of people acting like it's the only choice he could have made, or the typical choice to make among most people, when in fact many others made the opposite one, including one member of his own family.
I think we get most of our accent from our folks--his Dad from Virginia, so I guess that explains it--though I don't really know a "Virginia accent" to be honest.
@@killertaco8themaster773 He sounds Southern just in my opinion. I've lived in the South all my life and heard many older folks talk the way he does. I knew a lady who recently passed away who was 85 that spoke in the same way Duvall does in this film.
""I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country." Wonderful actor, wonderful scene and wonderful words!
And yet it was the south that raised an army against its own country and fired the opening shots. They seized government properties and declared themselves separate. They soon found out differently, thank God or what we would look like today.
Yet he was ok with treating people as beast of burden, slaves, inferior beings..Shame on him and double shame on those who hold him in high regard or have sympathy for him.
Robert Duvall should be honored with an Oscar for a fantastic stream of characters he's done so magically, namely a loyal lawyer for the Godfather. Robert E. Lee in Gettysburg, I think but not sure. A cowboy with Tommy Lee Jones in Lonesome Dove, perhaps his best work. Playing Stalin under a heavy load of makeup, an astronaut trying to save the world from an asteroid. A cowboy with Kevin Costner with a fantastic script using actual language as spoken in the late 1800's. I could name a few more works, but he was also memorable as a newspaperman in The Natural with Robert Redford.
@TheWoodIsPoo I may have confused with his Stalin movie, which was actually pretty scary. Duval acted in major Russian buildings during after the fall of Wall of Berlin. The movie was terrifying from the way Stalin murdered millions just like Hitler, Mao. I watched it one time, never again. But Duvall's acting portrayal of a sociopathic leader was something. I've always wondered how he felt being there as I'm sure he was being watched. What an insane world it must've been and still is.
@@majoroz4876 There are quite a few great actors these days. I include Denzel Washington. He has the versatility of Duvall, who can play any role. Take a look at Will Smith, too. He's not just comedy.
This one scene adds so much perspective to the Civil War. I also believe it was Lincoln himself who offered Lee the position in person. And everyone should remember that at the end of the war Lee was saluted by the Union as an honorable man. We all have to come together before something horrible like this occurs again.
C'mon guys, Slavery is horrible but in those days it was the norm. Today those people knowing what we know now would not have the same opinion. We have the benefit of television and the internet, these people had no vison of the wider world and they thought that because these people were not educated and were not "civilised" that they were not the same as them. it is very sad but I don't think this will ever happen again (thank god)
@@jordanjames2611 In all fairness, even by the standards of the 40s, ethnic genocide was a huge WTF, even by German standards, a huge step down in morality from the Germany of the past that, while housing anti-semetic sentiments, would never have gone so far as ethnic genocide as was done during the Third Reich. In 1860s, America, slavery, while horrible, was the norm.
Lee lost more men than Grant overall. He fought to win when he should have fought for a tie. He did not have a universal view of the Confederacy. He rarely gave Davis suggestions for an overall Southern strategy. Grant was the superior general. Grant had 3 Confederate armies surrender to him. Grant won the war. Slavery was the worst ever cause to support.
Saying he was fighting for slavery is like saying the founding fathers fought for slavery- lee gave up his slaves before Grant. Both great men and generals but at least acknowledge him refusing to take up arms against Virginia was his primary motivation. Grant had GREAT respect for him and refused to let his men cheer at Lees surrender- he felt it best to be graceful in victory and welcome the south as brothers and countrymen again- hatred toward the south and the oversimplifying the complexity of their cause only makes for more division- Grant was at least a man of understanding- a great hero.
I call BS to your comment. Grant freed his one slave in 1859. Lee may not have been fighting for slavery but the South's main purpose was to uphold the institution of slavery. State's rights to do what?
@@bbqbros3648 Grant also didn't realize in 1865 that as president he would have to suppress a wave of terrorism across the south as former Confederate soldiers led organizations like the KKK to overthrow the results of the war.
Scene is touching, even if it is inaccurate. Lee resigned in a letter after a night of careful consideration at Arlington. He left the following morning.
Steve Small It is why the movie that the book is based on is Historical Fiction. The books is far better than the movie. A good 1/3 of the books is missing from the movie.
Lee had dark hair and a mustache when this event occurred. He didn’t go gray with a beard until later. I dunno why movies always get this wrong. It’s a perfect opportunity to show how constant stress of war ages someone like Lee. At the beginning when this scene occurs Lee was a handsome physical specimen of a man. The war aged him but he never did look like a old elderly man. His hair turned gray but his face still looked like a man in his 50s…..not 70s
@@cosminblk8359 just google photos of Lee. There is a few from prior to the war. Lee had dark hair and a mustache. No beard. Lee was also not white haired at beginning of the war. He began the war with dark hair and mustache. It wasn’t until he took field command in 1862 that his beard would grow out and hair turn grey. Lee did not look like a elderly man during the war although he did age a lot by the end. Lee’s health decline started right before Gettysburg in 1863. Prior to that he was very robust and top physical shape, always upright without the slightest sign of fatigue. Summer of 1863 he suffered a heart attack and his health began to decline along with aging physically
I understand why he did it, but I agree. Had The Union held southern politicians and generals (and other officers) to account for treason, and been executed, it might have changed the next 100 years. Similarly, had Rutherford B. Hayes not made a deal with southern Democrats to end Reconstruction in exchange for him getting an Oval Office, leading to decades of violence against African-Americans, maybe it doesn't occur, and maybe we don't have the south, 160 years later, still in denial over the war.
@@arlonfoster9997 I love Sherman. He knew the war wasn't gentlemanly, as many tried to say it was in 1861. He knew to win, you had to destroy your enemy and break his will. Had The Union had a general like Sherman and Grant available in 1862, instead of Pope, McClellan, Hooker, and Burnside, the war would probably ended in that year.
This vignette is most likely true. What is missing is that Lee’s hair was black, unblemished by gray, right before the War. Over the war years, his hair turned grizzly gray due to the stresses of that conflict. Lincoln, also, aged considerably durung the War years.
That’s because all you listen to is woke media and don’t know how to read or think for yourself. You can’t help it that your an ignorant F$&K, you’re just a product of your current environment. I don’t blame you at all.
in the history of the United States of America.. Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, Brazil, Argentina also American territory... the originality of not naming a country does not take away from appropriating the name of a continent that bears his name in honor of a florentine navigator.
@@jerry85g7 The eulogy was on Dec 26 1799 in Philadelphia PA (then the capital) Robert E Lee was born Jan 19 1807, in the same county as G Washington. He grew up idolized Washington and the Patriots of 1776. He looked to Washington for examples and his father in law was Washington’s step grandson G.W.P Custis
Not many of you know this most likely but Robert Duvall, the guy in the video above who portrayed Robert E. Lee, is directly related to the deceased General Lee.
"We could've pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner."- General Robert E. Lee
Exactly, we should mutually respect racists and slave owners, not point out how bad it is followed by them getting butthurt. Mutual respect is the future.
@@chattiermike140 they were not traitors and the south did not fight for slavery read history as well as even if they did it still wouldn't put the south at blame like you think it does
Eisenhower was a big fan of General Lee. That's enough for me! He wrote: "From deepest conviction I simply state: "A nation of men of Lee's caliber would be unconquerable in Spirit and Soul! ". Fulsome praise from a 5 star General of The Army & POTUS.
That's just a Westpointer praising and showing respect to another Westpointer. Eisenhower would not have tolerated secession if he was in Lincoln's position. Eisenhower would probably have Lee imprisoned or hanged for treachery.
But let's not forget President Ike's reaction when a state rose up to challenge his federal authority. He immediately put it down with military force. Thankfully it didn't involve any shooting, but Ike showed whatever he thought of Lee, he was more on the path of Lincoln.
@@TheStapleGunKid The difference is unlike the spineless slime of today Ike could respect Lee as a gentlemen. But what is FAR more interesting to consider is what would Ike have done in Lee's shoes? Hmm? He would have done exactly as Lee did.
@@dancooper6002 No I don't think he would have. There's a common misconception that Lee did something typical that almost anyone else would do in his shoes, but that wasn't the case even in his own time. Out of the 8 pre-war US Army colonels from Virginia, Lee was actually the only one who joined the Confederacy,. Even among the 15 pre-war US army Colonels from all Confederate states, Lee was just 1 of 3 who joined the rebellion. So in fact, when it came to his choice among men in the same position as Lee, he was outlier. Over 100,000 Southerns fought for the Union, including some of its best officers, like Montgomery Meigs and David Farragut. This of course included many proud Virginians, such as his old commanding officer Winfield Scott. Even Lee's own cousin, Samuell Lee, as a Union Admiral. When asked why he stayed in the Union, Samuell Lee replied _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy."_
Lee wasn’t hung but they did take his home and land in Arlington where now sits the Arlington National Cemetery where Union soldiers that Lee ordered killed lay in honor
Historians say he went to this meeting in his street clothes not his formal attire (uniform) with sword. The sword gets in the way when he navigates around the room anyway. It was customary to remove the sword at the entrance to a formal setting when sitting was required.
Why on Earth didn't Lincoln himself come to talk to Lee? What on Earth could he have been doing that was more important than trying to personally make sure the best general in the country would lead his army??
@ M Rogers, perhaps Lincoln delegated his offer to another because he knew General Lee would very likely decline it and if so, he hoped the refusal would be less publicized thereby. Mr. Blair (Postmaster General Montgomery Blair) wasn't even in War Secretary Salmon P. Chase's War Department. General Lee is one of the most overrated Generals of all time. Although competent he was too slow to remove disappointing subordinates. His orders were often not clear enough, sometimes with disastrous results such as at Gettysburg. Lee made his reputation against commanders with more political connections than military expertise. That the Union was reduced to offering its top job to a Colonel indicates the sad state of the Union Army in 1861. Interestingly the same thing happened in 1942 when Colonel Eisenhower quickly rose to be Supreme Commander of the Atlantic Theater of Operations despite having never commanded troops in combat! Eisenhower's political skills, not his military skills were the key to that promotion. And Eisenhower's boss, General Marshall hadn't commanded troops in battle since 1898!
@@Steveross2851 Lee was one of our best generals, it is the only reason why the South lasted as long as they did. He was unclear at Gettysburg because he assumed that his generals had the intelligence that he had and would know to take Little Round Top.
