Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/GvX-heRWFfA/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin.
Brah, Lee fought and lost against the Union. Didn’t complain about it. he literally supported remaining apart of the union telling others they had to after that lost. He literally prevented not one but two, attempts to start a second civil war prior to his death. That’s the only credit Lee deserves in my book. Accepted defeat, told others to support re-union of north &south and prevented another civil war from starting.
Ah yes, someone is great when they lead a civil war resulting in millions of deaths of Americans and then don’t lead another one to happen! Good on him for being such a good sport! Good thing Hitler didn’t start a third world war, he deserves credit for that!
Hitler eventually killed himself, ending his evil campaign. Does he deserve credit for that? Ultimately Robert fought for the cause of slavery which he vehemently believed, when abolition was an option. All historical figures are complex--hitler loved dogs for instance--that doesn't mean no historical figure is evil.
Rommel died trying to kill hitler, he was a member of the resistance. Lee spent his entire life supporting confederate ideals, never turning on his prejudices towards former slaves. Lee was nothing like Rommel.
@@knunk5476 Lee could've attempted to continue the war with guerilla warfare, but he understood there had been enough suffering and chose to go to Grant to surrender instead. After the war, he worked to bring reconciliation. He wanted the South to move on and continue with their lives again. Also, Lee did not support secession but when Virginia did secede, he chose to go with his state because he couldn't bring himself to invade his home state.
This is a deeply historically inaccurate take on Lee and other Southerners. Suri's argument here is Lee didn't do enough to help Reconstruction. Maybe that has to do with the fact that Lee is dead by 1870? According to Suri, Lee is expected to change all of Southern Society in 5 years. What about Longstreet and Mosby? Lee supported Johnson's Reconstruction plan. Lee chastised fellow ex-Confederates such as Davis and Jubal Early for their frequent, angry responses to perceived Northern insults. "It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, give full scope to reason and to every kindly feeling. By doing this and encouraging our citizens to engage in the duties of life with all their heart and mind, with a determination not to be turned aside by thoughts of the past and fears of the future, our country will not only be restored in material prosperity, but will be advanced in science, in virtue and in religion." The shaming of Civil War Leaders on both sides only leads to the shaming of the Founding Fathers. Now George Wythe is canceled when he was arguably the most Progressive Founding Father. He freed all of his Slaves at the end of the Revolutionary War, a radical act at the time. Yet, we find the taint of slavery enough to erase a man chased throughout the entire war for signing the Declaration of Independence. I'm open to hearing the good and the bad, but people like Suri and arguably even Lex here shouldn't frame it as "Heroes vs Villains." So is Grant the "Hero" cause he defeats Lee? Cause I'm more than happy to tell you about all the bad things done by Union Generals and Leaders to Indigenous People. Ulysses Grant - "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads." (Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, 17:262) William Tecumseh Sherman - ""We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." (Sherman to Grant, December 28, 1866, Papers of Ulysses S. Grant 16:422) Sherman - "During an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made. Death must be meted out, but the moment all resistance ceases, the firing will stop and all survivors turned over to the proper Indian agents." Ulysses S. Grant Launched an Illegal War Against the Plains Indians then lied about It. Sherman called for the complete extermination of the Sioux People. Grant also deeply loved his wife and wrote his memoirs with probably stage 4 cancer to make sure she had an nest egg after he was gone. I want to live in a world where we can have people to look up to. They don't have to be perfect. I certainly don't expect people nearly 200 years removed from me to be perfect, but can we at least be a tad more honest and not ask loaded questions? Thank you for coming to my autistic ramblings
Nothing autistic or rambling about your comment. I agree with your observation that looking at men as villains or heroes is to overlook the complexity of humanity. More to the point, we have both good and evil in our hearts. I was also a little taken aback with his Hitler reference.
". Lee chastised fellow ex-Confederates such as Davis and Jubal Early for their frequent, angry responses to perceived Northern insults. " ,what the does this have to do with anything ? Hitler also loved dogs.
There is a difference between owning slaves and fighting for slavery's existence. You did not once debunk this guys claims. Also grant fought to integrate Indians not exterminate them.
"rant also deeply loved his wife and wrote his memoirs with probably stage 4 cancer to make sure she had an nest egg after he was gone" What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Adolf hitler also believed in animal welfare and loved his wife and children deeply. The issue with you lost cause retards is that you look for any small ounce of good in the confederates and any ounce of evil in the unionites. Rather than comparing like with like. You can find virtue in every man, does this make every man virtuous?
@@lufesaro7741 there was no "Hitler" to the civil war, and cheap comparisons dilute the fact that mao, Hitler and Stalin in contemporary times were entirely categories of their own. It's just pure hyperbole and weakens the credibility. Lee can be a son of a bitch without needing to be exaggerated.
Rommel didn't survive the war so he would not have been a good comparison. He didn't compare Lee and Hitler morally or ethically or in leadership roles. Simply the "what if" had Hitler been granted the leniency Lee was afforded after the war.
any academic that seriously looks at history with a good vs. evil framework loses credibility imo. It's not only a flawed approach to learning history but a dangerous precedent moving forward.
@@desertezz of course they were bad. I did not say anyone can't label historical figures according to certain moral standards. I said it is a mistake for academics to use such method because history is extremely nuanced and studying a nuanced topic requires a broad scope of understanding not constrained by a black and white framework, and academics have a social contract to provide the most truthful and accurate information free of bias
It’s not really fair to blame Lee for not pushing the South to move forward and accept defeat (although he actually did do that). He was just a general, who did his job well, but not well enough considering the difficulty of his position. The Hitler comparison is crazy. Lee wasn’t the leader who decided to start the war, and he didn’t start an extermination campaign.
The Hitler comparison makes perfect sense. Lee is popularly presented as "the man who was just defending his home" and that is not true. He believed in the racial inferiority of black people until the day he died. He didn't try to help the South move forward because he believed that the system they were fighting to maintain was a just system. His stance wasn't simply "we lost, so it's time to move on." His public stance was: "we lost and we need to accept the terms of defeat, but we were fighting for the right cause because our social structure was completely justified." People like Robert E. Lee are directly responsible for Jim Crow, and Hitler would have done the same thing if he was allowed to retire to some bungalow in Bavaria.
@@robjacobs9371 Yes, Lee was racist and supported the systematic oppression of black people, just like almost every contemporary Southern elite. The differences between him and Hitler are: Lee didn't think a race of people should be exterminated, he didn't start a war of conquest (or any war for that matter), and he didn't push the moral boundaries of his society to new levels of evil. We should judge people both by universal standards and the standards of their time and society. Hitler fails both tests to a greater degree than Lee ever did. It is an interesting comparison if only to show how different and similar they both were, but Hitler was obviously far worse.
@@kommando5562 Good. We need to reevaluate how we understand our historical figures out of a recognition that many have been mythologized. I grew up and still live in Virginia--the extent to which my statesmen continue to revere Lee is incredible not only for their lack of awareness of what he was actually like, but their complete unwillingness to entertain the possibility that maybe he wasn't such a great person.
Lee was nowhere near the character of A.H even Lincoln said both men of north and men of south should bury and mourn their dead. Lee himself said that we should move on
He is and you have to be stupid not to see it. In fact he is worse. He betrayed his country whereas hitler fought for his. He fought to enslave a race of people.
The guest is a typical modern day imbecile. To insult Robert E. Lee the way he did could be detrimental to his well being were he to mumble that idiocy in the presence of men who know the history. Lee was an incredible commander and an incredible man.
@@irvintorres1950 what kind of logic is that? Are you talking pure numbers? How do you measure it? The US government and civilization is Built upon genociding all the natives, genghis khan and his society kill and perpetuated a system that destroyed 3 civilizations for generations
I don't really get on board with the Hitler and Lee comparison. I do agree that Lee could have potentially done more in his position to affect change after the war, but Lee also wasn't one of the driving ideological factors behind the war in the first place. He was a soldier, and while he became a cultural icon during and after the war, I don't think he was exactly a primary driver of the secession and the decision to initiate hostilities with US forces. Hitler was every bit as responsible for his role in the culture, politics and leadup to WWII as he was the German prosecution of the war. Seeing as Lee wasn't even ideologically convinced himself at the end of the war, I think it could be argued that the BEST thing he could have done was going quietly into the reconstruction period for the remainder of his life. He could have easily kept stoking the coals the way former Confederate leaders like Nathan Bedford Forrest did. I also feel like Jeremi's thought that Lee should have done more is kind of tied into the post-war romanticization of Lee. Ask anyone today who the leader of the south was and how many do you think are going to remember who Jefferson Davis was over Robert E. Lee? Yeah Lee was definitely loved by the soldiers and popular at home but the CSA had its own entire unlawful government running things behind the scenes. Again, I think we need to remember that Lee could have EASILY caused insane problems after the war if he so chose. I'm not a lover of the "southern cause" but I think Lee made a conscious choice to fight for his home state, led his troops with a significant degree of honor and dignity and then took a monumental defeat with some grace after the fact. There are plenty of leaders of the CSA to rag on but I think Lee honestly was exceptional in what choices he made throughout his post-secession career and life. If we are going to compare Lee to the Nazi regime I think you need to make an apples to apples comparison and at least constrain it to military leaders. I'd compare Lee more to Rommel in that they were soldiers that were bad primarily for their carrying out the will of an evil government over them having been some primary driver or keeper of the cultural or political events going on in the background.
I think in my opinion that Suri took Lee's quote out of context. Lee understood the war was completely over. "Lee urged Southerners to accept defeat and reunite as Americans, even though some Southerners wanted to keep fighting." It seems like Suri wants us to beleive that Lee was still defiant, when I beleive he was using metaphor to explain the southern zeitgeist.
Exactly right, I'm not a Lee fanboy or anything but after the war ended he spent his time urging young confederates to stop fighting their brothers. Hard to believe anything this guy says now.
The guest has,evidently,read a few books on the topic when he needs to read a great many,and he has thought about the topic a little when he needs to think about it a great deal. The fact that he would cast Lee as a villian,and compare him to Hitler,reveals the guest as an imbecile not worth listening to. This nation has never produced another battlefield commander who could even shine Lee's shoes. He was a good man and a great man.
You make a better case. Not well read with Lee, but I get what Lee was saying with running the South over with an army several times because (I forget the author) in The Southern Caste System, which explored how Southern culture revamped itself post-war, the author argued that what occurred was former slaves were looked down upon for being free while Southern whites maintained their "parental" status by seeing themselves as not truly free, having to still work, tend to their families, contribute to society, etc. and couldn't, for example, pack up and migrate North. That having freedom quickly lost its privilege (and vice-versa) is why I can understand Lee believing that the South needed to be run over several times before change could take place as a fair statement. Once more, not sure if Lee was referring to cultural entrenchment but do have doubts about Suri's assessment.
@@studleydewrite2942 tf is you talking about. They were fighting for people in chains. That’s what victory for him. He wanted His Economy, his culture, his way of life. Which included SLAVESS
@@christiancrane5072 i think thats the second persons point about how it must have felt pretty good to have people that you dont consider human to do all the work, while you get to basically run the ship that runs itsefl. slave driving must have been right good time now i think about it from that perspective
Comparing Robert E Lee to Hitler is something I can't get on board with. Being a lifelong Mississippian and someone who is forever grateful that the Union won, that is an absurd claim. I don't care about the credentials this guy comes with. That is a flat out wrong and ignorant comparison.
