No one whose perspective on Lee I’d rather read than that of this particular “Yankee from Yankeeland.” Thank you, gentlemen, and a special danke schee to Dr. Guelzo.
Experience leading men in combat under fire is of little importance in predicting which officer will succeed or fail at the highest level. What is important is the officer’s knowledge of logistics and the officer’s personality.
I found it very interesting. Allen Guelzo is a brilliant scholar and great raconteur. However, I found it was more about Lincoln than Lee. I enjoy hearing anything Guelzo has to say about Lincoln and am more interested in Lincoln than Lee myself but still there are numerous topics about Lee that I would have been interested in what Guelzo has to say. Has Lee's generalship been overrated? What did he really think about slavery and African Americans? What was his family life like? What was his relationship with Jefferson Davis like? And what is Guelzo's opinions of previous scholars work on Lee? He mentions several Lincoln scholars but none on Lee.
Lincoln's superstition and dreams: His repeated dreams about standing on the deck of a large ship coursing over the sea, as an omen of significant events, makes me think of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The nuclear powered behemoth attests to the achievements of Lincoln, the great events of his presidency that led to the ship being named for him. A vision of the Lincoln, commissioned a century after his death, could have been a divine assurance to him of being on the right course.
The treason charge is nonsense, to put it in polite terms. The primary loyalty one has in the U.S., especially prior to the 14 th Amendment, is to one's state, not to the Federal government. If Lee had accepted command of the Federal army after Virginia seceded, then that would been a betrayal to his home state, which had a superior claim on Lee's loyalty. He made it clear that if Virginia had not seceded, then he would have stayed with the Union.
So, if one is loyal to home he’s loyal to his “state.” But if he’s loyal to his nation he’s loyal to the “federal government?” Really? I suggest that you’re conflating one’s “nation“ with the “federal government.” Clearly they are not the same.
@@scottamichie I agree that the nation is not reducible to the national government, but the controversy here was with the power of the national government with its military. But even so, one's loyalty to the family, then the community, then the state, then the region then the nation reflects the principle of subsidiarity especially in a country that is a composite of smaller nations. The same would be so in Spain or the U.K. and even more so in the U.S. with its distinct regions that really are different nations.
@@christophergraves6725 1860 US military virtually nonexistent. Some 16k uniformed soldiers. Mostly in Indian territory. It was the Deep South that had been militarized since 1850 “compromise.” Every Federal Fort and harbor and post office fell to the newly formed confederacy within days of Fort Sumter. Secession came in 1860 after decades of deep south plantation class oligarchs insisting on the expansion of slavery all the way to the Pacific Ocean and into the southern Americas and Caribbean. And with candidate Lincoln pledging to leave slavery alone where it legally existed-in the mid- and deep south: but to oppose its expansion beyond its historical boundaries. Not interested in a back n forth with you . Bye bye.
@@scottamichie Well, we are mixing a number of issues together. I was addressing the line of loyalty a person owes to various levels of polity. I was not addressing either slavery or secession. I am certainly opposed to slavery as were many Southerners prior to the 1840's. There were more abolitionist societies in the South during the 1830's than in the North. See the link below. The radical abolitionist movement viciously attacked anything Southern in the decades leading up to the war offending Southerners' honor, which is a big deal to us then and now. That crude fanaticism drove a lot of people in the South away from the abolitionist cause. A lot of people in the North including Lincoln who opposed slavery were wary of the Abolitionist movement that had gone radical. The other point that you are mixing in is secession. I completely agree with you on the irrationality of secession at that time. It was not justified and unwise to say the least. Remember that Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis and even Nathan Bedford Forrest opposed secession before it occurred. They believed however that they must remain loyal to their respective states and their region in light of the way things were sorting out including Lincoln raising an army after the first few states went out. That move by Lincoln antagonized the remaining Southern states and so they seceded. If Virginia had not followed suit, then Lee and Jackson would have fought for the Union. For them, the key issue was loyalty to their state.
And another perspective is were the Founding Fathers traitors to England? Yes they were. This would all be a moot point if the South had won the Civil War.