@@mattrR678 in war except to the extent you want subordinates to use their own judgment you leave nothing to chance. You make every order crystal clear. No one disputes Lee's overall competence and he was extremely well liked. But he was too nice and didn't crack the whip enough with his men. By contrast General Grant didn't hesitate to remove or even court martial subordinates when warranted.
@@Steveross2851 that's an interesting take, but I still think the overwhelming consensus is that Lee was the best general in the country at that time. His record at West Point was arguably the most impressive in the history of the institution. He was the presiding general for the Union at the defense of Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry in 1859. He was the obvious choice for commander of the Army of the Potomac and his performance in countless Civil War battles in the face of being overwhelmingly outnumbered is hard to argue against (with certainly a lot of credit going to TJ "Stonewall" Jackson, who had a knack for understanding Lee's more ambiguous orders). Certainly, I agree that Lincoln probably would have expected Lee to turn down the offer, however it seems surprising to me that he wouldn't have given it his best shot by showing Lee the courtesy of appearing in person given what was at stake.
Southern historical revisionists love to whitewash Lee by ascribing to him all kinds of noble virtues and characteristics he never had. Lee was a white supremacist who strongly believed that God wanted blacks to be slaves. During his life, he was notorious for his cruelty to his slaves. Revisionist Southern apologists love the false narrative that Lee inherited his slaves and then set them free. This didn't happen; it's one of those…oh, what are they called, those things that are the opposite of the truth? Lies! That's right. One of those lies propagated by Southern apologists and people too naive to read history. In reality, his ancestors freed their slaves in their will. Lee disputed the will and kept the slaves anyway. He did not free them; he was forced to release them by the Virginia court, which ruled against him in the dispute over the will. Another popular opposite-of-the-truth alternative “facts” repeated by Southern apologists and those who naively believe Southern apologists without fact-checking is that 30,000 slaves or former slaves fought in Lee’s army. This is absolutely not supported by fact; the historical record does show a tiny number of slaves or former slaves fighting in the Confederate army, but this number is only about 10% of what the historical revisionists claim, and it includes all of the Confederate armies during the entire civil war, not just Lee’s army. Robert E. Lee was a cruel white supremacist slaveowner who truly and sincerely believed slavery was Divinely justified and who took up arms in support of traitors. He also let his men kidnap free blacks in Pennsylvania to sell into slavery. So noble! I can’t help but assume that the service of Robert Smalls in the Confederate navy is probably representative of their attitudes and commitment to the Confederate cause.
Slaves were NEVER freed in the North during the coarse of the war. To be free, a slave had to escape all the way to Canada. The promise to free the slaves was just a political maneuver to prevent European nations, that had already abolished slavery (other than Spain), from aiding the South.
The emancipation proclamation only declared slaves to be 'free' in states that the union did not, in fact, control. Once again, it did not free slaves in state under union control.
He can't be arrested for declining an offer. And it was just that an offer. Any military official can decline a promotion which was what this offer was. Had Lee been arrested for simply refusing to fight against his own state, it would have validated the CSA.
People today struggle to understand that states at this time were more independent from the fed than they are now, and the North and South were different countries culturally and economically.
And other people today struggle to understand that there were courageous Virginians who fought on the right side during this war, such as George Thomas and David Farragut, thus negating the specious "but people back then identified with their state first" claim?
@@sumanadasawijayapala5372 it would be ignorant to say this was a universal trend for all people to support their state. Today you can't find a country where every citizen supports their country. The point is that there used to be a heavier meaning to The United States.
@@daviddial6147 And the greater point is that even back then there were real Americans who supported their country and did not fight against it on the pretext of defending their state.
@@sumanadasawijayapala5372 my comment was not to begin an argument about why an individual chose a side. It was a comment highlighting how different the two places were culturally and economically.
@@daviddial6147 But you are ignoring his point. There were Virginians who sided with the Union, in fact 40% of Virginia officers fought for the Union, so your point is moot. Lee knew what he was fighting for, slavery and white supremacy.
I always agreed with the reasons as to why the south should have seceded. People argue it was against the constitution. Well the U.S. was founded on a revolution against Great Britain. You cannot say one rebellion is right whilst another is wrong. Even on the issue of slavery the fact that it was legal was the U.S. was founded you cannot suddenly change a contract then expect people to agree or stay with it.
You mean standing up for slavery _"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."_ --CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens.
To invade his own country...please. Put down an internal threat to the country that was already raising armies of its own and end a blighted institution more like.
Had Lee chosen to do anything other than to uphold his constitution and to do his duty, then he would not have been Lee and we needn't worry about what might have been.
Colonel Lee was the leader of the rag tag group that ended Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry. Years later, he fought some of the men he commanded that day
According to the book The Generals by Anderson and Anderson, this exchange occurred on 18 April 1861 in the townhouse of Francis Preston Blair. Blair owned a plantation in Silver Springs, MD. The commander of the U. S. Army at this point was General Winfield “Fuss and Feathers” Scott, who was deemed too old to take the field.
I´ve read about Lee that he was against slavery and the secession but joined the confederates because he felt that his duty for Virginia was bigger then for the USA.
+Kemal Sunal I don't think it's accurate to say Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. It's also not accurate to say that he was in favor of it either. He tried to play both sides of it.
The Union would’ve been UNSTOPPABLE had Robert E Lee led the Army!!!!! But, his unflinching loyalty to his Home-state of Virginia won out!!!! One of the Greatest Generals in history!!!!!!
@@joshuawillis602 That line of logic could be used on just about any general fighting on the lost side. That makes no sense and you are relying on hindsight logic.
@@kingorange7739 no it applies strongly with Lee. He was extremely talented general and wasted his talents on an army that fought to have slaves. He knew what the purpose of the confederacy was
@@joshuawillis602 As mentioned before, his loyalty was to Virginia. Had Virginia remained in the Union, he would have done the same. And considering he is still regarded as one of the best generals in American history with his tactics still studied, I would hardly consider it wasted.
@@kingorange7739 his loyalty should’ve been with the USA. His country. He easily could’ve stayed in the Union regardless what Virginia did. Many southerners stayed with the Union he easily could’ve done the same. Also his talents was wasted. Because instead of ending the war quickly with very few casualties it ended up dragging it out. Not only that it gave the former confederates and their sympathizers a false sense of superiority thinking they could’ve won.
The Civil War tore not just across state lines but also family lines as well. My great great grandfather fought for the Union and his older brother, my great great granduncle, fought for the Confederacy.
@@Archedgar Well I'm sure he had his reasons for joining the Confederacy. I can only imagine what my great great grandfather thought of his own brother being on the enemy side and the potential that the two might end up on the same battlefield unintentionally shooting at each other. Long story short, my great great grand uncle disappeared after the war and, as far as I know, he was never seen again. My ancestors did own slaves so maybe that was a reason for him to fight, or maybe it was for Southern honour and heritage. Either way, I certainly didn't benefit from it. I grew up poor in Canada. Not poor now but I was in my youth.
@@Archedgar Could very well be. I don't have much information on his military service record other than he was a Lieutenant Colonel of Newsom's Tennessee Cavalry Regiment and he was captured by the Union at Bolivar, Tennessee on Jan. 20th 1864 and was part of a prisoner exchange at Charleston, South Carolina on August 3rd, 1864.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country." Today that army is called the IRS.
I've never seen this movie, but I am sooooo glad to have seen this segment. If I didn't already know how utterly superb Robert Duvall is, I would certainly know it now. Even as Boo Radley in 1962's treasure TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, he delivered an absolute masterpiece of a performance.
It is worth watching. I think this part, the Fredericksburg part, and Stonewall's flanking maneuver through Chancellorsville were the best parts of the movie. The rest, in my opinion, is a lot of soliloquy and boring introspective...hence why it didn't do as well as "Gettysburg".
The movie is rather crap compared to "Gettysburg." The highlight in my mind was how well Stephen Lang portrayed Stonewall Jackson, but the film is way too sympathetic to the Confederacy for my taste.
People nowadays need to understand that the actions of 98% of the southerners weren’t influenced by slavery. Southerners didn’t fight because they wanted to ensure slavery would remain in the south, but fought because back then there was a stronger bond to ones state than to ones country, especially in the south. These men fought to protect their home, their families. It’s easy now to look back and say “oh the war was fought over slavery. Anyone who fought for the Confederacy is a racist and traitor”. But the true reason for war was much more complex than just slavery. It’s sad that we know are taught to hate on the south and the men who lived in it during the war, that the south is pure evil and that they were completely in the wrong, and the memory of their plight must be erased. Men like Lee lead by example and had honor and respect for all. He was a major key in the reconstruction era for the healing of the nation, and without his actions, thousands more would have died. He truly was a great man and we need to start acknowledging that again.
Lol! I like how you mention the reconstruction era as if that was a favor for blacks. All it did was saddle debt onto former slaves and birthed the kkk. Btw the aristocratic southern plantation owners started the ear to preserve slavery, so yes, those soldiers were still fighting to keep slaves.
Lee was like so many in “America” (then and now) in that he didn’t believe in the United States as a country, but in his own State of Virginia. I think that anyone who believes in States rights about that if the country, then if the majority of those in said State feel the same, then they should not receive any benefits or power from the federal government. This is one of the core reasons why the United States has been held back from being a great country.
Lee was never offered command of the entire Union army, just the Washington Garrison. There was no thought at the time that a large army would be needed to suppress the rebellion in the South. Lee was only a colonel and was outranked by many general officers, including Winfield Scott, was was in command of the U.S. Army.
My favorite part is that Robert E. Lee, and most of the West Point graduates had never given Ulysses S. Grant an ounce of respect in school, but U.S. Grant would become the only Civil War general to never lose a battle. Robert E. Lee resented that for the rest of his life. I can't imagine getting special privileges all my life and everything I ever wanted only to get my ass kicked by a poor, slave-freeing, union-loving "drunkard" and not feeling humiliated!
+Gilbert Van Buskirk Finally. Someone who gets it. Lee was a traitor. Why would he want to commit treason and kill his own countrymen just so the south could have slaves?