Lee was a life long professional soldier and served in the Mexico campaign and was asked to take command of the Union army to oppose the confederate states.Lee refused politely because his home state succeeded and he chose to offer his services to them & did not command the army of Northern Virginia until its commander Gen Johnson was wounded 1862 & Lee replaced him. The Hitler analogy is stupid as virtually the whole south thought as Lee did and he spent the remaining 5 years of his life as president of Washington collage. Lee would not consider himself a hero or villain just a patriot doing his duty to his homeland. Re writing history is all the rage in the United states of 'wokedom' , and some revisions are always happening but this is just ridiculous.There is strong debate that Hitler did survive the bunker and a double was killed but thats another story... After WW11 many Nazis escaped to South America & elsewhere , top officers & rocket scientists & technicians were shipped to the US under project paper clip and served in the space programs. Others were employed in several countries. Gen Gehlen was head of intel in the eastern theater and after the war helped set up the new West German intel service as did many ex soldiers. Every war and conflict has winners and losers and the current Ukraine conflict will be no different. Biden's actions in Afghanistan has yet to be justified one way or the other.....etc etc....
You really only need to read W.E.B. DuBois on Lee: “Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel - not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.”
@@keithcummings691 nahh, he's a traitor. He's a traitor to the union. Virginia being a part of the original 13 colonies, he turned his back on the republic. Therefore he is a traitor.
He was both. Simply depends on which side you were on, and like all humans, complicated. Not one major figure in history made into a hero also did some ugly things, and Lee was left in the position because they felt it was the best way to move forward as a nation. Civil wars always end in similar ways where people who did some terrible things simply go home when it's over, vs what happens when one nation wins a war against another. No foreign wars can be compared to civil wars.
You could say the same with hilter. It just depends what side your on. He just wanted to help his nation. In fact, lee is worse since he actively wanted to end this nation. Thats not fighting for what's best. Yes most historical figures have something ugly about them, but Lee is almost all ugly and nothing else.
@@jhonklan3794 No, you can't say that about Hitler in the same context. Re read what I actually wrote. What you can do is compare how Lee was treated after the civil war with how others treated someone like Lee after their civil war. It's all politics vs justice per se and what they think will get the country back to normal the fastest. He is right in that low level people get hung or thrown in prison, high profile types often end up with a normal life.The elites always take care of each other.
lee fought for his home in a war he didn’t start for a cause he didn’t entirely believe in. never once kill or ordered the killing of prisoners or civilians. quite the the contrary. there is a huge difference between a war a genocide and mass murder
He compared what happened to leaders on the losing side of a war and picked one that is known to all, Hitler. He did not compare Lee and Hitler in any moral, value or leadership way.
@@toddpdroneworks563 No. But he said, "imagine letting Hitler live out his life in retirement" when someone like Hans Guderian, the father of the Blitzkrieg, who was an actual General of Ww2, did live his life out im retirement? His whole point was invalid?
Robert E. Lee fought to destroy the USA as we know it while "advocating" for the Confederacy, a long-time slave nation. Neo-Confederates who want to celebrate traitors and slavers like Lee are the ones who are playing "Lost Cause" revisionist history.
Lee was an incredible tactician. He constantly outmaneuvered Union generals in the East. He was, however, a poor strategist and that’s mostly because he would never abandon his dear home state of Virginia. An admirable man who fought for an awful cause
In what way was he admirable? He had no personal virtue and frequently abused slaves. To the point where even people at the time were disgusted with his behavior. Compare that Uylesses who was abhorred by slavery.
@@jhonklan3794 got to love Americans and their hypocritical stances on certain politicians in their own history. Lee is a "villain" and should have his name errased from statues and public buildings or streets but Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and FDR are completely fine. at least you people stay consistent with something.
@@Deadlyaztec27 all three of them are known to have been racist. LBJ signed the Civil Rights movement but the majority that approved and worked on that bill were the Republicans in Congress. LBJ just happened to be the president during that period of history. besides, his secret life is well known at this point. he was a racist. he was forced to sign the Civil Rights bill because he wanted his imagine to remain clean by the general public.
Personally I think like this: Every Hero is flawed. Every Villan thinks they are a hero. Heroes and villains are just propaganda. Be inspired by the good acts of character, no matter who.
@@ltmund I made a joke.. that i thought was a compliment. Who doesn't understand who? i was agreeing with you .. wow! i was giving you a metal for you're act of character in recognizing the truth of reality and humans. Ironic you instantly became a villain ..Bauahahahaha
I'm no fan of the "southern cause" or whatever you want to call it but the more I listen to this guy the more I feel like he has some modern political chip on his shoulder more than he has objectivity. If we are going to throw some Nazi leader at Lee to meaninglessly compare him against then at least put him up against someone like Rommel who was at least a soldier too. Hitler was the most evil person in world frigging history and a politician to boot, Lee on his worst day doesn't even come close to Hitler at his best.
Fr, shout out to all my racist, slave-hitting, black-stabbing, conquerers of foreign colored people! To hell with morality! To hell with Jesus, amirite?
This is just absolutely factually wrong. Lee was never politically involved in the first place, so the comparison to Hitler (ignoring any ridiculousness on a moral level) makes no sense because the Nazi cause was based on Hitler’s own ideas. Lee didn’t even personally believe in the Confederate cause let alone invent and advance it. He was opposed to secession and slavery and a great deal else that made up the southern political mindset. He fought for the Confederacy because he was a soldier and it was his job. If Virginia had stayed in the Union he would have been commander of the Northern army and a great American hero. If you feel you must draw parallels to Nazis Rommel is a much more fair comparison. After the war he encouraged his soldiers to take a renewed loyalty oath and lay down their arms, as opposed to other Southern leaders who tried to move on to guerrilla warfare or terrorism to continue resistance. He continued to be apolitical as he always had been. He even stated later in life that he ultimately regretted having chosen a military career in the first place because of all that ended up happening as a result. The comment about how it’s going to take more violence and more troops to ever really pacify the south was just common sense and in hindsight true, as people generally don’t just admit they are conquered and go back to being buddies with their conquerers. It is dishonest and not contextually accurate to imply that he was stating he believed this was a good thing or he was encouraging it. Lee himself was only alive a short time after the war, when exactly was he supposed to fix the entire culture of the former Confederate states and how exactly would you expect him to have done so? This is just so strange to me especially when there absolutely are major Confederate figures (Davis, Forrest) who you can argue continued to make things worse after the war. Putting Lee in that category is so unnecessary and wrong, it makes me sad that somebody who has a formal title and job relating to the stewardship of this history is doing so poorly at it.
Completely agree. I independently came to the same conclusion that Rommel would be a much more fair comparison, even then, Rommel was probably much more "evil" than Lee. I don't think we should sing the praises of southern leaders like we do of the northern victors but what's going on in this discussion and in a lot of discussions in America is a "black"washing of history. (Black, as in negligent or malicious, like blackmail. In this case the opposite of whitewashing.) Yeah, the Confederacy was wrong in its beliefs, motivations and actions. A mature perspective is to understand that they were people of their time doing quite literally what they thought was righteous. They had lived amongst slavery their entire lives, not only did they understand that their economy was dependent on it they also felt (at best) that blacks were not capable of equal citizenship. This is obviously incorrect in hindsight, but it is such a stupid mistake to try and impose (after the fact) 2000s-era morals, knowledge and understanding on people who lived in the circumstances they did in the mid-19th century.
I can't believe how much he got wrong about Lee. Just goes to show it doesn't matter how much research you do if you have a bias. "Real leadership is convincing people who follow you to change when they don't want to change. Lee refused to do that." That's 100% wrong and it makes it hard to believe anything this guy says now.
@@LgtTurtlez lol I love when people mindlessly believe snippets of quotes that were taken out of context and don't question it because they agree with the biased nincompoop who said it lmao Your the only person who actually believes this guy 😂
@@eyeswydeshut359 you have a wonderful habit of saying a lot of shit that doesn’t mean anything because you have absolutely no evidence. Do you realize that? Do you realize you can’t substantiate what’s actually wrong with what he’s saying other than the fact you have some inherent bias in you because you were raised in a conservative culture that mindlessly glorifies terrible people with contradictory values such as Christianity and slavery?
That’s what Robert Lee did. He convinced many to attempt a war and split from America. He clearly says he was brilliant in that regard, but were clearly no much for America since they started to recruit slaves. Seriously?
I have a degree in military history and this guy has one of the worst takes on Gen. Lee I’ve ever heard. Lee is a legendary leader that was universally respected and often loved by both sides of the war. Only recently has the view of modern woke academics started trying to destroy his legacy. The founding fathers are also their secondary targets.
He was also a traitor to the Country he swore and oath to when becoming a member of the US Military. Suri is correct. We should not have streets or schools or buildings named after him in the United States.
@@toddpdroneworks563 The founding fathers were traitors to their country too. They just won. That’s the only difference. Lee has been honored by West Point and many military academies for well over a hundred years. Arlington cemetery is also in honor of Lee. Clearly the north respected him greatly. The northern armies did atrocities to native Americans right after the civil war so I guess we shouldn’t honor the union solders either.
I'm of the same opinion. I was born and raised in New York, fought two tours in Iraq as a solder in the US Army and have absolutely no love for racism or slavery... Lee served his state with honor and was an absolutely excellent leader. If he wanted to be a butcher like one of Hitler's goons would be 8 decades later, he could have caused insane damage. He fought with dignity and he lost with dignity. Many modern leaders could learn from the latter.
Which is worse, direct slavery practiced by the South, or economic slavery, practiced by the North. Direct slavery you have to house, feed, and cloth through the winter and during down time even if they aren't producing or you need them. Economic slavery, you can fire them for the winter or when you no longer need them, and dump them back into a pool of desperate workers. The North just found out from desperate immigrants pouring into the port of New York, that economic slavery was far more profitable and tasteful. You didn't have to deal with your slaves or hassle with selling them any more when you didn't need them, you could just give them the boot.
“If you want to change the south, you’ll have to run your army over the south 3 or 4 times.” That’s not Lee being stubborn, that’s Lee giving a warning.
Lee hated slavery the reason he even had slaves was because his wife owned slaves prior to his marriage, but he educated them and freed them. He was a friend of Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln wanted him to serve the Union, but Lee chose to defend the South because he was a citizen of Virginia. His decision looks bad to most of us today; however, it was Socratic and respectable for him to do so.
I was onboard with his reasoning until mentioning Hitler and comparing Lee to him. Indeed, Lee could have been more helpful in the post-war, but he was not genocidal. Did he fight for the wrong side and for the wrong cause? Yes. But we need to be careful with labels. Slavery was still common all over the world. Brazil and Cuba still had slavery. Slavery was common in ALL of Africa, as well as in the Mid-East and Asian around 1865. We, in 2023, regard slavery as horrendous, but it was normal back then. Thus, we need to understand people’s motivations taking in consideration the time, local culture and location. Genocide even in 1939 was widely perceived as evil.
