Institute for Honor 2015: “Robert E. Lee: Honor in Defeat” with Gary Gallagher

[@denbo74]

I took Dr Gallagher’s class at Penn State. He was the best teacher on any subject I ever had. That said I’ve noticed a drift to a more PC stance and and a disproportionate focus on the “lost cause”. Definitely didn’t get this vibe from his class and battlefield tours in the mid 90’s

[@savanahmclary4465]

If you knew who the actual American people are: There was NO "Lost Cause!" How many Slaves did Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army Actually Free? And Sherman robbed all those plantation and murdered all those people but what did Sherman do with all the loot he stole? It sure didn't go to the Slaves, or the South for Reconstruction, or to the USA Economy, because the economy was on on it's FACE. The Slaves didn't even get the 40 acres and a mule the Government promised them. Some body has been blowing smoke here for a long time.

[@bobdavis2215]

Remember The Civil War with Ken Burns? Most beloved General in American history?

[@etrainwilson990]

I remember watching him on Civil War Journal and he was apolitical about the south. He has bowed to the woke crowd.

[@kamilziemian995]

Sad to here how PC is pressuring people and force them to make bad choices.

[@tedosmond413]

interesting dig at Shelby Foote the "novelist".

[@JRobbySh]

Also a better writer and talker than him. Plus as an older man, Foote was born in a Southern that was a lot closer to the death and destruction, the sheer futility of it all. After the War, the South was a lot like some of the veterans he knew, men lacking an arm or an eye, and the friendship of many boys who had grown up with him in his county.

[@tedosmond413]

They are still angry about the overwhelming defeat.

[@savanahmclary4465]

Do you seriously believe that narrative? Americans aren't as stupid as you think. Only 8% of the Americans in the Soverign and Independent Southern "Common Wealths" (NOT states) that fought in the War of Northern Aggression OWNED SLAVES. 8% Then WHY wasn't their more Slave owners fighting to preserve Slavery? Could it be, that the War of Northern Aggression was about MONEY/ Wealth and the control of it, as ALL WARS ARE? And the "Southern "Common Wealths" Extended Families took their WEALTH OFF SHORE and returned to their European Families to wait out the War. But Some of them Remained invested in the USA WAR, on both sides, North and South. For there is nothing like a good War for making money. And when Robert E. Lee surrendered: Lee knew that the Southern "Common Wealths" Extended Families Wealth was securely off shore... Americans' are elusive and unpredictable. What you see isn't what you get. These Families are still INVESTED IN THE USA TODAY! Do you have a clue who they are? Obviously not!

[@stewartmillen7708]

Dr. Gallagher omits that in post-war conversations, Lee said he repeatedly urged Davis that the Confederacy had to enact emancipation before the Union did, and employ freed slaves into Confederate armies. As this is also the time (1862) that Lee was also pursuing any and all measures to beef up Confederate manpower, and Lee advocated publically using emancipated black soldiers this in 1865, makes this claim believable. This does not make Lee an abolitionist nor even less any believer in African-American political and social equality. Like most Americans, regrettably, Lee was a white supremacist. But compared to most of Southerners, who were against using emancipated black soldiers even to stave off defeat, Lee was more 'liberal' than most of his peers.

[@stewartmillen7708]

If Lee was such a Confederate nationalist over the interest of Virginia, then why was he so consistently opposed to reinforcing the West using the resources of the Army of Northern Virginia? He always argued that saving Vicksburg might lose Richmond, but if Vicksburg was more militarily important, then isn't that exactly should be done.?

[@tedosmond413]

The USA, right makes might. The CSA, might makes right.

[@danarose6314]

How does the name "Robert E. Lee" and the word "honor" appear in the same phrase?

[@JRobbySh]

There is nothing honorable about the killing of 60 million babies in the USA since 1973.

[@jonathanbaggs4275]

Idiot.

[@jodycarrithers6160]

Depends on why you believe the word "honor" shouldn't be associated with Robert E Lee? I'm not a southerner, nor would I been in favor of secession and certainly not slavery. But, I wasn't born and raised in the early to mid 19th century either. People are very complex. If you've read or listened to scholarly lectures (which you certainly must have, at least, listened to this lecture since you're commenting on it)about Robert E. Lee, you'd know that he did have honor. You may not like his decisions or his opinions, but that doesn't mean he lacked honor.