+Vance Edwards would u fight against your family and your home state where you grew up and only %7 of people in the south owned slaves so it wasn't that big of a factor in a war
+Gilbert Van Buskirk and how do you come up with that logic exactly how you can compare them to Isis. So me some substantial evidence. The victors also write the history books, like if the British won the war they would of said there were only a small group of colonialists that wanted independence and we terrorized other people and were radicals
Only 6 percent of Southerners owned slaves, and 3 percent of those owned the majority. I do not think that 94% of Southern men fighting for the Confederacy are going to go to war for the 6%'s benefit. It just is not logical.
to this very day the civil war has set across huge barriers still between the north and south. Education and social acceptances vary vastly depending on what side of the country you live in. It's amazing how something 150 years ago still affects the way we think and act today
It's because we rushed to reconciliation. Lincoln should've treated the South like the western Allies treated Nazi Germany. There, we didn't rush towards reconciliation. There, we put their leaders on trial and executed them. There, we banned the teaching of racist ideology. We emancipated Holocaust survivors, supported them, taught their history. We showed no mercy to Nazis. But with the Civil War? The South? We tripped over ourselves to reconcile with the rebels. We had an opportunity in that moment to utterly destroy white supremacy forever, and we held back. We had an opportunity to emancipate the slaves, truly support them, and teach their history, but we held back. We allowed the ideology of racial hatred to fester, and then boil over, leading to segregation, Jim Crow, white terrorism, and a white supremacist ideology that continues in America to this very day. Today, in Germany, in 2021, it's still illegal to show a Nazi flag, and has been since the war. But two weeks ago, a Confederate flag was flown in the U.S. Capitol. That right there tells us everything we need to know about how America handled ourselves after the Civil War. By the way, this video right here, which for some reason showed up in my feed, is itself *emblematic* of the continuation of America's acquiescence of white supremacy. It's nothing but Lost Cause garbage. Masturbation material for white supremacists. It's trash.
@@okbucket dude, if we executed all of the confederates, the country would have fallen apart again. The only reason the country is in one peace is because we reconciled. Fuck you and your vengeful garbage.
What you call “white supremacy “ is a self evident truth, the natural order of things. Equality is a lie and a perversion of the natural order. It will inevitably fail along because it goes directly against the immutable and eternal laws of nature. The strong are supposed to dominate the weak, it is for the greater good of all.
@@okbucket - Yeah, no, that revenge-porn approach would not have worked. You're taking an approach that worked in one place and assuming it would have worked in another, in another timeframe, in a setting where you weren't talking about about a conquered foreign nation, but people who were brothers - literally and metaphorically. To think that approach could have worked is retarded, and if you honestly think it would have produced anything useful, I don't know what other word to use to describe you.
Blair should have replied: "I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would HAVE TO raise an army to invade his own country."
After Appomattox, Lee told his men to "...fold the flag and put it away, or else it will be devisive. " He also said, against civil war monuments, "...best to not keep open the sores of war. " 🇺🇸
Cause it really wasn't that way. It's kinda funny too, because it had been done repeatedly up to that point. Utah War, war against native Americans, etc, etc. Unless historians want to put a lot of weight on "raise".
his own country? that's funny, cause the south opened fire first and the south were the ones that seceded so they could make their own country. that's some BS confederate propaganda right there.
There is little doubt in my mind that the Civil War would have ended by 1863 if Lee had joined the Union. Lee, Grant, and Sherman would have been an unstoppable force.
I doubt it. You see the real weakness of the Union states were the profiteers whose personal goals put countless of obstacles in the Union army's way. The industrialists smelled lucrative deals with which they could make themselves insanely rich. For this to happen however they had to make sure the demand for cannons, guns and other war material never stopped. It was desirable the war would be dragged out as long as possible since they were absolutely certain the Union would win sooner or later anyway - and they were right. Therefore some of them produced low quality cannons using cheap casting metals which had a nasty habit of blowing up after being fired a few times. This way they reasoned the Union army would have no other option that to buy more guns to replace the faulty ones - which the company could scapegoat on some made-up middle man who delivered the raw material. In the middle of the war there was little time to read all the reports about faulty cannons, look up who delivered them and who got what from who. By the time more thorough investigations got underway the damage was already done. There was also fierce competition between companies deliviering arms and equipment to the Union army, to the point they sabotaged and disturbed each other to win contracts. Others stalled deliveries and kept their goods in warehouses until the were certain they would get paid what they asked. Here's a story about the famous (infamous?) banker J.P. Morgan from "Civil War Bugle": "J.P. Morgan drew up a plan to purchase 5,000 of the extremely dangerous and defective Hall’s Carbine that were being sold by the U.S. Government. Morgan purchased the faulty carbines from the government for $3.50 each and then later resold them back to the US government for $22 each as new model carbines without the defect. The crazy thing about this controversy was that the carbines were sold back to the US Army before they were officially owned by J.P. Morgan and the bill to Morgan from the US government wasn’t paid until the money from the sale of the carbines back to the Federal Army was complete. This means that Morgan (though he denied the carbines with the dangerous defect were never sold back to the Federal Army) sold defective guns, bought from the US, back to the US and paid the bill with the money made from profit off the second sale. So Morgan never actually owned the 5,000 Hall’s Carbines. This later became known as the Hall Carbine Affair." Like I said: The profiteers made a killing (literally) by selling defective weapons to the Union army. The bottom line is this: The overwhelming industrial and arms superiority the Union states had was squandered by a corrupt arms industry and greedy profiteers selling defective cannons and rifles. Robert E. Lee had no say in who and how the industry conducted its business. Neither did Grant or Sherman. Another thing. Grant only became the Commanding General of the U.S. Army on March 9th 1864 after his predecessors George McClellan first and Henry Halleck later had failed. Grant didn't even have any formal rank in the army when the war broke out and he was promoted to colonel early in the war. Had Robert E. Lee been the commanding general then Grant would never have become more than a general among many in the Union army. As for Sherman, it's doubtful he would have been given free hands to do as he pleased in the South with Lee as his superior. The war would be shorter but the Confederacy still had good generals aside from Lee and this "mighty trio" of yours would never had happened if Lee was made commanding general. Had Lee not managed to defeat the Confederacy fast enough it's likely president Abraham Lincoln would get as impatient with him as he was with other union generals in the first two years of the war.
The greatest weakness of the Union Army was its political leadership. Though Lincoln was determined to crush the Confederacy, he meddled a lot in the affairs of his generals. It was because of the machinations of him and others in Capital Hill that really hindered the efforts of the Union's high command. I suppose that was why they had a higher turnover of commanding generals compared to the Confederate Army. If Lee had ended up in command of the Union Forces, he might have found himself replaced very quickly just like McClellan, Meade and Burnside if he failed to make much progress (and he didn't make a lot of progress for the Confederacy other than prolonging the war).
Does anybody agree with me? Cus if anybody does agree with me I'd like to hear your comments. Cus I'm related to Robert E. Lee on my father's side and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson on my mother's side. And proud of it. Praise the Lord, and his kingdom on Earth!
Up to and until the end of the Civil War citizens were first citizens of their sovereign states and second a citizen of the United Sates. Prior to the civil war it was most common to refer to the country as “these United Sates” and after the war as “the United States “.
![[TH] JFT vs RLF - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PuIH7w_jO6c/mqdefault.jpg)
When the real incident occurred, Lee was clean-shaven and dark hared. He grew a beard and his hair went white in late 1861. But nobody today would recognize a clean-shaven, dark haired Robert E. Lee.
being a general is a stressful job
Lee knew this from his Mexican War experience. He had been almost a special assistant for Winfield Scott and had seen the toll it had taken on that tough old man. But for him his state allegiance trumped everything else. In 1861 Lee had hit that age when men tended to go gray. The beard was the fashion of the time. Lincoln had been elected as a clean-shaven man.
I think he had a nice mustache in April 1861
@@MM-qi5mk Based upon?
The movies never follow history close enough. This would have been a great detail
In a somewhat cruel irony, if Robert E. Lee had taken command of the Union Army, he could have ended the war swiftly and spared his homeland a lot of grief.
lol right
But would he though? Lee would probably be facing the same pressure from Congress that McDowell did, which he means Lee would still be marching with untrained soldiers. Would the results still be the same?
Jacob Martinez The Confederate rank and file would be just as green at this point. As with all things though, great successes have many fathers. And many of Lee's were just as much due to having competent corps commanders like Stonewall. Still, I think having access to vastly superior numbers and material would make the war a lot closer to the "home by Christmas" myth that they thought it would be. Without Lee in command, Richmond wouldn't have been nearly as fortified, and on the Union side, Lee would be able to fight the war on his terms.
Grave Wall he was too honorable for that
Edgar Labra Depends on how you define honor. If you read his letters, you'll know that he loved the Union almost as much as he loved Virginia, and if he wanted to save Virginia from the devastation of war, taking command of the dominant side and ending the war swiftly definitely seems to me to be the nobler option, however hard it may be to wage war on your home state.
If the war had been ended with a few decisive strokes by a respected member of the Southern gentry like Lee, without any glorious victories like Chancellorsville to remember, I doubt the wounds of the Civil War would have been as deep. One thing that I'm pretty sure of is that the war would have been swift, if not entirely bloodless. With McClellan to build the Union army and Lee to use it, the South would have been beaten ingloriously, without any grand, last stands or faint hopes of what might have been to build the myth of the Lost Cause with.
It wouldn't be called "the Civil War" or "The War Between the States" or "The War of Northern Aggression". It would be known as, "That brief time the Southern leaders collectively lost their minds, and ol' Bob stuck a boot up their nether regions and showed them what real Southern honor looks like". He would have felt like crap about it, and his contemporaries might have hated him for it, but tragedies like that are what myths are built on. Myths of the nigh demigod-like nature of the Founding Fathers gave national character to a people that once prided themselves in being Englishmen. Myths are powerful things, and that myth would have fundamentally changed Southern culture for the better.
There is a reason why Robert E. Lee was never prosecuted after the war, and why history has judged him so well. Regardless of one's views toward secession and the war, it was his actions after the cessation of hostilities that showed his true grace and character.
Tens of thousands of rebel soldiers looked to him after Appomattox for direction. He could have initiated guerrilla warfare or dragged the war on for years in an insurgent form. But he took the moral high ground and told his men to go home. Rejoin their families. Plow their fields. Accept the outcome of the war as gentlemen and begin to heal.