America was a laughingstock to European nations for decades because of America’s refusal to end slavery. That’s a more proper comparison. In addition, the hypocrisy and relentless oppression of blacks is another topic in itself as it has taken over a century of civil rights policy to finally get the wheels rolling. Fuck Robert Lee and all those racist schmucks of the past and current. It was unacceptable then as it is now.
Good take, Lee was a Virginian first, if Virginia had fought on the side of the Union, so would have Lee. It's hard for us to imagine now, but it wasn't uncommon for people to be more loyal to their state than the United States.
If slavery was so normal and accepted, why did the entire country tear itself apart and start a civil war over that very issue? Some other countries did still have slavery, but others had also already outlawed the practice like Great Britain. If it was so normal back then, why was slavery a problem in the US from the very beginning of the country? The founding fathers had conflicting views on it, many of them firmly believing in the complete abolition of the practice because in the ideals outlined in our founding documents it is clearly hypocritical to say all men are created equal and have inherent rights, unless you happen to be owned by another person than you don’t count. Slavery was considered very evil long before the civil war in this country. Did he commit genocide? No. But he actively participated in one of if not the most shameful horrid practices in US history, and fought to preserve that practice.
@@knunk5476 Thomas Jefferson had children with one of his slaves and refused to free them, smfh. These people shouldn’t be looked up to and admired, the way they do.
He was like Washington and after the war he pushed reconciliation. Which they pretty much just remove all the history of reconciliation from the books tbh
@@kommando5562 Grant said of Lee in regards to his begrudging acceptance of the wars result, that he was "setting an example of forced acquiescence so grudging and pernicious in its effects as to be hardly realized". If you have to look up some of those words I don’t blame you. It basically means he didn’t do sh*t in regards to letting go of southern bitter feelings. He also didn’t think black peoples were intelligent enough to vote and apposed their right to. Those are his words.
Lee was a brilliant military commander, he was also a man who betrayed his country and directed the killing of tens of thousands of Americans and always will be.
@@mostbased Robert E Lee wasn’t trying to establish the third reich and take over the world. He wasn’t trying to annihilate and/or expel entire groups of people based on their race or religion. He wasn’t practicing eugenics. He wasn’t performing medical experiments on the helpless. To me these are the defining characteristics of the evil of Hitler. After the war Robert E Lee was highly respected by the victors.
@@mostbased the only real evil of the southerners was the defence of slavery. However Robert E Lee did not seek to own slaves but inherited hundreds through his father in law which he later freed. I don’t want to white wash his views on slavery, best read up on Lee yourself because his views are mixed. But there is certainly evidence that Lee thought that slavery was a bad idea and also immoral and desired for there to be a resolution. Lee did however believe that blacks were inferior, but so did Lincoln. So how different was Lee to the northerners? Doesn’t sound like someone you could equate with Hitler. But blind Freddy can see this. This guy isn’t a historian, he’s a sensationalist trying to peddle a good story.
Lincoln ask Lee to run the union army,and he declined out of loyalty to south knowing he would lose . He was the greatest military general of all time .
Attributing comments that Robert E. Lee NEVER said or wrote and then saying “it’s in my book” is shameless and disgraceful. You should know better. These are facts which are EASILY refutable and and child with an internet can look up. I held you in a higher regard. I thought you were better. I am NOT defending the South nor am I trying to entertain ANY “arguments” one way or the other. But calling oneself a historian, stating “it’s in my book” does NOT make it true! A lie is still a lie regardless of how many times it’s told even by so called “historians”. Lex? I truly thought you were better than this….
Robert E Lee is the greatest general ever In American history and one of the finest human beings America ever produced. These were also Winston Churchill’s words ! God bless Dixie!
If this guy went to bars in Virginia and said this stuff he would get a history lesson or a slap in the mouth. If he watched ken burns civil war documentary he would have a different take instead of talking like these weirdo woke people we unfortunately have to deal with now.
Lee was a better man than George Washington. He was a man of pure honor who has wrongly been defaced cause of politics. His father and uncles were a declaration signers and Washingtons best commanders. He even married Washingtons grand daughter. So he was a Virginian through and through like Washington. He was against secession and was glad his state originally voted not to. But when Virginia was called to draft and conscript men to invade other states they seceded. And he still didn’t want it but he like Washington stood by Virginia. After the war he pushed reconciliation till his death and pushed no animosity. No one is perfect but to anyone who honestly looks he is a man we should honor strongly and I say that as a cousin of general Grant.
Robert E Lee was a great man/general because he was very respectful and honorable, and he didn’t like the idea of succeeding or slavery He just simply thought that fighting for your state was a better option. (I’m not a confederate)
@@GregoryCunningham Lee did not lead an insurrection. He did not even support the succession. He was simply loyal to his State, and could not sit idly by why it was invaded by Union Forces. Back in those days, States were like your country. He also didn't even support slavery.
@@GregoryCunningham first of all he led (confederate) troops because he would rather fight people up north then his own community/state and remember it was different back then state and federal government wise. Second of all Lee wasn’t totally fine with slavery. The only reason that there’s evidence of him not minding it because unfortunately, slavery, down south was a normal thing and remember only 6.2% of the American population owns slaves in 1860s.
I have always liked Lee's personal quotes, very thoughtful. Suri highlights that villains can have powerful moments that we can all learn from, yet also be completely flawed when it comes to the progression of equality in human beings and the rest of Earth's lifeforms. The people who say it is just a mater of opinion are justifying their own inability to walk in the shoes of the oppressed. Lee may or may not have been a racist, but he supported racist views and establishments until the end (racist or maybe just self serving). If you are not trying to bring people together then you are trying to keep them apart.
@@williamwest9204 Thank you for your comment. It does smack of the type of thing someone says, that they heard someone else say, thought was smart, and repeated without thinking about it. Silence IS violence if a violent act is happening next to you and you do or say nothing. Not acting, a bit like not voting, maintains the status quo and is a contribution whether you like it or not. "Decisions are made by those who show up". People who choose not to act are still making a choice and shape the World we all live in by letting others make policy, change laws, create social culture etc, for better or worse. Clearly not acting, if you think about it, is not just "that", it is an action in and of itself. Good luck with your choices Mr West.
@@heqitao no and no. Silence is not violence in any sense, if someone is wanting to try and hamfist their ideal forward and u dont support it is not violence. Standing around while someone is attacked for no reason and not doing anything isnt violence either its just inaction, choosing to intervene is actually and escalation of violence and thats entirely choice based on your views and beliefs. Not voting if u think about it is actually not contributing to the status quo if that which is presented isnt anything you support, so whatever happens from those who vote isnt your fault. If u want change and support u better win them over.
@@williamwest9204 I'll agree to disagree. I find your opinion narrow minded and lacking perspective, and I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about mine. Social media is definitely not the best place to make a point, and certainly not the correct place to change minds. I don't know why I am sucked into using it tbh. Compulsion probably. Best of luck to you and yours, I wish you all the best. I honestly mean that.
Jefferson Davis was a moderate himself tho tbh and could maybe be slightly but definitely more so than Lincoln compared to the man he was named for as the diet off brand doctor choice version of Jefferson. Though he was not as firm as Jefferson and Jefferson would’ve sided with him on federalism and secession but pushed to free the slaves and send them to an ethnostate elsewhere which is like the one thing Lincoln was the same on . And Lee was pretty much just a more moral version of George Washington. And this guy was so ignorant of him he didn’t know he spent the rest of his left after the war pushing reconciliation. But national socialism and the National socialists are not really comparable at all except they and the confederacy both had good military’s ig.
I totally disagree with Suri's opinion on Lee. Lee persuaded a large element of the army NOT to split up and continue a guerilla style war vs. Grant's forces. General Alexander was a major proponent of those wanting to continue via this very destructive method. Guerilla warfare brings pillaging, raping and murder, and that would've just caused even deeper resentment and anger through the generations. I think Suri misunderstands Lee here. Lee didn't tell Grant that he wouldn't help convince his soldiers to move on as citizens. He told him that he COULDN'T, that he didn't have the power amongst them to change so many minds. It really was an impossible 'ask' by Grant. Lee did what he could, which was to surrender professionally and peacefully. Remember, Lee turned down the Federal offer to command the army because of federal incursion into what he thought was 'home'...Virginia. Shelby Foote explains it all very well.
I went to school and in Appomattox and grew up surrounded by Civil War History. Lee is not deserved of any comparison to Hitler. A villain? Sounds like the winners writing history to me. I had the (dis)honor of seeing his statue in Richmond one day before they tore it down. Next to me was an older man who lived on Monument Avenue. He was crying, knowing how destructive it would be to erase history.
Very true It’s so sad most of my professors legit have elementary ignorant takes of history like this and just put people in demonization boxes so no one including themselves looks into things and I have no doubt the founders are next on the plate since Lee was honestly so similar to Washington. And while trying to hide my power level I scare them with basic questions. Lee was a damn good man and he literally pushed reconciliation after the war. But these people try to erase reconciliation entirely from the books.
So the North invades the South and Lee, who refused the offer to run the Union Army because he didn't want to fight against fellow Virginians, outgunned and outmanned, throughout the war, wins battles proclaimed to be the best strategically fought battle wins, in the history of American. An honorable Christian loved by his men that could have fought on, urged to fight a guerrilla type warfare but, he was so disgusted to see so many young boys lying in the fields, he decided to capitulate. Nazi's, where in the hell did the Nazi's come from? C'mon man. Lee was loved on both sides so much so they built him a statue. People writing history books these days tend to either stray from the facts or interpret them with their own misguided beliefs or flat out lie about facts.
Prime example of why Lex's podcast is so good. I can't agree with this man on his Anti-2nd Ammendment stance, but here he's voiced alot of adjustments which would only make our country more functional.
My guy Robert E. Lee was a damn good man. The man who demonizes him in this video surly is anti second amendment aswell and seems to have bad intentions imo. Lee was a better man than Washington but very similar. His father was a declaration signer and Washington’s best Calvary general but he had to leave Lee cause of debt causing him to be kinda on his own. Despite that he got into West Point and preformed better than anyone has to this day and severed in the Mexican American war. He was not a fan of slavery and was against secession and glad his state voted against it. But the north called to draft and conscript Virginians to invade other state’s so they voted to secede against his wishes. But he like Washington,Madison, or Jefferson considered himself a Virginian before anything else and so he stood by her. He was autistically shy but took command and served honorably in that war and brought it to the end when it was clear it was not winnable and pushed Reconciliation all his life after the war till he died. This is why he was mythologized and why men like JFK,Eisenhower, and FDR even all held him in such high respect and spoke on him. I didn’t used to think this at all cause I had no idea but now I see. And it’s clear to me if they can defile a honorable man like that there’s nothing stopping them for coming for the founder’s and it’s clear that has started.
@Kommando you're full of shit. Lee was a traitor his men were traitors who fought and killed Americans in order to keep humans in bandage. Fuck you and every little pussy who makes this argument. You only make this argument online because no one believes it.
I'm Scottish/ British. I'm proud of that. I would fight for Britain. What I wouldn't do is march as a British soldier to go to war with Scotland. I would fight for Scotland. No matter what the reason for the war was. So I kind of understand Lees position.
There are consequences to rebelling and then losing. The fact that southern soldiers got to just go home, with their guns, is pretty nice to begin with.