One thought... in today's world, there are people who are liberal arts and people who are math and science. Very few are all of these. Lee's mind was obviously math and science. I don't believe someone who went to West Point who graduated second in his class was not as smart as Abraham Lincoln. I don't believe the gentleman means to be a liberal arts academic snob but I don't think the gentleman sees his snobbery.
Lee was obviously a very smart man, and a brilliant military strategist, but his education(West Point) and his mind/thinking were infinitely more limited, narrower, more "provincial" than the vastness of Lincoln's intellect, a circuit riding lawyer & politician who was as well versed in Shakespeare, the King James Bible, American political history AND Euclid. Also, Lee was afflicted with both an intellectual and moral blind spot the size of Montana, such that he couldn't see(as Lincoln did) what seccession & war were really all about, the extension, perpetuation & nationalization of slavery on this continent...🙏🇱🇷🎩
I think Guelzo' has a very narrow viewpoint when it comes to Civil War monuments. As I understand it some statues were put up soon after the war as the KKK arose. Still more were erected around the turn of the last century, thanks to groups such as The United Daughters of The Confederacy. This is a group still advancing the "Lost Cause" myth. Finally more were erected during the civil rights era. Why then? It was to keep alive the myth of white supremacy. Among other things, Robert E. Lee was a cruel slave master. He saw to it that freed men were captured and and enslaved. I would hate to be an African Americans, descendants of the enslaved people and having to walk by statues such as Lee's on the way to church or school.
I totally agree any man who owns another man or woman has Slaves is an unworthy man. Even though in the south it was legalised, the man was a so-called man of faith, and believes, in the teachings of bible and teachings Jesus
No one whose perspective on Lee I’d rather read than that of this particular “Yankee from Yankeeland.” Thank you, gentlemen, and a special danke schee to Dr. Guelzo.
You are by far sir my favorite speaker! I so look forward to finding a new video!!
Outstanding and informative interview. Thank you.
Always fascinating Dr Guelzo. I wish I could live in his shirt pocket. I would love to follow him around just listening to him speak.
I always enjoy listening to Dr. Guelzo! Thank you for this!
Experience leading men in combat under fire is of little importance in predicting which officer will succeed or fail at the highest level. What is important is the officer’s knowledge of logistics and the officer’s personality.
Apologies for the host's poor audio quality after a while. Fortunately, Prof. Guelzo remains clear throughout.
I found it very interesting. Allen Guelzo is a brilliant scholar and great raconteur. However, I found it was more about Lincoln than Lee. I enjoy hearing anything Guelzo has to say about Lincoln and am more interested in Lincoln than Lee myself but still there are numerous topics about Lee that I would have been interested in what Guelzo has to say. Has Lee's generalship been overrated? What did he really think about slavery and African Americans? What was his family life like? What was his relationship with Jefferson Davis like? And what is Guelzo's opinions of previous scholars work on Lee? He mentions several Lincoln scholars but none on Lee.
Lincoln's superstition and dreams: His repeated dreams about standing on the deck of a large ship coursing over the sea, as an omen of significant events, makes me think of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The nuclear powered behemoth attests to the achievements of Lincoln, the great events of his presidency that led to the ship being named for him. A vision of the Lincoln, commissioned a century after his death, could have been a divine assurance to him of being on the right course.
The treason charge is nonsense, to put it in polite terms. The primary loyalty one has in the U.S., especially prior to the 14 th Amendment, is to one's state, not to the Federal government. If Lee had accepted command of the Federal army after Virginia seceded, then that would been a betrayal to his home state, which had a superior claim on Lee's loyalty. He made it clear that if Virginia had not seceded, then he would have stayed with the Union.
So, if one is loyal to home he’s loyal to his “state.” But if he’s loyal to his nation he’s loyal to the “federal government?” Really? I suggest that you’re conflating one’s “nation“ with the “federal government.” Clearly they are not the same.
@@scottamichie I agree that the nation is not reducible to the national government, but the controversy here was with the power of the national government with its military. But even so, one's loyalty to the family, then the community, then the state, then the region then the nation reflects the principle of subsidiarity especially in a country that is a composite of smaller nations. The same would be so in Spain or the U.K. and even more so in the U.S. with its distinct regions that really are different nations.