Ulysses S. Grant is also credited with achieving a peaceful settlement as the war ended. He could have humiliated and disgraced the Confederate leadership with harsh terms of surrender. But he let them keep their rifles and their horses and sent them home.
The United States would be a very different place now if not for the actions of those two men at the end of the war.
PREACH!
+Bobby Ricigliano Lee didn't get his citizenship back until July 22, 1975. He died stateless in 1870. President Gerald Ford signed the congressional resolution on July 24, 1975 calling it a 110 year oversight. If only he would have had Stone Wall Jackson at Gettysburg.
It was both the first most tragic death in the Confederate Army to lose TJ "Stonewall" Jackson as well as Ironic for him to die by friendly fire.
Hell. Someone who actually knows their stuff making a comment on TH-cam. I've seen it all now.
America could use another Robert E Lee and U.S. Grant right now cause we're one hell of a mess.
Lee’s ancestors who came from England were the first family of the Virginia colony of British America. This is why Robert E. Lee being a descendant of the Lee family was so attached to Virginia.
Yet some of his family members joined the Union. His cousin Samuel Lee was a Union admiral. When asked why he stayed with the Union, Sam Lee said _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission papers, I will join the Confederacy."_
He is still a racist, bloody criminal that subsisted on the proceeds of chattel slavery and its evils...
no all the english left america for canada after the french won in 1776, robert lees ancestors probably changed their last name to an english sounding name to fit in he was most likely irish mexican german and black like all americans
So his Virginian family tradition had existed for what..about a century? Whoopey doo! As a European I always thought all that civil war talk of honour and tradition as it related to states that had been around for barely a historical heartbeat was weird. Human Pride and Prejudice is a very strange thing.
HIS FATHER WAS
" LIGHTHORSE " HARRY LEE WHO FOUGHT WITH WASHINGTON DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND GENERAL LEE AT THE TIME A COLONEL
ALSO FOUGHT IN THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY RARELY TALKED ABOUT
"There is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war." - Quote by Robert E. Lee
I give this quote to every liberal I meet who doesn’t know history
Pretty ironic since Robert E Lee owned 189 slaves and treated them harshly.
@@emc448 he treated them well actually. And they werent his, they were his wifes that she inherited
@@bluebandit5586 Yeahhh no he didn't and when he was instructed by the will to release them, he petitioned Virginian courts to extend the deadline. I have a source to this if you're not convinced. There is also a quote saying he deemed slavery beneficial for blacks.
@@emc448 theres also a quote saying he would release every slave in the US if he could to prevent the civil war, sooooo....
You cant mount an attack on his character sir. He was one of the most inspirational leaders in our history
Duvall is a direct descendant of Lee. It fits that he played him the second time.
Paul Johnson is that really true?
Yes.
Paul Johnson Robert e Lee is actually one of my great great great great great great uncle somehow on my mom's moms family
Not a direct descendant but a distant relative whose ancestor fought for the Union
Robert E. Lee is a distant relative of mine. I get my middle name from him.
This was in a time when the state was your country. The states only formed a union of countries.
i.e. a confederation. The popular saying goes that, before the War, the United States *are*. After the War, the United States *is*. If the United States is a confederation of sovereign States, they can rightfully secede at any time. And if they cannot secede, they are not sovereign, and they are unduly ruled by the national authority. Many don't realize, but the outcome of the Civil War marked a fundamental Constitutional change in the United States. It wasn't a change in the Written Constitution. It was a change in the Unwritten Constitution, the Constitution of the de facto, the Constitution of Empire.
@@lukeporras1288 There is no delegated constitutional power for the federal government to wage war upon the several states.
@@The_Real_Indiana_Joe Correct. Also read Article IV, Section 4. The federal government cannot invade a State without that State's consent.
@@lukeporras1288 And Article 1 Section 10, the green backs (fiat) finally negated the states ending in one jurisdiction instead of 51.
A beautiful statement that is misunderstood
Lee: I don't want to lead the Army
Lincoln: Thats why it must be you
Funny thing to say for a guy who ended up leading the opposing army. Apparently he wanted to lead that one instead.
@Jayden Dan Dominquez sure he didn‘t. Just like maybe von Mannstein and Guderian wanted to lead the Prussian Army, not the Army of Hitler. It just so happens that those turned out to be the same thing. Whoops
And he lost Fucking traitor.....
@Jayden Dan Dominquez im not just callimg it what it is. Personally I wished they had of killed all those Fucking slave owners they were an abomination of humanity the atrocities they did to my people was inexcusable period and all their descendants continued the shit with 100 yrs of Jim crow. Fuck them all
@@dinkyb2000 you should spend more time reading and less time commenting. You have no frame of reference for 19th century senses of duty and loyalty which were to thier home states more so than the union. That's why it was no surprise that top generals stuck with the south. Not only that they were being asked to invade thier own homes. Based on your comments I know you are not someone to understand nuance and I'm wasting my time but oh well...
Robert Duvall is one of the greatest actors of my time!
Much better than that washed up libtard De Niro.
I put em up there wit Bronson McQueen and Lancaster Duvall is a breed apart top knotch actor of the highest caliber
@@philmcnamara299 The best actor of all is Duvall.
You mean Captain Kilgore?
@@meathead6155 He was a colonel.
They leave as enemies but still are respectful.
Most of the officers on both sides were friends from the Spanish War and West Point
I agree. Sadly, they are more respectful than Washington Insiders are now!
Imagine the Twitter spat that would happen if this happened today.
This is a movie
@@rustyshackleford9017 lol spanish war? The Mexican American war and the indian wars
Basically Lee’s like: “Screw you guys, I’m going home.”
He's like this year belongs to the confederacahh
Respect my authorita
"There's no way Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, or Kentucky will secede."
Well, 1 out of 4 ain't bad
even then Kentuckians would've seceded had the union not plopped its army there.
Fuck Lee , his choice dragged North Carolina into the shit !
@@lochlan241 Kentucky was so strategically important that Lincoln was supposed to have said "I would like to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky".
@@Arbeedubya Whatever
2 out of 4.
Lee didn't want to fight against his home state.
I wouldn't fight against mine either.
General Lee could’ve been my general
But he f up
@@abrahamlincoln9280 thanks Lincoln. Try not to lose your head in making statements like that. Or part of it at least.
@@Bluedevil82nd if he fought against his homeland, he would be branded a traitor and if he fought against and won, it would be a big mess
He just wanted to fight against his country.
I always wished Robert Duvall had played Lee in Gettysburg. I'm not saying that Martin Sheen did a bad job. But Duvall seemed born to play Robert E. Lee. He even looks like him.
+Rick Roscoe He's an amazing actor!
Well, Duvall is related to Lee.
+tpsu129 Real!? how?
On his mother's side.
tpsu129
wow
It's a shame they haven't made a Robert E. Lee biopic with Robert Duvall as Lee cause Duvall is so great as Lee in this film
He outa be, he's a relative!
Oh really?
Shelby Dawg I am also a relative of Lee and been Yankee the whole time. must have been the Irish cousins or something.
Gods and Generals
I think it wiser, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.
Robert E Lee.
A good man who served an evil cause.
Today they'd drone strike him in that very office and cause a "major tectonic event" in Virginia.
They would have put a drone strike on everyone pushing Rebellion before any state got a chance to vote on it.
@@jamesmiller5331 At least Lincoln woulda sent BLM to Liberia.
@@jamesmiller5331 Yes, especially the accursed brood of vipers known as Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island. Makes you bluebellies really chubby in the pants, don't it?
@@sadsackkvisling9694 I'm from Indiana myself 🤷♂️
this was a hard decision for me. But I think it was the right one.
Indeed it was.... thank you
So... When will you lead the next rebellion?
Jesse Trout when the government takes our guns.
I will stand behind you for that one!
Jesse Trout'MURICA!
a rich mans war, and a poor mans battle
@@martincastro7406 there's a difference between wealth and rich
@@martincastro7406 there's a difference between wealth and rich
@@martincastro7406 are you kidding there just is you could be like Lee who aquired probably about a few million (maybe) in today's world which is considered wealthy but then you have the really wealthy prominent familys which I imagine around that time were cotton and coal families that proabaly were around billionaires in today's world that had alot of pull and tossed dumb money at politicians to back there plans
@@martincastro7406 to be honest not much has changed but anyway back at that the radical democratic party and those promonent southern families influenced the succession and there you have the Civil War where they publicized the reason to go to war as northern aggression (which it was) and the north well what ever lie they came up with anyway
@@martincastro7406 honestly I don't know about how much he got but from what I found Im pretty sure his fame and experience as a military leader was more influential than his wealth
honestly I think Robert E Lee was one of the most honorable men who ever lived. He opposed slavery and supported reunification of the North and South as One Nation, but he refused to raise the sword against Virginia. He never cursed, never drank or smoked, rarely ever lost his temper and commanded great respect and admiration among his man.
I don't call that honor, I call it abandonment of principles. Staying out of the war is one thing, but he joined the other side and fought for a movement that aimed to preserve slavery.
That wasn't their aim....
Pan Z Absolutely it was. Read some of the declarations of secession by some of those states. By preserving slavery they were trying to preserve their economy as well as their social order which slavery helped to define.
PyonBoy two states in the south had voted and abolished slavery and the north had one slave state and this was during the war. only a small group of people had slaves and the rest of thd country had high unemployment and the people wanted slavery gone and jobs available and had the war been a draw slavery wouldve been gone in a mettwr of time. the south wouldnt let the north tell it what to do as no state should and should have the say in their state. this war wad about getting rid of state rights and that is exactly what it did.
John Doe ^
84% of whites in the South were not in a family that owned any slaves. Most were farmers of some sorts.
Slaves were usually owned by the rich owners of large plantations. Many Southerners were against slavery for ethical and economic reasons, and many Northerners were even pro slavery (the North even had 4 slave states during the civil war). Clearly, the Northern states we had slaves would've joined the South in the Civil War had the war been about slavery
There’s an alternate History where Lee takes command of the Union army, and the war is remembered as an insurrection ended after the battle of Bull Run.
"This movie is awesome."
-Robert E. Lee, circa 2021
Whats the name of the movie
Robert Rasa Gods & Generals
@@robertrasa452 It's not worth watching, boring pro-confederate propaganda
@@thomassmith8140 shut up gay harem dude
@@weyjosh5213 I allow women in my hermen too, just ask your mother.