We would not need so much forgiveness if we weren't casting so much blame. let humans be humans once or twice a day and accept that people are going to let you down. we destroy each other seeking justification for things that need not.
While I don’t like the hero-worshiping of Lee and agree with the guest to an extent, I think there are at least three important things to note: 1) Lee did surrender to Grant rather than continue to fight a guerrilla style war; 2) Lee only lived 5 years after the war, during which his most prominent activity was teaching at a university; 3) Lee was critical of erecting Confederate monument because he thought they would exacerbate sectional tensions following the war. Also, it was Grant, who had been nicknamed “Unconditional Surrender Grant” for imposing such terms in victories during the war, that elected to impose more magnanimous terms to Lee at Appomattox.
Pretty lazy to use Hitler as the example for the post-war in defeat hypothetical. I roll my eyes whenever someone compares the people they don’t like to the Nazis. Even when there’s a lot of truth to it, it just irks me how cliché that is.
Lee was an incredible general if nothing else. He constantly won battles and outmaneuvered the Union despite being outsupplied and outnumbered throughout the war. The only reason the Union won was when Sherman decided to wreck civilians all the way to Georgia forcing a surrender. A win is a win but on the battlefield the union never stood a chance against Lee. This guy is narrow minded and doesnt seem like he understands the civil war fully despite being a purported expert.
He caught for Virginia, but did not support his side when asked. He could of helped his side win but didn't. Also Grant did defeat him, so it's hard to say the Union never stood a chance.
He was a better man than Washington tbh and he legit pushed reconciliation tell he died after the war. This dude was too ignorant to know that very well known detail he should be working in literally any field but education and academia.
The correct 20th century historical comparison for Lee is Wilhelm Keitel, the chief of the high command of the Wehrmacht during WW2- a man who was hung as a war criminal after the war, exactly as Lee should have been treated.
Whilst I agree in theory with what is being discussed here I.e preventing former leaders from being elected into office, a lot of times that is not possible as certain areas absolutely do not accept defeat and would continue hostilities if not pacified by one of their own. I have personally witnessed this happen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were regions we would fight insurgency, win and the locals would be so hostile that we would have to make deals with local tribal leaders by putting them or their relatives in positions of power, then magically the hostilities would disappear. Im assuming it wasn’t possible to implement article 3 of the amendment for the same reason, some areas would of most likely been to unstable and would of required a former leader to control in order to prevent future conflicts and maybe a second civil war.
Cuz people don't know history. And the actions of one set of African-American parents doesn't say anything about the character of Lee. Tony Brown, a Black journalist popular in the 70's and 80's said, "Black folks are just like everyone else: mostly average, with a few geniuses and a liberal sprinkling of fools."
This guy can not separate his personal feelings from the interpretation of history. The things that were done post civil war was to heal a nation. If the leaders of the confederacy was ruthlessly persecuted the war would have continued until there would be nothing left to fight for. He is convoluting his person politically leans with his interpretation of history.
The guy speaking about Robert E. Lee’s leadership cant hold any weight. Its like a man giving my parenting advice without kids of his own. He is speaking without experience, without serving, without pride, without trauma. Any military leader would proclaim the character of Robert E. Lee. Win or lose
Comparing Robert E. Lee to Hitler is an insane push....I wouldn't even Compare Jefferson Davis to Hitler. Two VASTLY different conflicts and the example of Hitler is unfitting as all hell.
The comparison of General Lee with Hitler is shameful. It is clear that General Lee fought to fulfill the wish of the majority of the people in the South, which is not to be part of the Union. Lee was a brilliant general and patriot, he didn't sell himself to the winners
Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that "no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress" or "hold any office, civil or military" if they, after having taken an oath to support the Constitution, "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Look at what Southerners did to James Longstreet. Longstreet was a great general in his own right. After the war he advocated acceptance of Reconstruction and he joined the Republican Party and Southerners hated him for it. They would have done the same to Lee.
By Northerners too, Robert E Lee was offered the command of the Union army before he took the command of the confederacy, for a reason...... Dude was bright (militarily speaking)
@@BigJeffeDaGoat Correct, not a direct quote but his answer to the Union was something along the lines of "aint no way in hell i'm attacking Virginia..."
I have no military experience, but it seems to me to be a very civilian thing to ask whether Robert E Lee was a hero. There are rarely heroes in war, no? Of course Robert E Lee wasn't a hero. He was a general in a war. He gave his people their best chance. The good and the bad all told, I don't think he should be venerated but I also don't think he should be forgotten, or even hated at this point. Now Andrew Johnson? Fuck that guy
As a soldier, I can empathize with General Lee for having to choose tween home and country. His home was just across the Potomac from the White House. Literal neighbors. Why we have Arlington today. From my research of Grant and Lee, Lee defended Grant on many occasions. I cant quote but I know what I read. And as far as the Appomattox comment, Im sure in that moment its quite possible anything could had been said in that emotional filled space of time. However, your assessment going forward post Civil War is totally biased. Unfair. The man always made a turn to peaceful resolutions. No he did not appreciate prior subordinates' insubordination that might had different outcomes. But Lee was always a gentleman. Taking on a role as a university president in the wake of the war and into reconstruction. Which Im sure youre aware. Still, comparing him to a coward Hitler who took his own life, sir, your analysis holds no water. Lee returned to what was left of southern society to reunionize its culture and redeem himself through assisting others in their pursuit of knowledge. You could use a lesson in proper discernment and tact.
it shows that a Phd doesn't make you nuanced or smart. Our society props up bad ideas by people with advanced education, rather than propping up the best ideas. It's sad.
Lee was instrumental in laying down arms and making sure that the south didn’t engage in guerilla warfare after their defeat. He should be commended for that.
Lee fought for the Confederacy not necessarily because he supported secession or slavery, but because Virginia was his home and he was going to fight for his home. Comparing him to Hitler is ridiculous, I think Erwin Rommel is a fairer comparison.
You can say the war was defined by two personalities, Lincoln and Lee who was the real leader of the South and perhaps more revered than Lincoln who was severely chastised by the Northern press and his own generals.
Lord some people in these comments are so dense. He wasn't comparing Lee to Hitler in a moral sense you utter dimwits. He was talking about a what if scenario where the leader of the losing side was allowed to return to normal society without much consequence. You would know that if you had listened to his actual argument instead of recoiling with horror like a demented granny the moment he mentioned Hitler.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/GvX-heRWFfA/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin.
Brah, Lee fought and lost against the Union. Didn’t complain about it. he literally supported remaining apart of the union telling others they had to after that lost. He literally prevented not one but two, attempts to start a second civil war prior to his death. That’s the only credit Lee deserves in my book. Accepted defeat, told others to support re-union of north &south and prevented another civil war from starting.
What about his time serves as the president of Washington College?
And don't forget, he also didn't kill a few million Jews etc. This guy is a clown, not a historian,
Prevented a second civil war...never mind he lead a civil war...😬
Ah yes, someone is great when they lead a civil war resulting in millions of deaths of Americans and then don’t lead another one to happen! Good on him for being such a good sport! Good thing Hitler didn’t start a third world war, he deserves credit for that!
Hitler eventually killed himself, ending his evil campaign. Does he deserve credit for that?
Ultimately Robert fought for the cause of slavery which he vehemently believed, when abolition was an option. All historical figures are complex--hitler loved dogs for instance--that doesn't mean no historical figure is evil.
Comparing Hitler to Lee is a terrible example. Rommel is a better comparison.
He wouldn’t have received his PhD in History if he had your take.
Rommel died trying to kill hitler, he was a member of the resistance. Lee spent his entire life supporting confederate ideals, never turning on his prejudices towards
former slaves. Lee was nothing like Rommel.
@@knunk5476 Lee could've attempted to continue the war with guerilla warfare, but he understood there had been enough suffering and chose to go to Grant to surrender instead. After the war, he worked to bring reconciliation. He wanted the South to move on and continue with their lives again.
Also, Lee did not support secession but when Virginia did secede, he chose to go with his state because he couldn't bring himself to invade his home state.
Comparing Lee to Hitler says something about this man's expertise. He doesn't know shit.
@@jyu467 cool story.
This is a deeply historically inaccurate take on Lee and other Southerners. Suri's argument here is Lee didn't do enough to help Reconstruction. Maybe that has to do with the fact that Lee is dead by 1870? According to Suri, Lee is expected to change all of Southern Society in 5 years. What about Longstreet and Mosby? Lee supported Johnson's Reconstruction plan. Lee chastised fellow ex-Confederates such as Davis and Jubal Early for their frequent, angry responses to perceived Northern insults.
"It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, give full scope to reason and to every kindly feeling. By doing this and encouraging our citizens to engage in the duties of life with all their heart and mind, with a determination not to be turned aside by thoughts of the past and fears of the future, our country will not only be restored in material prosperity, but will be advanced in science, in virtue and in religion."
The shaming of Civil War Leaders on both sides only leads to the shaming of the Founding Fathers. Now George Wythe is canceled when he was arguably the most Progressive Founding Father. He freed all of his Slaves at the end of the Revolutionary War, a radical act at the time. Yet, we find the taint of slavery enough to erase a man chased throughout the entire war for signing the Declaration of Independence.
I'm open to hearing the good and the bad, but people like Suri and arguably even Lex here shouldn't frame it as "Heroes vs Villains." So is Grant the "Hero" cause he defeats Lee? Cause I'm more than happy to tell you about all the bad things done by Union Generals and Leaders to Indigenous People.
Ulysses Grant - "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads." (Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, 17:262)
William Tecumseh Sherman - ""We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." (Sherman to Grant, December 28, 1866, Papers of Ulysses S. Grant 16:422)
Sherman - "During an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made. Death must be meted out, but the moment all resistance ceases, the firing will stop and all survivors turned over to the proper Indian agents."
Ulysses S. Grant Launched an Illegal War Against the Plains Indians then lied about It. Sherman called for the complete extermination of the Sioux People. Grant also deeply loved his wife and wrote his memoirs with probably stage 4 cancer to make sure she had an nest egg after he was gone. I want to live in a world where we can have people to look up to. They don't have to be perfect. I certainly don't expect people nearly 200 years removed from me to be perfect, but can we at least be a tad more honest and not ask loaded questions?
Thank you for coming to my autistic ramblings
Nothing autistic or rambling about your comment. I agree with your observation that looking at men as villains or heroes is to overlook the complexity of humanity. More to the point, we have both good and evil in our hearts. I was also a little taken aback with his Hitler reference.
Its not but you southern retards don't care for cats or reasoning.
". Lee chastised fellow ex-Confederates such as Davis and Jubal Early for their frequent, angry responses to perceived Northern insults. "
,what the does this have to do with anything ?
Hitler also loved dogs.
There is a difference between owning slaves and fighting for slavery's existence. You did not once debunk this guys claims.
Also grant fought to integrate Indians not exterminate them.
"rant also deeply loved his wife and wrote his memoirs with probably stage 4 cancer to make sure she had an nest egg after he was gone"
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Adolf hitler also believed in animal welfare and loved his wife and children deeply. The issue with you lost cause retards is that you look for any small ounce of good in the confederates and any ounce of evil in the unionites. Rather than comparing like with like. You can find virtue in every man, does this make every man virtuous?