[@prestonphelps1649]

Civil war was simply about self enterest.

[@bobdavis2215]

Greatest American that ever lived.

[@savanahmclary4465]

Robert E. Lee was #2.. Only that to his Cousin George Washington was #1. (George Washington was Robert E. Lees' wife, Mary Custiss - Lee Step Great grand Father.) Washingtons,' and Lees' and Fairfaxs are the "Common Wealth," of Virginia. The Lees' named it "Virginia!" And Robert E. Lee referred to Virginia as his "Country." And Virginia in its earliest days consisted of half of Tennessee, half of North Carolina, all of West Virginia and ALL of Kentucky to the Ohio River.

[@snapmalloy5556]

He failed to uphold his oath to protect the U.S. from all enemies both foreign and domestic. He was a traitor

[@willoutlaw4971]

Lee knew that if he continued his bellicosity towards the U.S.A after his surrender at Appomattox, he would have lent impetus to Northern desires to hang him. Self preservation is the first law of nature. Lee kept his anti Union comments to himself.

[@lawrence9506]

Will Outlaw : yes and Gary talks about the physical toll on Lee. He came out a lot better than those who died or were crippled by his great honor

[@garyguyton7373]

Life at any price? What BS, utter and total. Are you aware just how many officers of all ranks were killed in that war? None of them put life ahead of duty.

[@garyguyton7373]

@@lawrence9506 Lee didn't kill or cripple those men. Union shot and shell and minie balls did.

[@garyguyton7373]

@bob His so called "Poor Leadership" Is the only thing that kept the Confederacy alive for as long as it lived. You can call him any name you want, but calling him a bad leader is just plain a LIE, false to fact. And yes, he was fighting for Virginia more than anything else. It was where he believed his duty lay. Lincoln was a total BS totalitarian POS, imho, because he would have done ANYTHING to preserve the union. Do I think Lee was any better? NO! There are NO heroes when it comes to the ACW.

[@JRobbySh]

Fact is that if one quartermaster in Richmond had not send a railroad car to the wrong place, Lee’s Army would have had the wherewithal to continue west and Grant could not have caught him because his forces would have outrun their supplies . And for your slur on his courage, he would himself have led a charge at Spotsylvania if his men had not grabbed his reins. and if Grant has not offered such generous terms, there would have been another fight and thousands would have died probably including Lee and a lot of federals. He was suffering from heart failure anyway. and in general lacking the energy actually the do the paperwork at a small college those last few years.

[@rigulur]

i guess we all just live and do what we believe is best and most moral, lest we wouldnt do it

[@tedosmond413]

Washington fought for human freedom and dignity. Lee fought for human bondage.

[@Wadzillia]

Yet both owned slaves.

[@tedosmond413]

@@Wadzillia yes, that is correct. shows how all humans can be corrupted from ideals by fortune.

[@Wadzillia]

@@tedosmond413 You still think Washington fought human freedom and dignity?

[@tedosmond413]

@@Wadzillia I believe that he believed in the spirit of the declaration of independence, the concepts embodied in that declaration and saw the constitution as the best way to secure those concepts incorporated into a system of governance that could endure. And that yes the document had a deep flaw but apparently it was necessary at the time in order to create the Union. As a nation we paid dearly and continue to pay for that flaw.

[@Wadzillia]

@@tedosmond413 If you call slavery a flaw, you got to call the Nation a flaw. Considering the country was founded on slavery. Without funding from slavery, the colonies have no chance to revolt against the British.

[@tedosmond413]

"destruction of slave based republic"

[@savanahmclary4465]

Dr. Gallagher there was no defeat. What about the Wealthy Southerners that Abraham Lincoln was at War with, who took their wealth off shore and returned to Europe, to wait out the war: But they had stayed invested in the Soverign Country. And they left their slaves in charge, of their plantations, during their absence and until their RETURN from after the War? Some of these Wealthy Southerners, when they knew war was imminent, even moved North of the Mason Dixon line and the Ohio River and they stayed invested, in the War, for the SOVEREIGN Country, on both sides. You see them as Northerners, when in fact they were Southerners.They created Havoc for Abraham Lincoln. This slave narrative doesn't wash!