Robert E. Lee had dark hair at the beginning of the Civil War.
Lee was against the Confederacy but he cared about his home state and would defend his home. He wasn't a war monger by any means, he wanted to solve this through diplomacy, unfortunately the rest of the country made up its mind.
Blazin Goomba your the problem with this country just because he wanted to protect his home doesn’t means he was a bad person
Lòrd Tachanka that’s true
* that’s not true
Blazin Goomba what in tarnation
Stoach Giacco That wouldve caused chaos within the United States Army since Robert E. Lee was very well respected by both the United States and Confederate states
this is one of the few time where I dont see an actor I just see General Lee, all due too robert duvalls outstanding performance
Having a southern general would have been a master stroke of political display, by lincoln. especially if he had won and kept the job the entire time.
Which he likely would.
Lee and Grant were in many ways almost polar opposites.
Lee was really in his best command in the field but lacked in overall strategy and political aspects of being a supreme commander. Also he can fairly be said to be perhaps too risk-averse.
Grant was the best grand strategist of the Civil war and knew how to fight his army's corner in the politics to get supplies men and money he needed, and he was driven to end the war ASAP, but he was at best an above-average battlefield commander.
And McClellan was a fine regimental and perhaps divisional commander, who was also personally brave (he did display casual disregard for his own safety when called for during the Mexican war), but his true great ability was to build an army for other men to then use.
So if Grant gets his command early, has Lee to make the actual battle plans and execute them, and McClellan to build them both the Army of Potomac, then the war would be bagged and done with by 1862
They had a southern general. He was George H. Thomas.
@@michalsoukup1021 To be fair the Union didn't have to be as risk averse. They had more troops and more money.
@@bbqbros3648 it very much depend on who is lost and when. If substantial part of the core of carrier soldiers was lost in early war Union would be in BIG trouble
@@SpectreStatus a darned good general was Thomas too.
“Perhaps you know their mind better than they themselves.” Lol
Pretty apt today as well.
An oath to preserve the Constitution of the United States of America at West Point.....is an Oath..
@@thomasjensen6873 - and that oath ends when you resign your commission, as Lee did when he turned down this offer.
@@billbillson5082 Not to mention the fact that the Oath to uphold the Constitution includes the 10th Amendment - which includes the right to secede.
A minor point, I realize, possibly even nitpicking, but Lee didn't have a beard then.
His hair wasn't white either.
You're right. Lee didn't grow his beard until the winter of 61/62 when he was in command of troops in the mountains of western Virginia (now West Virginia).
I wish these movies would stick hard to the facts. Reality deserves respect and is always more interesting, and it is in the details. BTW, See "History Buffs" TH-cam channel for analysis of movies, what they get right, what they get wrong. It's fantastic. One of my favorites: Master and Commander.. and the episode on that is great.
I've watched his reviews. They're ok but the reviewer doesn't know his history so makes a lot of mistakes himself.
I imagine they had him wear a beard here so he actually looks more like Robert E. Lee and less like Robert Duvall. In telling this great story his beard or lack thereof is more or less irrelevant.
Out of 8 US Army colonels from Virginia in 1861, Lee was the only one who joined the Confederacy. Even among the 15 US Army Colonels from all Confederate states, Lee was just 1 of 3 who turned against the Union. Some people act as if Lee's choice was inevitable or the default thing anyone in his position would do, but in fact he was an outlier.
Perhaps so, but unlike a lot of other officers on both sides he was acting out of heartfelt conviction rather than an opportunity for fame or personal power.
@@johnmarcucci1719 But there were plenty acting out of heartfelt conviction who made the opposite choice, including his own cousin, Admiral Samuel Lee. When Sam Lee was asked why he stayed in the Union, he replied _"When I find the word Virginia in my comission, I will join the Confederacy."_
@@TheStapleGunKid and I respect his conviction, and I'm glad that I have never had to make a choice like that, between the homeland where I was raised and the nation to which I owe everything I have in this world.
@@johnmarcucci1719 Oh I have no doubt it's an agonizing choice, especially since Lee initially said he opposed secession. But I just get sick of people acting like it's the only choice he could have made, or the typical choice to make among most people, when in fact many others made the opposite one, including one member of his own family.
Over 28% of the entire US Army Officer Corps resigned and joined the Confederacy. It's a significant and relevant number.
Robert Duvall has one of the best southern accents in film.
I think we get most of our accent from our folks--his Dad from Virginia, so I guess that explains it--though I don't really know a "Virginia accent" to be honest.
@@jimquantic There's a rugged elegance to his accent.
You can tell he isn't actually southern but he's definitely far better than most.
@@killertaco8themaster773 He sounds Southern just in my opinion. I've lived in the South all my life and heard many older folks talk the way he does. I knew a lady who recently passed away who was 85 that spoke in the same way Duvall does in this film.
People really identified with their state more than The U.S. as a whole back than
""I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country."
Wonderful actor, wonderful scene and wonderful words!
And yet it was the south that raised an army against its own country and fired the opening shots. They seized government properties and declared themselves separate. They soon found out differently, thank God or what we would look like today.
@@paulbrasier372 America doesnt even look like America anymore, I dont think the Union won anything
Yet he was ok with treating people as beast of burden, slaves, inferior beings..Shame on him and double shame on those who hold him in high regard or have sympathy for him.
@@HeadhuntexGamer what do you mean by America doesn’t look like America?
@@anineh1551 look around you at tell me that this is what America is suppose to be.
Robert Duvall should be honored with an Oscar for a fantastic stream of characters he's done so magically, namely a loyal lawyer for the Godfather. Robert E. Lee in Gettysburg, I think but not sure. A cowboy with Tommy Lee Jones in Lonesome Dove, perhaps his best work. Playing Stalin under a heavy load of makeup, an astronaut trying to save the world from an asteroid. A cowboy with Kevin Costner with a fantastic script using actual language as spoken in the late 1800's. I could name a few more works, but he was also memorable as a newspaperman in The Natural with Robert Redford.
In my view, he is tied with Morgan Freeman as our greatest living actor.
@TheWoodIsPoo I may have confused with his Stalin movie, which was actually pretty scary. Duval acted in major Russian buildings during after the fall of Wall of Berlin. The movie was terrifying from the way Stalin murdered millions just like Hitler, Mao. I watched it one time, never again. But Duvall's acting portrayal of a sociopathic leader was something. I've always wondered how he felt being there as I'm sure he was being watched. What an insane world it must've been and still is.
@@majoroz4876 There are quite a few great actors these days. I include Denzel Washington. He has the versatility of Duvall, who can play any role. Take a look at Will Smith, too. He's not just comedy.
Technically a comet and that was Deep Impact
Let's have a hand for Gene Hackman as well. That guy is off the charts.
Ok, so no chance he’ll be hosting “The Bachelor”
This one scene adds so much perspective to the Civil War. I also believe it was Lincoln himself who offered Lee the position in person. And everyone should remember that at the end of the war Lee was saluted by the Union as an honorable man. We all have to come together before something horrible like this occurs again.
Lee owned human beings, far from an honorable man
It should also be noted that Lee fought a lengthy court battle AFTER the war to try and KEEP HIS SLAVES. Fuck him, he was fucking horrible
C'mon guys, Slavery is horrible but in those days it was the norm. Today those people knowing what we know now would not have the same opinion. We have the benefit of television and the internet, these people had no vison of the wider world and they thought that because these people were not educated and were not "civilised" that they were not the same as them. it is very sad but I don't think this will ever happen again (thank god)
@@foxyrene1 By your logic.....”Cmon guys, all the Germans were into mass murder at the time. It was just the thing back then”.
@@jordanjames2611 In all fairness, even by the standards of the 40s, ethnic genocide was a huge WTF, even by German standards, a huge step down in morality from the Germany of the past that, while housing anti-semetic sentiments, would never have gone so far as ethnic genocide as was done during the Third Reich. In 1860s, America, slavery, while horrible, was the norm.
god bless Robert Duval. that's how you portray a class act.
Lee lost more men than Grant overall. He fought to win when he should have fought for a tie. He did not have a universal view of the Confederacy. He rarely gave Davis suggestions for an overall Southern strategy. Grant was the superior general. Grant had 3 Confederate armies surrender to him. Grant won the war. Slavery was the worst ever cause to support.
Saying he was fighting for slavery is like saying the founding fathers fought for slavery- lee gave up his slaves before Grant. Both great men and generals but at least acknowledge him refusing to take up arms against Virginia was his primary motivation. Grant had GREAT respect for him and refused to let his men cheer at Lees surrender- he felt it best to be graceful in victory and welcome the south as brothers and countrymen again- hatred toward the south and the oversimplifying the complexity of their cause only makes for more division- Grant was at least a man of understanding- a great hero.
I call BS to your comment. Grant freed his one slave in 1859. Lee may not have been fighting for slavery but the South's main purpose was to uphold the institution of slavery. State's rights to do what?
@@bbqbros3648 Grant also didn't realize in 1865 that as president he would have to suppress a wave of terrorism across the south as former Confederate soldiers led organizations like the KKK to overthrow the results of the war.
Scene is touching, even if it is inaccurate. Lee resigned in a letter after a night of careful consideration at Arlington. He left the following morning.
The Avenger at Ilipa Precisely. The dialog in this clip is fantasy.
Lee did meet with Blair. To compress an already 3.5+ hour movie they combined two scenes into one.
***** Someone seems like their jimmies are a'rustlin...
***** But the flag wasn't flying over the statehouse 150 years ago... ;)
Steve Small It is why the movie that the book is based on is Historical Fiction. The books is far better than the movie. A good 1/3 of the books is missing from the movie.
Lee had dark hair and a mustache when this event occurred. He didn’t go gray with a beard until later. I dunno why movies always get this wrong. It’s a perfect opportunity to show how constant stress of war ages someone like Lee. At the beginning when this scene occurs Lee was a handsome physical specimen of a man. The war aged him but he never did look like a old elderly man. His hair turned gray but his face still looked like a man in his 50s…..not 70s
That's intresting, because I've never found any photo with general Lee with dark hair
@@cosminblk8359 just google photos of Lee. There is a few from prior to the war. Lee had dark hair and a mustache. No beard. Lee was also not white haired at beginning of the war. He began the war with dark hair and mustache. It wasn’t until he took field command in 1862 that his beard would grow out and hair turn grey. Lee did not look like a elderly man during the war although he did age a lot by the end. Lee’s health decline started right before Gettysburg in 1863. Prior to that he was very robust and top physical shape, always upright without the slightest sign of fatigue. Summer of 1863 he suffered a heart attack and his health began to decline along with aging physically
No, this was in 1961.