The thing that ends the argument is the comparison. Someone already commented Rommel is a far better example, and far less hyperbolic.
Except Rommel fought with honor, Lee did not.
So who then would be the hitler of the civil war?
@@lufesaro7741 there was no "Hitler" to the civil war, and cheap comparisons dilute the fact that mao, Hitler and Stalin in contemporary times were entirely categories of their own. It's just pure hyperbole and weakens the credibility. Lee can be a son of a bitch without needing to be exaggerated.
Rommel didn't survive the war so he would not have been a good comparison. He didn't compare Lee and Hitler morally or ethically or in leadership roles. Simply the "what if" had Hitler been granted the leniency Lee was afforded after the war.
@@toddpdroneworks563 Neither did hitler...? You okay?
any academic that seriously looks at history with a good vs. evil framework loses credibility imo. It's not only a flawed approach to learning history but a dangerous precedent moving forward.
Yeah I guess Hitler and Stalin weren’t so bad…
@@desertezz of course they were bad. I did not say anyone can't label historical figures according to certain moral standards. I said it is a mistake for academics to use such method because history is extremely nuanced and studying a nuanced topic requires a broad scope of understanding not constrained by a black and white framework, and academics have a social contract to provide the most truthful and accurate information free of bias
Lex literally asked him the question you nonce
It wasn't good or evil though
It was villain
Which can be a distinction
And he was a villain of the American story
I feel like it’s OK for him to state his opinion about it. He was asked the question directly
It’s not really fair to blame Lee for not pushing the South to move forward and accept defeat (although he actually did do that). He was just a general, who did his job well, but not well enough considering the difficulty of his position. The Hitler comparison is crazy. Lee wasn’t the leader who decided to start the war, and he didn’t start an extermination campaign.
They’ll do the same for all the founders soon. If they can do it for Lee who is just like Washington if not a better man.
The Hitler comparison makes perfect sense. Lee is popularly presented as "the man who was just defending his home" and that is not true. He believed in the racial inferiority of black people until the day he died. He didn't try to help the South move forward because he believed that the system they were fighting to maintain was a just system.
His stance wasn't simply "we lost, so it's time to move on." His public stance was: "we lost and we need to accept the terms of defeat, but we were fighting for the right cause because our social structure was completely justified." People like Robert E. Lee are directly responsible for Jim Crow, and Hitler would have done the same thing if he was allowed to retire to some bungalow in Bavaria.
@@robjacobs9371 Yes, Lee was racist and supported the systematic oppression of black people, just like almost every contemporary Southern elite. The differences between him and Hitler are: Lee didn't think a race of people should be exterminated, he didn't start a war of conquest (or any war for that matter), and he didn't push the moral boundaries of his society to new levels of evil.
We should judge people both by universal standards and the standards of their time and society. Hitler fails both tests to a greater degree than Lee ever did. It is an interesting comparison if only to show how different and similar they both were, but Hitler was obviously far worse.
@@kommando5562 Good. We need to reevaluate how we understand our historical figures out of a recognition that many have been mythologized. I grew up and still live in Virginia--the extent to which my statesmen continue to revere Lee is incredible not only for their lack of awareness of what he was actually like, but their complete unwillingness to entertain the possibility that maybe he wasn't such a great person.
@@robjacobs9371 Jim Crowe really just came from the government taking every White persons rights and militarily occupying tbh
Lee was nowhere near the character of A.H even Lincoln said both men of north and men of south should bury and mourn their dead. Lee himself said that we should move on
He is and you have to be stupid not to see it. In fact he is worse. He betrayed his country whereas hitler fought for his. He fought to enslave a race of people.
The guest is a typical modern day imbecile.
To insult Robert E. Lee the way he did could be detrimental to his well being were he to mumble that idiocy in the presence of men who know the history.
Lee was an incredible commander and an incredible man.
He supported and fought to uphold a system that killed more people than the holocaust. You’re right. He’s worse
@@irvintorres1950 what kind of logic is that? Are you talking pure numbers? How do you measure it? The US government and civilization is Built upon genociding all the natives, genghis khan and his society kill and perpetuated a system that destroyed 3 civilizations for generations
The loser always wants to move on when it benefits them. We need to dwell on this until the Lee family’s extant wealth
I don't really get on board with the Hitler and Lee comparison. I do agree that Lee could have potentially done more in his position to affect change after the war, but Lee also wasn't one of the driving ideological factors behind the war in the first place. He was a soldier, and while he became a cultural icon during and after the war, I don't think he was exactly a primary driver of the secession and the decision to initiate hostilities with US forces. Hitler was every bit as responsible for his role in the culture, politics and leadup to WWII as he was the German prosecution of the war. Seeing as Lee wasn't even ideologically convinced himself at the end of the war, I think it could be argued that the BEST thing he could have done was going quietly into the reconstruction period for the remainder of his life. He could have easily kept stoking the coals the way former Confederate leaders like Nathan Bedford Forrest did.
I also feel like Jeremi's thought that Lee should have done more is kind of tied into the post-war romanticization of Lee. Ask anyone today who the leader of the south was and how many do you think are going to remember who Jefferson Davis was over Robert E. Lee? Yeah Lee was definitely loved by the soldiers and popular at home but the CSA had its own entire unlawful government running things behind the scenes. Again, I think we need to remember that Lee could have EASILY caused insane problems after the war if he so chose. I'm not a lover of the "southern cause" but I think Lee made a conscious choice to fight for his home state, led his troops with a significant degree of honor and dignity and then took a monumental defeat with some grace after the fact. There are plenty of leaders of the CSA to rag on but I think Lee honestly was exceptional in what choices he made throughout his post-secession career and life.
If we are going to compare Lee to the Nazi regime I think you need to make an apples to apples comparison and at least constrain it to military leaders. I'd compare Lee more to Rommel in that they were soldiers that were bad primarily for their carrying out the will of an evil government over them having been some primary driver or keeper of the cultural or political events going on in the background.
I think in my opinion that Suri took Lee's quote out of context. Lee understood the war was completely over. "Lee urged Southerners to accept defeat and reunite as Americans, even though some Southerners wanted to keep fighting." It seems like Suri wants us to beleive that Lee was still defiant, when I beleive he was using metaphor to explain the southern zeitgeist.
Exactly right, I'm not a Lee fanboy or anything but after the war ended he spent his time urging young confederates to stop fighting their brothers. Hard to believe anything this guy says now.
The guest has,evidently,read a few books on the topic when he needs to read a great many,and he has thought about the topic a little when he needs to think about it a great deal.
The fact that he would cast Lee as a villian,and compare him to Hitler,reveals the guest as an imbecile not worth listening to.
This nation has never produced another battlefield commander who could even shine Lee's shoes. He was a good man and a great man.
You make a better case. Not well read with Lee, but I get what Lee was saying with running the South over with an army several times because (I forget the author) in The Southern Caste System, which explored how Southern culture revamped itself post-war, the author argued that what occurred was former slaves were looked down upon for being free while Southern whites maintained their "parental" status by seeing themselves as not truly free, having to still work, tend to their families, contribute to society, etc. and couldn't, for example, pack up and migrate North. That having freedom quickly lost its privilege (and vice-versa) is why I can understand Lee believing that the South needed to be run over several times before change could take place as a fair statement. Once more, not sure if Lee was referring to cultural entrenchment but do have doubts about Suri's assessment.
@@studleydewrite2942 tf is you talking about. They were fighting for people in chains. That’s what victory for him. He wanted His Economy, his culture, his way of life. Which included SLAVESS
@@christiancrane5072 i think thats the second persons point about how it must have felt pretty good to have people that you dont consider human to do all the work, while you get to basically run the ship that runs itsefl. slave driving must have been right good time now i think about it from that perspective
Comparing Robert E Lee to Hitler is something I can't get on board with. Being a lifelong Mississippian and someone who is forever grateful that the Union won, that is an absurd claim. I don't care about the credentials this guy comes with. That is a flat out wrong and ignorant comparison.
He's a lying Jew! ✡️
You have to be a giant moron and racist to talk about how good Lee was
Lee was a life long professional soldier and served in the Mexico campaign and was asked to take command of the Union army
to oppose the confederate states.Lee refused politely because his home state succeeded and he chose to offer his services to
them & did not command the army of Northern Virginia until its commander Gen Johnson was wounded 1862 & Lee replaced him.
The Hitler analogy is stupid as virtually the whole south thought as Lee did and he spent the remaining 5 years of his life as
president of Washington collage. Lee would not consider himself a hero or villain just a patriot doing his duty to his homeland.
Re writing history is all the rage in the United states of 'wokedom' , and some revisions are always happening but this is just
ridiculous.There is strong debate that Hitler did survive the bunker and a double was killed but thats another story...
After WW11 many Nazis escaped to South America & elsewhere , top officers & rocket scientists & technicians were shipped to
the US under project paper clip and served in the space programs. Others were employed in several countries. Gen Gehlen was
head of intel in the eastern theater and after the war helped set up the new West German intel service as did many ex soldiers.
Every war and conflict has winners and losers and the current Ukraine conflict will be no different. Biden's actions in Afghanistan
has yet to be justified one way or the other.....etc etc....
You really only need to read W.E.B. DuBois on Lee: “Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel - not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.”
DuBois was the original Black Lives Matter spokesman.
Too bad Booker T. Washington died too soon...
Never heard this quote, but I feel this is fitting, and a great quote at that.
Look at ya
You say Lee was a traitor
Lee defended his homeland of Virginia
He was loyal to his state as were most men and women from that era
@@keithcummings691 nahh, he's a traitor. He's a traitor to the union. Virginia being a part of the original 13 colonies, he turned his back on the republic. Therefore he is a traitor.
@@keithcummings691 It’s like you didn’t even read or understand the quote.
He was both. Simply depends on which side you were on, and like all humans, complicated. Not one major figure in history made into a hero also did some ugly things, and Lee was left in the position because they felt it was the best way to move forward as a nation. Civil wars always end in similar ways where people who did some terrible things simply go home when it's over, vs what happens when one nation wins a war against another. No foreign wars can be compared to civil wars.
You could say the same with hilter. It just depends what side your on. He just wanted to help his nation.
In fact, lee is worse since he actively wanted to end this nation. Thats not fighting for what's best. Yes most historical figures have something ugly about them, but Lee is almost all ugly and nothing else.
The same applies to Osama bin Laden.
@@jhonklan3794 No, you can't say that about Hitler in the same context. Re read what I actually wrote. What you can do is compare how Lee was treated after the civil war with how others treated someone like Lee after their civil war. It's all politics vs justice per se and what they think will get the country back to normal the fastest. He is right in that low level people get hung or thrown in prison, high profile types often end up with a normal life.The elites always take care of each other.
lee fought for his home in a war he didn’t start for a cause he didn’t entirely believe in. never once kill or ordered the killing of prisoners or civilians. quite the the contrary. there is a huge difference between a war a genocide and mass murder
The same applies to any US president
Comparing Lee to Hitler is a reach to say the least…
He compared what happened to leaders on the losing side of a war and picked one that is known to all, Hitler. He did not compare Lee and Hitler in any moral, value or leadership way.