@@christophergraves6725 1860 US military virtually nonexistent. Some 16k uniformed soldiers. Mostly in Indian territory. It was the Deep South that had been militarized since 1850 “compromise.” Every Federal Fort and harbor and post office fell to the newly formed confederacy within days of Fort Sumter.
Secession came in 1860 after decades of deep south plantation class oligarchs insisting on the expansion of slavery all the way to the Pacific Ocean and into the southern Americas and Caribbean. And with candidate Lincoln pledging to leave slavery alone where it legally existed-in the mid- and deep south: but to oppose its expansion beyond its historical boundaries.
Not interested in a back n forth with you . Bye bye.
@@scottamichie Well, we are mixing a number of issues together. I was addressing the line of loyalty a person owes to various levels of polity. I was not addressing either slavery or secession. I am certainly opposed to slavery as were many Southerners prior to the 1840's. There were more abolitionist societies in the South during the 1830's than in the North. See the link below. The radical abolitionist movement viciously attacked anything Southern in the decades leading up to the war offending Southerners' honor, which is a big deal to us then and now. That crude fanaticism drove a lot of people in the South away from the abolitionist cause. A lot of people in the North including Lincoln who opposed slavery were wary of the Abolitionist movement that had gone radical.
The other point that you are mixing in is secession. I completely agree with you on the irrationality of secession at that time. It was not justified and unwise to say the least. Remember that Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis and even Nathan Bedford Forrest opposed secession before it occurred.
They believed however that they must remain loyal to their respective states and their region in light of the way things were sorting out including Lincoln raising an army after the first few states went out. That move by Lincoln antagonized the remaining Southern states and so they seceded. If Virginia had not followed suit, then Lee and Jackson would have fought for the Union. For them, the key issue was loyalty to their state.
And another perspective is were the Founding Fathers traitors to England? Yes they were. This would all be a moot point if the South had won the Civil War.
Interessante....
I have a question. Mr Guelzo, have you been BORN AGAIN & been Sealed w/The HOLY SPIRIT?
Is this maj burns
One thought... in today's world, there are people who are liberal arts and people who are math and science. Very few are all of these. Lee's mind was obviously math and science. I don't believe someone who went to West Point who graduated second in his class was not as smart as Abraham Lincoln. I don't believe the gentleman means to be a liberal arts academic snob but I don't think the gentleman sees his snobbery.
Lee was obviously a very smart man, and a brilliant military strategist, but his education(West Point) and his mind/thinking were infinitely more limited, narrower, more "provincial" than the vastness of Lincoln's intellect, a circuit riding lawyer & politician who was as well versed in Shakespeare, the King James Bible, American political history AND Euclid. Also, Lee was afflicted with both an intellectual and moral blind spot the size of Montana, such that he couldn't see(as Lincoln did) what seccession & war were really all about, the extension, perpetuation & nationalization of slavery on this continent...🙏🇱🇷🎩
Audio is no good
I think Guelzo' has a very narrow viewpoint when it comes to Civil War monuments. As I understand it some statues were put up soon after the war as the KKK arose. Still more were erected around the turn of the last century, thanks to groups such as The United Daughters of The Confederacy. This is a group still advancing the "Lost Cause" myth. Finally more were erected during the civil rights era. Why then? It was to keep alive the myth of white supremacy. Among other things, Robert E. Lee was a cruel slave master. He saw to it that freed men were captured and and enslaved. I would hate to be an African Americans, descendants of the enslaved people and having to walk by statues such as Lee's on the way to church or school.
I totally agree any man who owns another man or woman has Slaves is an unworthy man. Even though in the south it was legalised, the man was a so-called man of faith, and believes, in the teachings of bible and teachings Jesus
I love Lincoln history but I thought this video was about Robert E. Lee. Not much on Lee.
This interview is filled with propaganda and half truths.
Well be more specific and point out these half truths. Or did he speak truth about the loss causers demigod Lee.
That's because this person is an absolute CLOWN. I have spoke with him & he claims to be a Christian.