Lincoln got it right with Daniel Day Lewis. Dude looked like he’d been run over by a forklift in that scene with Grant on the porch.
Because this movies only real concern is to be Confederate propaganda.
Imagine how the south would look today if Lincoln had taken their Treason a bit more personal and got just a bit more angry and irrational....
You mean like what Sherman did to Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina?
@@PastorJimmyParkerI think the South was more angry at Sherman than Lincoln. Personally I don’t like Sherman
I understand why he did it, but I agree. Had The Union held southern politicians and generals (and other officers) to account for treason, and been executed, it might have changed the next 100 years. Similarly, had Rutherford B. Hayes not made a deal with southern Democrats to end Reconstruction in exchange for him getting an Oval Office, leading to decades of violence against African-Americans, maybe it doesn't occur, and maybe we don't have the south, 160 years later, still in denial over the war.
@@PastorJimmyParker Uncle Billy did what he should have done: denied foodstuffs and material for the Confederate army.
@@arlonfoster9997 I love Sherman. He knew the war wasn't gentlemanly, as many tried to say it was in 1861. He knew to win, you had to destroy your enemy and break his will. Had The Union had a general like Sherman and Grant available in 1862, instead of Pope, McClellan, Hooker, and Burnside, the war would probably ended in that year.
This vignette is most likely true. What is missing is that Lee’s hair was black, unblemished by gray, right before the War. Over the war years, his hair turned grizzly gray due to the stresses of that conflict. Lincoln, also, aged considerably durung the War years.
Lee was very popular and highly thought of after the war.
Thanks to the Lost Cause myth
Ah yes General Lee the most overrated general in US history.
Lee was one of the greatest men to ever live. Anti-Americans troll to discredit him because they are to ignorant to understand history.
@@CaugustusWhite Damn I didn't know that betraying the Union for supporting a slave society government was great.
That’s because all you listen to is woke media and don’t know how to read or think for yourself. You can’t help it that your an ignorant F$&K, you’re just a product of your current environment. I don’t blame you at all.
Robert Duvall is an awesome actor. Whatever role he takes, he assumes its identity.
One of the most underrated moments in American History.
Underrated as in massively important or massively unappreciated? Because if it is the latter I’m gonna kill myself
And that's an understatement!
Is this actual footage?
great men
in the history of the United States of America.. Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, Brazil, Argentina also American territory... the originality of not naming a country does not take away from appropriating the name of a continent that bears his name in honor of a florentine navigator.
Robert E Lee’s father gave the eulogy at George Washington’s funeral (Robert was only 2 years old)
Washington died in 1799, Lee was born in 1807.
@@freddy8479 So he was -8 at the time. He was still there.
@@jerry85g7 The eulogy was on Dec 26 1799 in Philadelphia PA (then the capital) Robert E Lee was born Jan 19 1807, in the same county as G Washington. He grew up idolized Washington and the Patriots of 1776. He looked to Washington for examples and his father in law was Washington’s step grandson G.W.P Custis
@@arlonfoster9997 Thx
Not many of you know this most likely but Robert Duvall, the guy in the video above who portrayed Robert E. Lee, is directly related to the deceased General Lee.
Love that Spawn avatar there man.
"We could've pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner."- General Robert E. Lee
an excellent example of mutual respect. how far we've fallen since those times
Exactly, we should mutually respect racists and slave owners, not point out how bad it is followed by them getting butthurt. Mutual respect is the future.
@@reinarforeman6518 don't forget the guys who raped their slaves they deserve the most respect.
@@reinarforeman6518 Nah, Got more future than you do 😆
No respect for traitors
@@chattiermike140 they were not traitors and the south did not fight for slavery read history as well as even if they did it still wouldn't put the south at blame like you think it does
Eisenhower was a big fan of General Lee. That's enough for me! He wrote: "From deepest conviction I simply state: "A nation of men of Lee's caliber would be unconquerable in Spirit and Soul! ". Fulsome praise from a 5 star General of The Army & POTUS.
That's just a Westpointer praising and showing respect to another Westpointer.
Eisenhower would not have tolerated secession if he was in Lincoln's position. Eisenhower would probably have Lee imprisoned or hanged for treachery.
@@streetgato9697 Probably, maybe, supposedly. Don't be a twerp communist your whole life.
But let's not forget President Ike's reaction when a state rose up to challenge his federal authority. He immediately put it down with military force. Thankfully it didn't involve any shooting, but Ike showed whatever he thought of Lee, he was more on the path of Lincoln.
@@TheStapleGunKid The difference is unlike the spineless slime of today Ike could respect Lee as a gentlemen.
But what is FAR more interesting to consider is what would Ike have done in Lee's shoes? Hmm? He would have done exactly as Lee did.
@@dancooper6002 No I don't think he would have. There's a common misconception that Lee did something typical that almost anyone else would do in his shoes, but that wasn't the case even in his own time.
Out of the 8 pre-war US Army colonels from Virginia, Lee was actually the only one who joined the Confederacy,. Even among the 15 pre-war US army Colonels from all Confederate states, Lee was just 1 of 3 who joined the rebellion. So in fact, when it came to his choice among men in the same position as Lee, he was outlier.
Over 100,000 Southerns fought for the Union, including some of its best officers, like Montgomery Meigs and David Farragut. This of course included many proud Virginians, such as his old commanding officer Winfield Scott.
Even Lee's own cousin, Samuell Lee, as a Union Admiral. When asked why he stayed in the Union, Samuell Lee replied _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy."_
Happy Birthday General! Your spirit lives on!
I felt the thumbnail was a colorized portrait of Robert e Lee for once. amazing casting
"I cannot lead it. I will not lead it."
Cause he’s a shit general
@@Trackrace29582 no he is not
Lee wasn’t hung but they did take his home and land in Arlington where now sits the Arlington National Cemetery where Union soldiers that Lee ordered killed lay in honor
If this were disney, he would have started singing about how great Virginia is
If this were Disney, General Lee would have been played by a lesbian African American female
@@landeny65 how much has changed in only 4 years
Hell yeah. Gettysburg the musical
@@landeny65 in what world do you live in i relly am curious.
@@JackieAprileJr I will always rank Hamilton as the best musical
Duval does an amazing job as Robert E. Lee,as only has ever done in any role.
"Loyalty to state over the loyalty to the federal government"
That's how I roll.
Texas first.
lmao
why have a country at all with that mentality
@@omarreyes7626 It's not about having a country.
It's about if put into a position where you had to fight your home state for the Federal government.
@@omarreyes7626 Most people back then didn't leave their own state. They felt that the union was a collections of states acting together.
Historians say he went to this meeting in his street clothes not his formal attire (uniform) with sword. The sword gets in the way when he navigates around the room anyway. It was customary to remove the sword at the entrance to a formal setting when sitting was required.
Why on Earth didn't Lincoln himself come to talk to Lee? What on Earth could he have been doing that was more important than trying to personally make sure the best general in the country would lead his army??
@ M Rogers, perhaps Lincoln delegated his offer to another because he knew General Lee would very likely decline it and if so, he hoped the refusal would be less publicized thereby. Mr. Blair (Postmaster General Montgomery Blair) wasn't even in War Secretary Salmon P. Chase's War Department. General Lee is one of the most overrated Generals of all time. Although competent he was too slow to remove disappointing subordinates. His orders were often not clear enough, sometimes with disastrous results such as at Gettysburg. Lee made his reputation against commanders with more political connections than military expertise. That the Union was reduced to offering its top job to a Colonel indicates the sad state of the Union Army in 1861. Interestingly the same thing happened in 1942 when Colonel Eisenhower quickly rose to be Supreme Commander of the Atlantic Theater of Operations despite having never commanded troops in combat! Eisenhower's political skills, not his military skills were the key to that promotion. And Eisenhower's boss, General Marshall hadn't commanded troops in battle since 1898!
@@Steveross2851 Lee was one of our best generals, it is the only reason why the South lasted as long as they did. He was unclear at Gettysburg because he assumed that his generals had the intelligence that he had and would know to take Little Round Top.
@@mattrR678 in war except to the extent you want subordinates to use their own judgment you leave nothing to chance. You make every order crystal clear. No one disputes Lee's overall competence and he was extremely well liked. But he was too nice and didn't crack the whip enough with his men. By contrast General Grant didn't hesitate to remove or even court martial subordinates when warranted.
@@Steveross2851 that's an interesting take, but I still think the overwhelming consensus is that Lee was the best general in the country at that time. His record at West Point was arguably the most impressive in the history of the institution. He was the presiding general for the Union at the defense of Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry in 1859. He was the obvious choice for commander of the Army of the Potomac and his performance in countless Civil War battles in the face of being overwhelmingly outnumbered is hard to argue against (with certainly a lot of credit going to TJ "Stonewall" Jackson, who had a knack for understanding Lee's more ambiguous orders). Certainly, I agree that Lincoln probably would have expected Lee to turn down the offer, however it seems surprising to me that he wouldn't have given it his best shot by showing Lee the courtesy of appearing in person given what was at stake.
Do millenials know anything about integrity and moral principles like this guy?🤔
No.
Southern historical revisionists love to whitewash Lee by ascribing to him all kinds of noble virtues and characteristics he never had. Lee was a white supremacist who strongly believed that God wanted blacks to be slaves. During his life, he was notorious for his cruelty to his slaves. Revisionist Southern apologists love the false narrative that Lee inherited his slaves and then set them free. This didn't happen; it's one of those…oh, what are they called, those things that are the opposite of the truth? Lies! That's right. One of those lies propagated by Southern apologists and people too naive to read history.