[@JRobbySh]

You should take the time to look at the casualty lists. Except during the Revolutionary War did some many members of the ruling class shed so much blood and lose so much property as the Southern gentry during the Civil War. Certainly they stayed away from the military during the Korean and Vietnam wars and during the wars in Southwest Asia.

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Davis Mary Hernandez Brenda Rodriguez Jennifer

[@tedosmond413]

forced conscription by 1862....

[@williamblanton5861]

There is no honor is winning or being defeated in the proliferation of slavery. If it's for a good cause, now that's a different a story.

[@ianjones2068]

Slavery was still a worldwide norm until the mid 19th century. Only a few European countries and Northern states in the U.S. had come to conclusion that slavery was wrong by 1860. Even those European countries who believed slavery was wrong, obviously had no problem conquering large parts of the world. Heck some of the biggest imperialists in America were those same Northerners who were against slavery. Lesson: Never put our morality today in the 21st century on people who lived a long time ago. What is a "good cause" at one time in history may not be such a good cause in another time. Lee deserves praise for two reasons: 1. If you are a military historian or strategist he useful to study. There is no doubt he had some great victories against overwhelming odds. 2. He told his soldiers to go home and not turn the war into a gorilla war. Something that would hurt the country economically and make peace almost impossible. It would have made winning the wars of the 20th century (WWI/WWII) much harder with a divided American torn by endless partisan wars.

[@capncrunch7259]

@@ianjones2068 Wrong. Lee could have done better if he listened to Longstreet or Johnson ~ he didn't. Also slavery was nearly dead in the world, the biggest slave society was the Confederacy. Brazil was the only other nation in the western hemisphere to have slavery and that ended in 1888. The Slave Power wanted to EXPAND Slavery and the " black Republicans" wanted to keep it from expanding. This is why the Confederacy was put together and then they started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter.

[@capncrunch7259]

@@ianjones2068 Lee deserves NO PRAISE. None. Lee is a turn coat and shows signs of NPD. Lee fought to preserve and expand Slavery. I curse him and shat upon his memory.

[@capncrunch7259]

@@ianjones2068 Your so called Lesson is also wrong ! It was possible to believe in Liberty in the 19th Century ~ and many did. John Brown for example.

[@crimony3054]

@@ianjones2068 "guerilla," from the French word for war, guerre, not gorilla. Lee accepted the outcome and urged everyone to obey the civil authorities. It's no wonder liberals hate him.

[@indy_go_blue6048]

In 1860 the entire United States, with rare exception, was deeply racist. Several states had passed laws that literally said "Negros are not allowed to live here." The northern states were 98.2% white, according to the 1860 census. Many, like those who supported "free soil" politicians didn't want slavery to spread into the territories not because they opposed slavery, but because they didn't want blacks in the territories PERIOD. Those posters condemning southerners who fought for slavery, it's quite possible that your great-great-great-great ancestors were just as racist as they were; they just didn't want blacks around PERIOD.

[@amylucas8709]

indy_go_blue60 Wrong.... www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abolition-slavery-north

[@capncrunch7259]

Slavery took the honor out of work and cheapened it for everyone who made a living by the sweat of their brow! Conservative states love cheap labor for the same reasons the Slave Power loved Slavery ~ and both will say and do anything to preserve it.

[@Raycloud]

Look at how well emancipation has worked out? Just take a visit to Oakland, Detroit, or Baltimore. Face the truth; Lee and his fellow Confederates were right. Jefferson was an idealist with good intentions, but he was also wrong.

[@garyguyton7373]

@@amylucas8709 Take a good look at that article and you find as much support for indy_'s position as you do against it.

[@garyguyton7373]

@@capncrunch7259 Honor is only taken out of work by those who believe it's dishonorable in the first place. For most people, it's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of survival. To this day. God, you are rabid.

[@general-cromwell6639]

When I was young and thought about a romanticized version of history, and putting aside the deeper issues behind wars and/or battles...R.E.Lee was one of my heroes, along with Napoleon, Alexander and Caesar. I ate up military history like free cotton candy, not giving much thought to it all...the maps, the heroism, the glory, the majesty of it all...was so overwhelming, that at the time, while I knew it was wrong....I still thought...there is some goodness in his fight, but, only in the abstract of does being a good general in your capacity as a general equal or forego the cause you are fighting for? Now that I am an adult, with a full capacity for logic and reasoning thought....Lee was by definition a traitor and had treasonous intent, regardless of his beliefs about slavery or state rights. In fact, having read alot of his correspondence up those moments, his views centered mainly upon his family connections to Virginia, which overrode his (in his mind) ability to wage war against his state and family. In any case, as in all wars, everyone is right in their own minds' eyes. Cheers.