@@toddpdroneworks563 No. But he said, "imagine letting Hitler live out his life in retirement" when someone like Hans Guderian, the father of the Blitzkrieg, who was an actual General of Ww2, did live his life out im retirement? His whole point was invalid?
Midwit Yankees cannot explain anything without WW2 analogy.
He was one of the biggest advocates for unifying the country after the war. This guy is playing revisionist history
Well he is a Jew ✡️ so...
@@historicaltruther6300 That's important to take in consideration, I think.
Robert E. Lee fought to destroy the USA as we know it while "advocating" for the Confederacy, a long-time slave nation.
Neo-Confederates who want to celebrate traitors and slavers like Lee are the ones who are playing "Lost Cause" revisionist history.
Lee was an incredible tactician. He constantly outmaneuvered Union generals in the East. He was, however, a poor strategist and that’s mostly because he would never abandon his dear home state of Virginia. An admirable man who fought for an awful cause
In what way was he admirable? He had no personal virtue and frequently abused slaves. To the point where even people at the time were disgusted with his behavior. Compare that Uylesses who was abhorred by slavery.
@@jhonklan3794 got to love Americans and their hypocritical stances on certain politicians in their own history.
Lee is a "villain" and should have his name errased from statues and public buildings or streets but Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and FDR are completely fine.
at least you people stay consistent with something.
@@LevisH21 I don't think they said that bro, stop projecting
@@LevisH21 Wilson was terrible, FDR was fine, LBJ was a jerk but otherwise passed very important legislation for the country.
@@Deadlyaztec27 all three of them are known to have been racist.
LBJ signed the Civil Rights movement but the majority that approved and worked on that bill were the Republicans in Congress.
LBJ just happened to be the president during that period of history.
besides, his secret life is well known at this point. he was a racist.
he was forced to sign the Civil Rights bill because he wanted his imagine to remain clean by the general public.
Personally I think like this: Every Hero is flawed. Every Villan thinks they are a hero. Heroes and villains are just propaganda. Be inspired by the good acts of character, no matter who.
(Trumpet plays in the back ground) WE come here today to honor the acts and character of a great man!" (places a medal on @Itmund's Chest)
@@cameronidk2 would you like me to explain it further for you? Clearly you don't understand.
@@ltmund I made a joke.. that i thought was a compliment. Who doesn't understand who? i was agreeing with you .. wow! i was giving you a metal for you're act of character in recognizing the truth of reality and humans. Ironic you instantly became a villain ..Bauahahahaha
@@cameronidk2 Sorry, I thought you were mocking. Apologies
@@ltmund close one I thought I was going to have to ask for that medal back.. paid like 5 bucks for it.. would of been awkward!! lol
Lee was a man of honor, by all his conduct. This guy is so ideologically driven it's insane.
You seem to be ideologically driven if you believe lee is a man of honor.
I'm no fan of the "southern cause" or whatever you want to call it but the more I listen to this guy the more I feel like he has some modern political chip on his shoulder more than he has objectivity. If we are going to throw some Nazi leader at Lee to meaninglessly compare him against then at least put him up against someone like Rommel who was at least a soldier too. Hitler was the most evil person in world frigging history and a politician to boot, Lee on his worst day doesn't even come close to Hitler at his best.
@@fayguled900says the untermenche who would rather lick the boot of tyranny.
Lee was a OG, loyalty to his hood. 😜
Loyal to the enslavement of Black people, loyal to humiliation and defeat, loyal to pitiful surrender.
Fr, shout out to all my racist, slave-hitting, black-stabbing, conquerers of foreign colored people! To hell with morality! To hell with Jesus, amirite?
Being from VA I am proud of Robert E Lee and Stonewall.
This dude sounds more like an activist then anything
If you fight against the US, you are rebel and an enemy of our country. Lee was that person.
Conservatives love misusing the word activist so much
A man that fought for the preservation of slavery does not deserve respect.
@@gengrant5291The US isn't our country we've all been under occupation for the last one hundred sixty years! #NationalDivorce
@@truthteller1289easy opinion to have from the comfort of your modern couch. What’s your opinion on a topical issue like abortion?
This is just absolutely factually wrong. Lee was never politically involved in the first place, so the comparison to Hitler (ignoring any ridiculousness on a moral level) makes no sense because the Nazi cause was based on Hitler’s own ideas. Lee didn’t even personally believe in the Confederate cause let alone invent and advance it. He was opposed to secession and slavery and a great deal else that made up the southern political mindset. He fought for the Confederacy because he was a soldier and it was his job. If Virginia had stayed in the Union he would have been commander of the Northern army and a great American hero. If you feel you must draw parallels to Nazis Rommel is a much more fair comparison.
After the war he encouraged his soldiers to take a renewed loyalty oath and lay down their arms, as opposed to other Southern leaders who tried to move on to guerrilla warfare or terrorism to continue resistance. He continued to be apolitical as he always had been. He even stated later in life that he ultimately regretted having chosen a military career in the first place because of all that ended up happening as a result. The comment about how it’s going to take more violence and more troops to ever really pacify the south was just common sense and in hindsight true, as people generally don’t just admit they are conquered and go back to being buddies with their conquerers. It is dishonest and not contextually accurate to imply that he was stating he believed this was a good thing or he was encouraging it. Lee himself was only alive a short time after the war, when exactly was he supposed to fix the entire culture of the former Confederate states and how exactly would you expect him to have done so?
This is just so strange to me especially when there absolutely are major Confederate figures (Davis, Forrest) who you can argue continued to make things worse after the war. Putting Lee in that category is so unnecessary and wrong, it makes me sad that somebody who has a formal title and job relating to the stewardship of this history is doing so poorly at it.
Don't listen to those academic clowns. History geeks nowadays take it more seriously and without bending narativt
Completely agree. I independently came to the same conclusion that Rommel would be a much more fair comparison, even then, Rommel was probably much more "evil" than Lee. I don't think we should sing the praises of southern leaders like we do of the northern victors but what's going on in this discussion and in a lot of discussions in America is a "black"washing of history. (Black, as in negligent or malicious, like blackmail. In this case the opposite of whitewashing.) Yeah, the Confederacy was wrong in its beliefs, motivations and actions. A mature perspective is to understand that they were people of their time doing quite literally what they thought was righteous. They had lived amongst slavery their entire lives, not only did they understand that their economy was dependent on it they also felt (at best) that blacks were not capable of equal citizenship. This is obviously incorrect in hindsight, but it is such a stupid mistake to try and impose (after the fact) 2000s-era morals, knowledge and understanding on people who lived in the circumstances they did in the mid-19th century.
I can't believe how much he got wrong about Lee. Just goes to show it doesn't matter how much research you do if you have a bias.
"Real leadership is convincing people who follow you to change when they don't want to change. Lee refused to do that." That's 100% wrong and it makes it hard to believe anything this guy says now.
I fucking love when people on TH-cam make claims without any evidence
@@LgtTurtlez lol I love when people mindlessly believe snippets of quotes that were taken out of context and don't question it because they agree with the biased nincompoop who said it lmao Your the only person who actually believes this guy 😂
@@eyeswydeshut359 you have a wonderful habit of saying a lot of shit that doesn’t mean anything because you have absolutely no evidence. Do you realize that? Do you realize you can’t substantiate what’s actually wrong with what he’s saying other than the fact you have some inherent bias in you because you were raised in a conservative culture that mindlessly glorifies terrible people with contradictory values such as Christianity and slavery?
That’s what Robert Lee did. He convinced many to attempt a war and split from America. He clearly says he was brilliant in that regard, but were clearly no much for America since they started to recruit slaves. Seriously?
he also sounds like he has no idea about operation paperclip
I have a degree in military history and this guy has one of the worst takes on Gen. Lee I’ve ever heard.
Lee is a legendary leader that was universally respected and often loved by both sides of the war. Only recently has the view of modern woke academics started trying to destroy his legacy. The founding fathers are also their secondary targets.
He was also a traitor to the Country he swore and oath to when becoming a member of the US Military. Suri is correct. We should not have streets or schools or buildings named after him in the United States.
@@toddpdroneworks563 The founding fathers were traitors to their country too. They just won. That’s the only difference. Lee has been honored by West Point and many military academies for well over a hundred years. Arlington cemetery is also in honor of Lee. Clearly the north respected him greatly. The northern armies did atrocities to native Americans right after the civil war so I guess we shouldn’t honor the union solders either.
Those new academics are just activists who bend the story to fit narrative
I'm of the same opinion. I was born and raised in New York, fought two tours in Iraq as a solder in the US Army and have absolutely no love for racism or slavery... Lee served his state with honor and was an absolutely excellent leader. If he wanted to be a butcher like one of Hitler's goons would be 8 decades later, he could have caused insane damage.
He fought with dignity and he lost with dignity. Many modern leaders could learn from the latter.
The Civil War is far too nuanced to just break everything down to heroes and villains. It’s not a Disney movie
Which is worse, direct slavery practiced by the South, or economic slavery, practiced by the North.
Direct slavery you have to house, feed, and cloth through the winter and during down time even if they aren't producing or you need them.
Economic slavery, you can fire them for the winter or when you no longer need them, and dump them back into a pool of desperate workers.
The North just found out from desperate immigrants pouring into the port of New York, that economic slavery was far more profitable and tasteful. You didn't have to deal with your slaves or hassle with selling them any more when you didn't need them, you could just give them the boot.
Both are evlllll
Lee was not a hero or a villain; he was simply a man of a different era, that of early America of State's rights.
“If you want to change the south, you’ll have to run your army over the south 3 or 4 times.” That’s not Lee being stubborn, that’s Lee giving a warning.
Lee hated slavery the reason he even had slaves was because his wife owned slaves prior to his marriage, but he educated them and freed them. He was a friend of Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln wanted him to serve the Union, but Lee chose to defend the South because he was a citizen of Virginia. His decision looks bad to most of us today; however, it was Socratic and respectable for him to do so.
Literally none of that was true.
@@kenlandon6130 you're mind blown!
@@kenlandon6130 Literally ALL of that was true and factually stated.
How long into the clip did it take for them to bring up the wholocost?
Yeah, Jews think other groups still care about the Holocaust. #GetOverIt
I was onboard with his reasoning until mentioning Hitler and comparing Lee to him. Indeed, Lee could have been more helpful in the post-war, but he was not genocidal. Did he fight for the wrong side and for the wrong cause? Yes. But we need to be careful with labels. Slavery was still common all over the world.
Brazil and Cuba still had slavery. Slavery was common in ALL of Africa, as well as in the Mid-East and Asian around 1865. We, in 2023, regard slavery as horrendous, but it was normal back then. Thus, we need to understand people’s motivations taking in consideration the time, local culture and location. Genocide even in 1939 was widely perceived as evil.
America was a laughingstock to European nations for decades because of America’s refusal to end slavery. That’s a more proper comparison. In addition, the hypocrisy and relentless oppression of blacks is another topic in itself as it has taken over a century of civil rights policy to finally get the wheels rolling. Fuck Robert Lee and all those racist schmucks of the past and current. It was unacceptable then as it is now.
Good take, Lee was a Virginian first, if Virginia had fought on the side of the Union, so would have Lee. It's hard for us to imagine now, but it wasn't uncommon for people to be more loyal to their state than the United States.