In reality, his ancestors freed their slaves in their will. Lee disputed the will and kept the slaves anyway. He did not free them; he was forced to release them by the Virginia court, which ruled against him in the dispute over the will. Another popular opposite-of-the-truth alternative “facts” repeated by Southern apologists and those who naively believe Southern apologists without fact-checking is that 30,000 slaves or former slaves fought in Lee’s army. This is absolutely not supported by fact; the historical record does show a tiny number of slaves or former slaves fighting in the Confederate army, but this number is only about 10% of what the historical revisionists claim, and it includes all of the Confederate armies during the entire civil war, not just Lee’s army. Robert E. Lee was a cruel white supremacist slaveowner who truly and sincerely believed slavery was Divinely justified and who took up arms in support of traitors.
He also let his men kidnap free blacks in Pennsylvania to sell into slavery. So noble! I can’t help but assume that the service of Robert Smalls in the Confederate navy is probably representative of their attitudes and commitment to the Confederate cause.
@@xavierwash98 Youre stupid!
Slaves were NEVER freed in the North during the coarse of the war. To be free, a slave had to escape all the way to Canada. The promise to free the slaves was just a political maneuver to prevent European nations, that had already abolished slavery (other than Spain), from aiding the South.
Horst Reinhardt not quite the emancipation proclamation was put in place during the civil war and there were several black divisions in the union army
Slavery in Spain was officialy abolished in 1837, that doesn't mean, of course, that in some places far from the government wasn't still practised.
The emancipation proclamation only declared slaves to be 'free' in states that the union did not, in fact, control. Once again, it did not free slaves in state under union control.
He should have been arrested when he refused the order. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if Lee wasn't in charge of an army.
He can't be arrested for declining an offer. And it was just that an offer. Any military official can decline a promotion which was what this offer was. Had Lee been arrested for simply refusing to fight against his own state, it would have validated the CSA.
People today struggle to understand that states at this time were more independent from the fed than they are now, and the North and South were different countries culturally and economically.
And other people today struggle to understand that there were courageous Virginians who fought on the right side during this war, such as George Thomas and David Farragut, thus negating the specious "but people back then identified with their state first" claim?
@@sumanadasawijayapala5372 it would be ignorant to say this was a universal trend for all people to support their state. Today you can't find a country where every citizen supports their country. The point is that there used to be a heavier meaning to The United States.
@@daviddial6147 And the greater point is that even back then there were real Americans who supported their country and did not fight against it on the pretext of defending their state.
@@sumanadasawijayapala5372 my comment was not to begin an argument about why an individual chose a side. It was a comment highlighting how different the two places were culturally and economically.
@@daviddial6147 But you are ignoring his point. There were Virginians who sided with the Union, in fact 40% of Virginia officers fought for the Union, so your point is moot. Lee knew what he was fighting for, slavery and white supremacy.
I always agreed with the reasons as to why the south should have seceded. People argue it was against the constitution. Well the U.S. was founded on a revolution against Great Britain. You cannot say one rebellion is right whilst another is wrong. Even on the issue of slavery the fact that it was legal was the U.S. was founded you cannot suddenly change a contract then expect people to agree or stay with it.
Lee was only 54 years old in 1861.
Props to the south and my southern brothers standing up to the federal government.
You mean standing up for slavery
_"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."_ --CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens.
How ironic that so many Southerners refused to stand up to Trump--another Yankee.
Yankee Blue doesn't suit Lee at all.
Yeah, even though he served in the US Army in Mexico, it still looks odd on him.
+cynderfan2233 I think it would have suited him much better than Rebel Gray. :p
+antred11 I disagree
+cynderfan2233 Feels weird to see him wearing the colors of the army he fought to defeat
True he looks better in gray
To invade his own country...please. Put down an internal threat to the country that was already raising armies of its own and end a blighted institution more like.
Had Lee chosen to do anything other than to uphold his constitution and to do his duty, then he would not have been Lee and we needn't worry about what might have been.
Colonel Lee was the leader of the rag tag group that ended Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry. Years later, he fought some of the men he commanded that day
Duvall's accent is so spot on. "Aboout". Very well done
Bry H Because he is a native Virhinian.
He was actually raised in Maryland, but his mother was of the Virginia Lees.
It's because Robert Duvall lives, or at one time lived, in Virginia.
According to the book The Generals by Anderson and Anderson, this exchange occurred on 18 April 1861 in the townhouse of Francis Preston Blair. Blair owned a plantation in Silver Springs, MD.
The commander of the U. S. Army at this point was General Winfield “Fuss and Feathers” Scott, who was deemed too old to take the field.
"Gods and Generals" is a love letter to the Lost Cause.
Its an entertaining movoe nonetheless
I agree with both of you.
Thank GOD
Deo Vindice
Stand your ground !
Thank You. Robert E Lee
I´ve read about Lee that he was against slavery and the secession but joined the confederates because he felt that his duty for Virginia was bigger then for the USA.
+Kemal Sunal I don't think it's accurate to say Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. It's also not accurate to say that he was in favor of it either. He tried to play both sides of it.
+Kemal Sunal It was an impossible situation. Thank God our country survived it.
And although I love my country, I love Virginia even more.
Ya, Lee was a different kind of patriot. Most folks back in that day gave their loyalty to their state above the country.
@@k3w1b3an5 kinda like Sam Houston did in TX
The Union would’ve been UNSTOPPABLE had Robert E Lee led the Army!!!!!
But, his unflinching loyalty to his Home-state of Virginia won out!!!! One of the Greatest Generals in history!!!!!!
More like his foolish blind loyalty ended up causing a war to drag on longer than necessary and resulting in the deaths over 700000 Americans
@@joshuawillis602 That line of logic could be used on just about any general fighting on the lost side. That makes no sense and you are relying on hindsight logic.
@@kingorange7739 no it applies strongly with Lee. He was extremely talented general and wasted his talents on an army that fought to have slaves. He knew what the purpose of the confederacy was
@@joshuawillis602 As mentioned before, his loyalty was to Virginia. Had Virginia remained in the Union, he would have done the same. And considering he is still regarded as one of the best generals in American history with his tactics still studied, I would hardly consider it wasted.
@@kingorange7739 his loyalty should’ve been with the USA. His country. He easily could’ve stayed in the Union regardless what Virginia did. Many southerners stayed with the Union he easily could’ve done the same. Also his talents was wasted. Because instead of ending the war quickly with very few casualties it ended up dragging it out. Not only that it gave the former confederates and their sympathizers a false sense of superiority thinking they could’ve won.
The Civil War tore not just across state lines but also family lines as well. My great great grandfather fought for the Union and his older brother, my great great granduncle, fought for the Confederacy.
His brother was a hero for joining the rebellion against the tyrants.
@@Archedgar Well I'm sure he had his reasons for joining the Confederacy. I can only imagine what my great great grandfather thought of his own brother being on the enemy side and the potential that the two might end up on the same battlefield unintentionally shooting at each other. Long story short, my great great grand uncle disappeared after the war and, as far as I know, he was never seen again. My ancestors did own slaves so maybe that was a reason for him to fight, or maybe it was for Southern honour and heritage. Either way, I certainly didn't benefit from it. I grew up poor in Canada. Not poor now but I was in my youth.
@@histman3133 Or maybe he fought for what the rebellion was actually fighting for; States' rights & liberty from the tyrannical and corrupt govt.
@@Archedgar Could very well be. I don't have much information on his military service record other than he was a Lieutenant Colonel of Newsom's Tennessee Cavalry Regiment and he was captured by the Union at Bolivar, Tennessee on Jan. 20th 1864 and was part of a prisoner exchange at Charleston, South Carolina on August 3rd, 1864.
@@histman3133 In any case, my respects to your ancestors (both) and to you as well. You are prudent & centered..... they would be proud.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would raise an army to invade his own country." Today that army is called the IRS.
It is 2 bad they never made The last Full Measure into a movie. I loved Gettysburg and Gods and Generals.
I've never seen this movie, but I am sooooo glad to have seen this segment. If I didn't already know how utterly superb Robert Duvall is, I would certainly know it now.
Even as Boo Radley in 1962's treasure TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, he delivered an absolute masterpiece of a performance.
It is worth watching. I think this part, the Fredericksburg part, and Stonewall's flanking maneuver through Chancellorsville were the best parts of the movie. The rest, in my opinion, is a lot of soliloquy and boring introspective...hence why it didn't do as well as "Gettysburg".
He looked so much like Gen. Lee it was like Duvall blended into the character. What movie is this? Loved the music too.
@conspiracycornerireland3250 Gods and Generals
Gods and Generals, 4 hours long
The movie is rather crap compared to "Gettysburg." The highlight in my mind was how well Stephen Lang portrayed Stonewall Jackson, but the film is way too sympathetic to the Confederacy for my taste.
" Come, rule the Galaxy as father and son"
Except he lost
Lee's face at 1:07 -- "Tricky fatso tryna take my slaves away."
"I have no room in my army for equivocal men." WInfield Scott's reply to Lee when asked if he could sit the war out away from the east.
as good an actor as martin sheen is, robert duvall blows him out of the water as lee.
Duvall is a native Virginian. He understands the personality and the accent perfectly. All the people he knew in his early life sounded like this.
@@iVenge That and he's a direct decendant of Robert E. Lee
please, Martin was much better as Lee, Duvall was robotic.
People nowadays need to understand that the actions of 98% of the southerners weren’t influenced by slavery. Southerners didn’t fight because they wanted to ensure slavery would remain in the south, but fought because back then there was a stronger bond to ones state than to ones country, especially in the south. These men fought to protect their home, their families.
It’s easy now to look back and say “oh the war was fought over slavery. Anyone who fought for the Confederacy is a racist and traitor”. But the true reason for war was much more complex than just slavery.
It’s sad that we know are taught to hate on the south and the men who lived in it during the war, that the south is pure evil and that they were completely in the wrong, and the memory of their plight must be erased. Men like Lee lead by example and had honor and respect for all. He was a major key in the reconstruction era for the healing of the nation, and without his actions, thousands more would have died. He truly was a great man and we need to start acknowledging that again.
Sounds like your school needs some work my guys 🤣
Lol! I like how you mention the reconstruction era as if that was a favor for blacks. All it did was saddle debt onto former slaves and birthed the kkk. Btw the aristocratic southern plantation owners started the ear to preserve slavery, so yes, those soldiers were still fighting to keep slaves.
Lee was like so many in “America” (then and now) in that he didn’t believe in the United States as a country, but in his own State of Virginia. I think that anyone who believes in States rights about that if the country, then if the majority of those in said State feel the same, then they should not receive any benefits or power from the federal government. This is one of the core reasons why the United States has been held back from being a great country.