[@Nitroaereus]

Yep, true enough. And the same goes for George Washington of course, though American history usually completely airbrushes his treason as well.

[@tinmanx2222]

@@Nitroaereus Good point.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@Nitroaereus Washington was President for the same reason Mao was Chairman: tallest guy in the room. The American Revolution was won not by military victory but by the sympathy of the English Whig majority.

[@Nitroaereus]

@Shahid Khan ​ Washington was a traitor against the country of his birth, Great Britain, just as Lee was a traitor against the country of his birth, the United States. Yes, Washington was not seen as a traitor to the United States, but Lee was not seen as a traitor to the Confederate States. In neither case does it change the fact of treason. Washington's case is exactly equivalent to Lee's, but has been subjected to a great deal more whitewashing.

[@Nitroaereus]

​@Shahid Khan Again, these are just excuses for Washington. Washington was a subject of the King of Great Britain just as any person who lived in Great Britain. In fact, Americans had no less representation in the British government than most people who lived in Britain itself! Not to mention, before the war of American treason, the average standard of living in British America was literally twice that of Britain proper. George Washington had served as a military officer under the British army in the French and Indian War, just as Lee had served as a US military officer. Washington betrayed his oath to Great Britain just as Lee did to the United States. Every difference you point to is a matter of semantics: distinctions without differences. The only tangible difference between the two men is that the capital of the country Lee betrayed was 30 miles away, while the capital of the country Washington betrayed was 3,000 miles away.

[@tedosmond413]

The more this guy talks the more you realize what a truly horrible despicable man Lee really was.

[@savanahmclary4465]

Robert E. Lee spent 32 years in the USA Military. Lee wasn't only a General, Lee was an engineer. That engineered .any of the USA small water ways to flow to the larger rivers, to accomadate USA Commerce Ships. And Robert E. Lee and his team of engineers made and designed many of the USA PORTS. Exp. The Missouri River to the,Mississippi River. The port at St. Louis. Down the,Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico and the New Orleans Marjet Warehouse District. Robert E Lee and his team of engineers Attached CV the Great Lakes together, until one Great Lake could flow to the next Great Lake to the St. Lawrence sea way. And Robert E.Lee spent 3 years in Michigan: Never going home to Virginia. "Who was beatting his slaves then?" Lee built, or engineered the ports at Fort Lee, ALl of Virginia, Norfolk, North Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Florida, Mobile Bay Alabama...There is NOT a day goes by, that the Commerce ships do not USE what Robert E.Lee Engineered... And this is the Respects and thanks he gets.

[@JRobbySh]

You are talking like most northerners in the 1860s did not. They admired Lee much as Americans during War II admired Rommel. If that bomb had killed Hitler, the Allies might well have modified it policy of unconditional surrender if a government headed by a generals including the likes of Rommel has sued for an armistice. Maybe FDR would not have accepted that, but there was still a lot of discomfort among them that hated the idea of fighting with the USSR. Remember that In july of 1944 we still have not broken out of Normandy.

[@michaelwoods4495]

I do not know how anyone could adhere to the Confederacy. It's partly the question of slavery and partly the behavior of the Confederates. There was no Andersonville and there was no Fort Pillow by the Northern side; only the South did those kinds of things. The South had Quantrell and Champ Ferguson; the North had nothing of the kind.

[@indy_go_blue6048]

Apparently you've never heard of Camp Douglas in Chicago, Camp Elmira in New York, or of Jim Lane and the Redlegs in Kansas. There were plenty of bloody hands on both sides.

[@capncrunch7259]

North had their own Andersonville. Georgia was worse but both had them because of over crowding and the Confederacy's treatment of Black Troops. ( Quantrill, BTW was a Northerner who fought for the Confederacy ~ as a pirate )

[@JRobbySh]

The South had no Sherman either. When Lee went into Pennsylvania he was besides spoiling for a fight foraging for supplies that were increasingly lacking in Virginia,. He could have gone at it the way that Sherman did, which was the break the morale of the people of Pennsylvania and by extension, the north.