If slavery was so normal and accepted, why did the entire country tear itself apart and start a civil war over that very issue? Some other countries did still have slavery, but others had also already outlawed the practice like Great Britain. If it was so normal back then, why was slavery a problem in the US from the very beginning of the country? The founding fathers had conflicting views on it, many of them firmly believing in the complete abolition of the practice because in the ideals outlined in our founding documents it is clearly hypocritical to say all men are created equal and have inherent rights, unless you happen to be owned by another person than you don’t count. Slavery was considered very evil long before the civil war in this country. Did he commit genocide? No. But he actively participated in one of if not the most shameful horrid practices in US history, and fought to preserve that practice.
Genocide was clearly not seen as evil to the germans.
@@knunk5476 Thomas Jefferson had children with one of his slaves and refused to free them, smfh. These people shouldn’t be looked up to and admired, the way they do.
Sounds like Robert E Lee was a straight up G . A mans man
He was like Washington and after the war he pushed reconciliation.
Which they pretty much just remove all the history of reconciliation from the books tbh
@@kommando5562 Grant said of Lee in regards to his begrudging acceptance of the wars result, that he was "setting an example of forced acquiescence so grudging and pernicious in its effects as to be hardly realized". If you have to look up some of those words I don’t blame you. It basically means he didn’t do sh*t in regards to letting go of southern bitter feelings. He also didn’t think black peoples were intelligent enough to vote and apposed their right to. Those are his words.
@@matthewsmith5374 based I too want iq limits on voting
What a delusional take. That said anyone that says “straight up G” is an uneducated clown. 🤦🏼♂️
He is a hero and will always be
Lee was a brilliant military commander, he was also a man who betrayed his country and directed the killing of tens of thousands of Americans and always will be.
You can’t equate Robert E Lee with Hitler. Goodness.
Why not?
@@mostbased Robert E Lee wasn’t trying to establish the third reich and take over the world. He wasn’t trying to annihilate and/or expel entire groups of people based on their race or religion. He wasn’t practicing eugenics. He wasn’t performing medical experiments on the helpless. To me these are the defining characteristics of the evil of Hitler. After the war Robert E Lee was highly respected by the victors.
@@mostbased the only real evil of the southerners was the defence of slavery. However Robert E Lee did not seek to own slaves but inherited hundreds through his father in law which he later freed. I don’t want to white wash his views on slavery, best read up on Lee yourself because his views are mixed. But there is certainly evidence that Lee thought that slavery was a bad idea and also immoral and desired for there to be a resolution.
Lee did however believe that blacks were inferior, but so did Lincoln. So how different was Lee to the northerners?
Doesn’t sound like someone you could equate with Hitler. But blind Freddy can see this. This guy isn’t a historian, he’s a sensationalist trying to peddle a good story.
@@jolonf Sir, that’s what you are doing with your lost cause Southern apologist nonsense
So how tf. Could any of you get it ???
Lincoln ask Lee to run the union army,and he declined out of loyalty to south knowing he would lose . He was the greatest military general of all time .
Most overrated general fighting to preserve slavery. His legacy is in the mud and history has not been doing him any favors.
@@fayguled900 from the feebleminded.
@@fayguled900 literally false lol. Still heralded as the best general mind ever. Maybe second to someone like Napoleon alone.
@@Sid00077 he’s top 3 for sure
George Patton 🐐
This guy lecturing Lee from the future on Leadership.
Lee is my ancestor. Does that mean I owe black folks reparations?
Attributing comments that Robert E. Lee NEVER said or wrote and then saying “it’s in my book” is shameless and disgraceful. You should know better. These are facts which are EASILY refutable and and child with an internet can look up. I held you in a higher regard. I thought you were better.
I am NOT defending the South nor am I trying to entertain ANY “arguments” one way or the other. But calling oneself a historian, stating “it’s in my book” does NOT make it true! A lie is still a lie regardless of how many times it’s told even by so called “historians”. Lex? I truly thought you were better than this….
Robert E Lee is the greatest general ever In American history and one of the finest human beings America ever produced.
These were also Winston Churchill’s words !
God bless Dixie!
My eyes rolled so hard they nearly fell out of my head when he made the brains dead lazy Hitler comparison.
If this guy went to bars in Virginia and said this stuff he would get a history lesson or a slap in the mouth. If he watched ken burns civil war documentary he would have a different take instead of talking like these weirdo woke people we unfortunately have to deal with now.
Hitler and Lee is the worst equivalency to make.
Everything this guy says can be safely ignored
Lee was a better man than George Washington. He was a man of pure honor who has wrongly been defaced cause of politics. His father and uncles were a declaration signers and Washingtons best commanders. He even married Washingtons grand daughter. So he was a Virginian through and through like Washington. He was against secession and was glad his state originally voted not to. But when Virginia was called to draft and conscript men to invade other states they seceded. And he still didn’t want it but he like Washington stood by Virginia. After the war he pushed reconciliation till his death and pushed no animosity. No one is perfect but to anyone who honestly looks he is a man we should honor strongly and I say that as a cousin of general Grant.
Comparing Lee to Hitler destroys the guest's credibility. Two completely different people with divergent motives and actions.
Robert E Lee was a great man/general because he was very respectful and honorable, and he didn’t like the idea of succeeding or slavery He just simply thought that fighting for your state was a better option. (I’m not a confederate)
Lee led an insurrection in order to keep people as property. You really have to have some blind spots in common sense to not see the obvious.
@@GregoryCunningham Lee did not lead an insurrection. He did not even support the succession. He was simply loyal to his State, and could not sit idly by why it was invaded by Union Forces. Back in those days, States were like your country. He also didn't even support slavery.
Agreed. Anyone who would compare Lee to Hitler is either bias or extremely ignorant.
@@GregoryCunningham first of all he led (confederate) troops because he would rather fight people up north then his own community/state and remember it was different back then state and federal government wise. Second of all Lee wasn’t totally fine with slavery. The only reason that there’s evidence of him not minding it because unfortunately, slavery, down south was a normal thing and remember only 6.2% of the American population owns slaves in 1860s.
I have always liked Lee's personal quotes, very thoughtful. Suri highlights that villains can have powerful moments that we can all learn from, yet also be completely flawed when it comes to the progression of equality in human beings and the rest of Earth's lifeforms. The people who say it is just a mater of opinion are justifying their own inability to walk in the shoes of the oppressed. Lee may or may not have been a racist, but he supported racist views and establishments until the end (racist or maybe just self serving).
If you are not trying to bring people together then you are trying to keep them apart.
Thats like saying silence is violence, not acting is just that, not acting
@@williamwest9204 Thank you for your comment. It does smack of the type of thing someone says, that they heard someone else say, thought was smart, and repeated without thinking about it. Silence IS violence if a violent act is happening next to you and you do or say nothing. Not acting, a bit like not voting, maintains the status quo and is a contribution whether you like it or not. "Decisions are made by those who show up". People who choose not to act are still making a choice and shape the World we all live in by letting others make policy, change laws, create social culture etc, for better or worse. Clearly not acting, if you think about it, is not just "that", it is an action in and of itself.
Good luck with your choices Mr West.
@@heqitao no and no. Silence is not violence in any sense, if someone is wanting to try and hamfist their ideal forward and u dont support it is not violence.
Standing around while someone is attacked for no reason and not doing anything isnt violence either its just inaction, choosing to intervene is actually and escalation of violence and thats entirely choice based on your views and beliefs.
Not voting if u think about it is actually not contributing to the status quo if that which is presented isnt anything you support, so whatever happens from those who vote isnt your fault.
If u want change and support u better win them over.
@@williamwest9204 I'll agree to disagree. I find your opinion narrow minded and lacking perspective, and I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about mine. Social media is definitely not the best place to make a point, and certainly not the correct place to change minds. I don't know why I am sucked into using it tbh. Compulsion probably.
Best of luck to you and yours, I wish you all the best. I honestly mean that.
Mr. Suri makes an excellent point, wars don’t end. Think the crusades, WW1, etc…
The comparison to Hitler would be Davis, not Lee. Keitel or Donitz would have been closer but they’re still worlds apart.
Jefferson Davis was a moderate himself tho tbh and could maybe be slightly but definitely more so than Lincoln compared to the man he was named for as the diet off brand doctor choice version of Jefferson. Though he was not as firm as Jefferson and Jefferson would’ve sided with him on federalism and secession but pushed to free the slaves and send them to an ethnostate elsewhere which is like the one thing Lincoln was the same on .
And Lee was pretty much just a more moral version of George Washington. And this guy was so ignorant of him he didn’t know he spent the rest of his left after the war pushing reconciliation.
But national socialism and the National socialists are not really comparable at all except they and the confederacy both had good military’s ig.
I totally disagree with Suri's opinion on Lee. Lee persuaded a large element of the army NOT to split up and continue a guerilla style war vs. Grant's forces. General Alexander was a major proponent of those wanting to continue via this very destructive method. Guerilla warfare brings pillaging, raping and murder, and that would've just caused even deeper resentment and anger through the generations. I think Suri misunderstands Lee here. Lee didn't tell Grant that he wouldn't help convince his soldiers to move on as citizens. He told him that he COULDN'T, that he didn't have the power amongst them to change so many minds. It really was an impossible 'ask' by Grant. Lee did what he could, which was to surrender professionally and peacefully. Remember, Lee turned down the Federal offer to command the army because of federal incursion into what he thought was 'home'...Virginia. Shelby Foote explains it all very well.
I went to school and in Appomattox and grew up surrounded by Civil War History. Lee is not deserved of any comparison to Hitler. A villain? Sounds like the winners writing history to me.
I had the (dis)honor of seeing his statue in Richmond one day before they tore it down. Next to me was an older man who lived on Monument Avenue. He was crying, knowing how destructive it would be to erase history.
My take from this is that our Universities are full of activists not Historians
Very true It’s so sad most of my professors legit have elementary ignorant takes of history like this and just put people in demonization boxes so no one including themselves looks into things and I have no doubt the founders are next on the plate since Lee was honestly so similar to Washington. And while trying to hide my power level I scare them with basic questions.
Lee was a damn good man and he literally pushed reconciliation after the war. But these people try to erase reconciliation entirely from the books.
Lee failed to understand what serving his country meant. He fought against the US and failed. It is not activism but reality.
So the North invades the South and Lee, who refused the offer to run the Union Army because he didn't want to fight against fellow Virginians, outgunned and outmanned, throughout the war, wins battles proclaimed to be the best strategically fought battle wins, in the history of American. An honorable Christian loved by his men that could have fought on, urged to fight a guerrilla type warfare but, he was so disgusted to see so many young boys lying in the fields, he decided to capitulate. Nazi's, where in the hell did the Nazi's come from? C'mon man. Lee was loved on both sides so much so they built him a statue. People writing history books these days tend to either stray from the facts or interpret them with their own misguided beliefs or flat out lie about facts.
Jews are known for their attempts at historical revisionism! ✡️
Very insightful character assassination of the great RE Lee from two Jews.
Not to mention the historical revisionism that Jews constantly push on academia!
Lee’s posture in the postwar years is completely ignored in this segment
What a wonderfully biased, narrative driven view of our history
Jewish revisionism!! ✡️
Really Lee compared to Hitler?