This was Robert Duvall's greatest rôle. His Tidewater Virginia accent is perfect.
He was pretty darn good as Capt Augustus McRea as well
Worst Tidewater Virginia accent I heard all year. Sounded more Blue Ridge Lynchburg to me. His Boo Radley was much better at the declensions.
Lee was never offered command of the entire Union army, just the Washington Garrison. There was no thought at the time that a large army would be needed to suppress the rebellion in the South. Lee was only a colonel and was outranked by many general officers, including Winfield Scott, was was in command of the U.S. Army.
Lee did not outrank winfield scott dipshit
My favorite part is that Robert E. Lee, and most of the West Point graduates had never given Ulysses S. Grant an ounce of respect in school, but U.S. Grant would become the only Civil War general to never lose a battle. Robert E. Lee resented that for the rest of his life. I can't imagine getting special privileges all my life and everything I ever wanted only to get my ass kicked by a poor, slave-freeing, union-loving "drunkard" and not feeling humiliated!
Lee wasn’t even at West Point when Grant was there and Lee and Longstreet were best friends.
Lol, Grant lost a shit load of battles, Lee whipped his ass so many times, he just had more men so he kept pressing forward no matter the casualties
@@shawnketterman8926 Exactly, yet he’s regarded as one of the best generals
@@mdcclxxxi8509 I'm not saying that grant was terrible, he wasn't. But to say he didn't lose battles is ridiculous
Grant wasn’t that talented, neither was Lee really
This is why they named the best vehicle the galaxy after him...
History books always leave out that the civil war wasn't started by slavery but states rights
+Gilbert Van Buskirk Finally. Someone who gets it. Lee was a traitor. Why would he want to commit treason and kill his own countrymen just so the south could have slaves?
+Vance Edwards would u fight against your family and your home state where you grew up and only %7 of people in the south owned slaves so it wasn't that big of a factor in a war
+Gilbert Van Buskirk and how do you come up with that logic exactly how you can compare them to Isis. So me some substantial evidence. The victors also write the history books, like if the British won the war they would of said there were only a small group of colonialists that wanted independence and we terrorized other people and were radicals
+Gilbert Van Buskirk that sounds completely messed up.
Only 6 percent of Southerners owned slaves, and 3 percent of those owned the majority. I do not think that 94% of Southern men fighting for the Confederacy are going to go to war for the 6%'s benefit. It just is not logical.
to this very day the civil war has set across huge barriers still between the north and south. Education and social acceptances vary vastly depending on what side of the country you live in. It's amazing how something 150 years ago still affects the way we think and act today
It's because we rushed to reconciliation. Lincoln should've treated the South like the western Allies treated Nazi Germany. There, we didn't rush towards reconciliation. There, we put their leaders on trial and executed them. There, we banned the teaching of racist ideology. We emancipated Holocaust survivors, supported them, taught their history. We showed no mercy to Nazis.
But with the Civil War? The South? We tripped over ourselves to reconcile with the rebels. We had an opportunity in that moment to utterly destroy white supremacy forever, and we held back. We had an opportunity to emancipate the slaves, truly support them, and teach their history, but we held back. We allowed the ideology of racial hatred to fester, and then boil over, leading to segregation, Jim Crow, white terrorism, and a white supremacist ideology that continues in America to this very day.
Today, in Germany, in 2021, it's still illegal to show a Nazi flag, and has been since the war. But two weeks ago, a Confederate flag was flown in the U.S. Capitol. That right there tells us everything we need to know about how America handled ourselves after the Civil War.
By the way, this video right here, which for some reason showed up in my feed, is itself *emblematic* of the continuation of America's acquiescence of white supremacy. It's nothing but Lost Cause garbage. Masturbation material for white supremacists. It's trash.
@@okbucket dude, if we executed all of the confederates, the country would have fallen apart again. The only reason the country is in one peace is because we reconciled. Fuck you and your vengeful garbage.
What you call “white supremacy “ is a self evident truth, the natural order of things. Equality is a lie and a perversion of the natural order. It will inevitably fail along because it goes directly against the immutable and eternal laws of nature. The strong are supposed to dominate the weak, it is for the greater good of all.
@@okbucket - Yeah, no, that revenge-porn approach would not have worked. You're taking an approach that worked in one place and assuming it would have worked in another, in another timeframe, in a setting where you weren't talking about about a conquered foreign nation, but people who were brothers - literally and metaphorically. To think that approach could have worked is retarded, and if you honestly think it would have produced anything useful, I don't know what other word to use to describe you.
But at least you got to virtue signal, which is nice, I guess.
Blair should have replied: "I never thought I'd live to see the day that a president of the United States would HAVE TO raise an army to invade his own country."
After Appomattox, Lee told his men to
"...fold the flag and put it away, or else it will be devisive. "
He also said, against civil war monuments, "...best to not keep open the sores of war. " 🇺🇸
"I never thought I'd live to see the day a president would raise an army to invade his own country!"
Wow. Just wow. Never thought of it that way.
Cause it really wasn't that way.
It's kinda funny too, because it had been done repeatedly up to that point. Utah War, war against native Americans, etc, etc.
Unless historians want to put a lot of weight on "raise".
his own country? that's funny, cause the south opened fire first and the south were the ones that seceded so they could make their own country. that's some BS confederate propaganda right there.
There is little doubt in my mind that the Civil War would have ended by 1863 if Lee had joined the Union. Lee, Grant, and Sherman would have been an unstoppable force.
I doubt it. You see the real weakness of the Union states were the profiteers whose personal goals put countless of obstacles in the Union army's way. The industrialists smelled lucrative deals with which they could make themselves insanely rich. For this to happen however they had to make sure the demand for cannons, guns and other war material never stopped. It was desirable the war would be dragged out as long as possible since they were absolutely certain the Union would win sooner or later anyway - and they were right. Therefore some of them produced low quality cannons using cheap casting metals which had a nasty habit of blowing up after being fired a few times. This way they reasoned the Union army would have no other option that to buy more guns to replace the faulty ones - which the company could scapegoat on some made-up middle man who delivered the raw material. In the middle of the war there was little time to read all the reports about faulty cannons, look up who delivered them and who got what from who. By the time more thorough investigations got underway the damage was already done.
There was also fierce competition between companies deliviering arms and equipment to the Union army, to the point they sabotaged and disturbed each other to win contracts. Others stalled deliveries and kept their goods in warehouses until the were certain they would get paid what they asked.
Here's a story about the famous (infamous?) banker J.P. Morgan from "Civil War Bugle": "J.P. Morgan drew up a plan to purchase 5,000 of the extremely dangerous and defective Hall’s Carbine that were being sold by the U.S. Government. Morgan purchased the faulty carbines from the government for $3.50 each and then later resold them back to the US government for $22 each as new model carbines without the defect.
The crazy thing about this controversy was that the carbines were sold back to the US Army before they were officially owned by J.P. Morgan and the bill to Morgan from the US government wasn’t paid until the money from the sale of the carbines back to the Federal Army was complete. This means that Morgan (though he denied the carbines with the dangerous defect were never sold back to the Federal Army) sold defective guns, bought from the US, back to the US and paid the bill with the money made from profit off the second sale. So Morgan never actually owned the 5,000 Hall’s Carbines. This later became known as the Hall Carbine Affair."
Like I said: The profiteers made a killing (literally) by selling defective weapons to the Union army.
The bottom line is this: The overwhelming industrial and arms superiority the Union states had was squandered by a corrupt arms industry and greedy profiteers selling defective cannons and rifles.
Robert E. Lee had no say in who and how the industry conducted its business. Neither did Grant or Sherman.
Another thing. Grant only became the Commanding General of the U.S. Army on March 9th 1864 after his predecessors George McClellan first and Henry Halleck later had failed.
Grant didn't even have any formal rank in the army when the war broke out and he was promoted to colonel early in the war.
Had Robert E. Lee been the commanding general then Grant would never have become more than a general among many in the Union army.
As for Sherman, it's doubtful he would have been given free hands to do as he pleased in the South with Lee as his superior.
The war would be shorter but the Confederacy still had good generals aside from Lee and this "mighty trio" of yours would never had happened if Lee was made commanding general. Had Lee not managed to defeat the Confederacy fast enough it's likely president Abraham Lincoln would get as impatient with him as he was with other union generals in the first two years of the war.
+TheIronDuke W.
I like the name. You a Brit by any chance?
The greatest weakness of the Union Army was its political leadership. Though Lincoln was determined to crush the Confederacy, he meddled a lot in the affairs of his generals. It was because of the machinations of him and others in Capital Hill that really hindered the efforts of the Union's high command. I suppose that was why they had a higher turnover of commanding generals compared to the Confederate Army. If Lee had ended up in command of the Union Forces, he might have found himself replaced very quickly just like McClellan, Meade and Burnside if he failed to make much progress (and he didn't make a lot of progress for the Confederacy other than prolonging the war).
Not true.
What a terrible tragedy the Civil War was. I wonder if he knew how bad it was going to be, if he would have accepted the offer.
I think, in his heart, he knew that the cost would be high. Gen. Sherman believed it would be so back in 1862.
Well Trump's taken the reigns of another divided America. A second civil war could eventually happen, and that's sad.
you have to wonder if when he was at Appomattox surrendering to Grant if this day played back in his mind
Duvall is the PERFECT choice for that role!!
Does anybody agree with me? Cus if anybody does agree with me I'd like to hear your comments. Cus I'm related to Robert E. Lee on my father's side and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson on my mother's side. And proud of it. Praise the Lord, and his kingdom on Earth!
Up to and until the end of the Civil War citizens were first citizens of their sovereign states and second a citizen of the United Sates. Prior to the civil war it was most common to refer to the country as “these United Sates” and after the war as “the United States “.
good point , today's yankees won't understand
My country is my home state I have A Greater Duty to my home state of South Carolina
I sorta feel the same way about British Colombia.
@@funnyman7602 todays backwater fools don't . just cause they live in the South and hunt dont make them about that life.
General Lee never wanted to be in the union he always wanted to be a free soldier
Free to own slaves.
@@IdleWorker free to fight for freedom at that time both sides fought for the same cause just different leaders