Prime example of why Lex's podcast is so good. I can't agree with this man on his Anti-2nd Ammendment stance, but here he's voiced alot of adjustments which would only make our country more functional.
My guy Robert E. Lee was a damn good man. The man who demonizes him in this video surly is anti second amendment aswell and seems to have bad intentions imo.
Lee was a better man than Washington but very similar.
His father was a declaration signer and Washington’s best Calvary general but he had to leave Lee cause of debt causing him to be kinda on his own. Despite that he got into West Point and preformed better than anyone has to this day and severed in the Mexican American war.
He was not a fan of slavery and was against secession and glad his state voted against it. But the north called to draft and conscript Virginians to invade other state’s so they voted to secede against his wishes. But he like Washington,Madison, or Jefferson considered himself a Virginian before anything else and so he stood by her.
He was autistically shy but took command and served honorably in that war and brought it to the end when it was clear it was not winnable and pushed Reconciliation all his life after the war till he died.
This is why he was mythologized and why men like JFK,Eisenhower, and FDR even all held him in such high respect and spoke on him.
I didn’t used to think this at all cause I had no idea but now I see. And it’s clear to me if they can defile a honorable man like that there’s nothing stopping them for coming for the founder’s and it’s clear that has started.
Didn’t he fight against the USA and kill thousand of US soldiers?
@Kommando you're full of shit. Lee was a traitor his men were traitors who fought and killed Americans in order to keep humans in bandage. Fuck you and every little pussy who makes this argument. You only make this argument online because no one believes it.
@@boricualink most people know it’s true on some level some even know he was a better man than Washington
@Kommando hahaha you're a fool. I don't engage with fools and liars. You don't have a single ounce of integrity or honesty.
I'm Scottish/ British. I'm proud of that. I would fight for Britain. What I wouldn't do is march as a British soldier to go to war with Scotland. I would fight for Scotland. No matter what the reason for the war was. So I kind of understand Lees position.
that is not the point. he is talking about what lee did AFTER the war.
Great video. Rommel would have been a more apt analogy than Hitler, and less inflammatory, but the reasoning of the analogy is still correct.
Will have to read his book to see if he’s considered the awful way the victors treated the south after the war.
There are consequences to rebelling and then losing. The fact that southern soldiers got to just go home, with their guns, is pretty nice to begin with.
I mean the union technically could've hung every confederate soldier for treason after the lost so they didn't get it all that bad
yea like forcing them to let black people vote huh
Confederates and their descendants should have been deported to another country
Exactly. It’s almost as bad as how the south treated black people before, during, and after the war. But I guess we should pity the enslavers right?
A guy who supports the union doesnt think Lee was a hero? What a shocker.
We would not need so much forgiveness if we weren't casting so much blame. let humans be humans once or twice a day and accept that people are going to let you down. we destroy each other seeking justification for things that need not.
Lee is closer to Washington than Hitler, give me a break.
While I don’t like the hero-worshiping of Lee and agree with the guest to an extent, I think there are at least three important things to note: 1) Lee did surrender to Grant rather than continue to fight a guerrilla style war; 2) Lee only lived 5 years after the war, during which his most prominent activity was teaching at a university; 3) Lee was critical of erecting Confederate monument because he thought they would exacerbate sectional tensions following the war.
Also, it was Grant, who had been nicknamed “Unconditional Surrender Grant” for imposing such terms in victories during the war, that elected to impose more magnanimous terms to Lee at Appomattox.
Pretty lazy to use Hitler as the example for the post-war in defeat hypothetical. I roll my eyes whenever someone compares the people they don’t like to the Nazis. Even when there’s a lot of truth to it, it just irks me how cliché that is.
Lee was an incredible general if nothing else. He constantly won battles and outmaneuvered the Union despite being outsupplied and outnumbered throughout the war. The only reason the Union won was when Sherman decided to wreck civilians all the way to Georgia forcing a surrender.
A win is a win but on the battlefield the union never stood a chance against Lee.
This guy is narrow minded and doesnt seem like he understands the civil war fully despite being a purported expert.
He caught for Virginia, but did not support his side when asked. He could of helped his side win but didn't. Also Grant did defeat him, so it's hard to say the Union never stood a chance.
He was a better man than Washington tbh and he legit pushed reconciliation tell he died after the war. This dude was too ignorant to know that very well known detail he should be working in literally any field but education and academia.
Lee did the right thing to not to try to change his men. They were free to believe in whatever they believed.
This guy is so clueless it TERRIFIES me about academia’s fanaticism! Just the Hitler comparison on its own invalidates him as a thinking being.
The correct 20th century historical comparison for Lee is Wilhelm Keitel, the chief of the high command of the Wehrmacht during WW2- a man who was hung as a war criminal after the war, exactly as Lee should have been treated.
Whilst I agree in theory with what is being discussed here I.e preventing former leaders from being elected into office, a lot of times that is not possible as certain areas absolutely do not accept defeat and would continue hostilities if not pacified by one of their own. I have personally witnessed this happen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were regions we would fight insurgency, win and the locals would be so hostile that we would have to make deals with local tribal leaders by putting them or their relatives in positions of power, then magically the hostilities would disappear. Im assuming it wasn’t possible to implement article 3 of the amendment for the same reason, some areas would of most likely been to unstable and would of required a former leader to control in order to prevent future conflicts and maybe a second civil war.
Dude knows so much.. but I worked with a black man for 20 years, named Robert E Lee Fann... wonder why is parents named him that 70 years ago
Cuz people don't know history. And the actions of one set of African-American parents doesn't say anything about the character of Lee.
Tony Brown, a Black journalist popular in the 70's and 80's said, "Black folks are just like everyone else: mostly average, with a few geniuses and a liberal sprinkling of fools."
What is that for an argument .
@A seems like alot of whites like talking for black people
@@Arockuhcee you aint black
@@Arockuhcee like I said u aint black
The South will rise again.
Incredibly biased. I don’t love Robert E. Lee but after listening to this guy he had an opinion before he knew the story
This guy can not separate his personal feelings from the interpretation of history. The things that were done post civil war was to heal a nation. If the leaders of the confederacy was ruthlessly persecuted the war would have continued until there would be nothing left to fight for. He is convoluting his person politically leans with his interpretation of history.
The guy speaking about Robert E. Lee’s leadership cant hold any weight. Its like a man giving my parenting advice without kids of his own. He is speaking without experience, without serving, without pride, without trauma. Any military leader would proclaim the character of Robert E. Lee. Win or lose
Comparing Robert E. Lee to Hitler is an insane push....I wouldn't even Compare Jefferson Davis to Hitler. Two VASTLY different conflicts and the example of Hitler is unfitting as all hell.
The comparison of General Lee with Hitler is shameful. It is clear that General Lee fought to fulfill the wish of the majority of the people in the South, which is not to be part of the Union. Lee was a brilliant general and patriot, he didn't sell himself to the winners
comparing lee to Hitler is crazy I was expecting that sort of opinion though from that hairline
Wars don't end like WW2 now because we don't do what we did in WW2. We don't go in to completely annihilate the other.
Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that "no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress" or "hold any office, civil or military" if they, after having taken an oath to support the Constitution, "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Look at what Southerners did to James Longstreet. Longstreet was a great general in his own right. After the war he advocated acceptance of Reconstruction and he joined the Republican Party and Southerners hated him for it. They would have done the same to Lee.
No doubt Lee was pivotal in the war lasting as long as it did, but he will surely be held in high esteem by many Southerners for a long time
Because many Southerners are useless racist trash piles.
By Northerners too, Robert E Lee was offered the command of the Union army before he took the command of the confederacy, for a reason...... Dude was bright (militarily speaking)
@@El-Abuelo-De-Superman he felt more loyalty to his family and state of virginia than to a national american identity.
@@BigJeffeDaGoat Correct, not a direct quote but his answer to the Union was something along the lines of "aint no way in hell i'm attacking Virginia..."
Comparing Lee to Hitler utterly undermined any type of point you were trying to make... good lord...
Lee was a hero. He surrendered soon after becoming head General of the Confederate Army.
I have no military experience, but it seems to me to be a very civilian thing to ask whether Robert E Lee was a hero. There are rarely heroes in war, no? Of course Robert E Lee wasn't a hero. He was a general in a war. He gave his people their best chance. The good and the bad all told, I don't think he should be venerated but I also don't think he should be forgotten, or even hated at this point. Now Andrew Johnson? Fuck that guy
As a soldier, I can empathize with General Lee for having to choose tween home and country. His home was just across the Potomac from the White House. Literal neighbors. Why we have Arlington today. From my research of Grant and Lee, Lee defended Grant on many occasions. I cant quote but I know what I read. And as far as the Appomattox comment, Im sure in that moment its quite possible anything could had been said in that emotional filled space of time. However, your assessment going forward post Civil War is totally biased. Unfair. The man always made a turn to peaceful resolutions. No he did not appreciate prior subordinates' insubordination that might had different outcomes. But Lee was always a gentleman. Taking on a role as a university president in the wake of the war and into reconstruction. Which Im sure youre aware. Still, comparing him to a coward Hitler who took his own life, sir, your analysis holds no water. Lee returned to what was left of southern society to reunionize its culture and redeem himself through assisting others in their pursuit of knowledge. You could use a lesson in proper discernment and tact.
The more I hear Suri talk, the less I find his opinions to be competent and reasonable.
it shows that a Phd doesn't make you nuanced or smart. Our society props up bad ideas by people with advanced education, rather than propping up the best ideas. It's sad.
Lee was instrumental in laying down arms and making sure that the south didn’t engage in guerilla warfare after their defeat. He should be commended for that.
Jeremi Suri has no credibility with me!
Lee fought for the Confederacy not necessarily because he supported secession or slavery, but because Virginia was his home and he was going to fight for his home. Comparing him to Hitler is ridiculous, I think Erwin Rommel is a fairer comparison.
Lee went out of his way to try and patch things up between the North and South after the Civil War. So I have no clue what this guy is talking about.
He's a lying Jew attempting to push historical revisionism! ✡️
I'm not sure how you could possibly compare Hitler to Robert E. Lee. They both wore pants, but that's about it.
General Lee fought for his statehood which is what most people felt loyal to back in the day. Dudes a lib lol
What is this guy talking about? I'm not even a Lee fan, but he most certainly advocated for unifying the country.
He is a truly hero
You can say the war was defined by two personalities, Lincoln and Lee who was the real leader of the South and perhaps more revered than Lincoln who was severely chastised by the Northern press and his own generals.
This guy def interjects his own modern morales and ideology to historic figures. It makes him a less effective historian.
He's not a historian he's just a lying Jew who is promoting historical revisionism!
Lord some people in these comments are so dense. He wasn't comparing Lee to Hitler in a moral sense you utter dimwits. He was talking about a what if scenario where the leader of the losing side was allowed to return to normal society without much consequence. You would know that if you had listened to his actual argument instead of recoiling with horror like a demented granny the moment he mentioned Hitler.
I think this was a wild mis representation of lee here and comparing to hitler is a bit out of the same spectrum to be quite honest.
Jews love to misrepresent history! ✡️
A lot of American folks (hundreds of thousands) died because Lee refused Lincoln, and chose to fight for the REBELS. Villain.