"Those Heroes of More Than a Hundred Battles Wept Like Children"

General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, has long been celebrated for his chivalry. A particular trait-the ability to publicly take responsibility for failure-endeared him to soldiers and citizens of the Confederate nation. One of Lee's subordinates, 1st Lt. Randolph Harrison McKim (1840-1920), paid tribute to Lee at Appomattox in his 1910 memoirs, "A Soldier's Recollections: Leaves from the Diary of a Young Confederate."
"Life on the Civil War Research Trail" is hosted by Ronald S. Coddington, Editor and Publisher of Military Images magazine. Learn more about our mission to showcase, interpret and preserve Civil War portrait photography at militaryimagesmagazine.com and shopmilitaryimages.com.
This episode is brought to you in part by Union Drummer Boy, Guaranteed original Civil War artifacts, located in the heart of downtown Gettysburg. A museum with price tags. Visit uniondb.com for more.
Image: National Portrait Gallery.
This channel is a member of the KZbin Partner Program. Your interest, support, and engagement is key, and I'm grateful for it. Thank you!

[@hesavedawretchlikeme6902]

People today who do not study these men such as Robert E. Lee, have no idea of what character, duty, and honor he exudes. Most of his life was spent as a soldier engineer prior to 1861 for the Federal army. Abraham Lincoln asked him to lead the army of the Potomac, but Lee declined and saying would not turn against his native Virginia. I have more respect and regard for Robert E. Lee.

[@Paulftate]

Arlington Cemetery is on Stolen ground which once belonged to Robert E Lee

[@michaelpatterson2955]

Thank you for this touching tribute to the great general. For many Southerners -- and even some Northerners -- he was one of the greatest Americans of all, triumphant in victory, a model in defeat. An imperfect man, as we all are, he nevertheless remains a superb role model and must be remembered if we are not to lose a portion of our national heritage.

[@CuyanaTGen]

*_ "For some he was one of the greatest Americans of all." NONSENSE._* Yes, he was a "great" soldier, but, he was certainly not a great American. He took a SOLEMN OATH to the USA Constitution, but, he VIOLATED that oath. [He gave his word and HE BROKE HIS WORD.] Such a person is a LIAR of the HIGHEST ORDER. Additionally --- even worse --- he broke his oath ... so that he could then serve a belligerent country, founded on the proposition that blacks could be treated as CHATTEL SLAVES. [Even today, sadly, many Americans are doing things disgustingly similar.]

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

And today, they pull down his statue everywhere and the statues were erected during the Period of Reconciliation when society as a whole was more chivalric, gracious, and determined to remember their shared history.

[@emmgeevideo]

Complete baloney. The statues were erected during a revival called "The Lost Cause". It was in part a way of letting African-Americans in the South know that the sons of the Confederacy to resurrect the dream of being independent and treating African-Americans as sub-human. This was a time when lynching increased and Blacks were subjugated even more. "Reconciliation" was the farthest thing from these Southerner's minds. "Shared history?" The Civil War was indeed shared. It should have been set aside and regretted, not celebrated.

[@owensomers8572]

How many lynchings occurred during your pacific "Period of Reconciliation?"

[@flatcat6676]

Indeed. It is sad. What's more, I've found that many younger people refuse to even read deeply into the histories and writings of the people who lived during those times, preferring instead to turn them into cartoon villains or heroes that must either be worshiped or erased - hence the growth of our own home grown Taliban that works tirelessly to "purify" our society. Once they're done with the statues, they'll start coming for living, breathing men and women who dare hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of the new Faith...

[@Th3BigBoy]

​@@owensomers8572Wow, you sure are a crybaby.

[@owensomers8572]

@@Th3BigBoy Aren't you original!

[@frankofva8803]

It can be argued, given that the question of secession had not been settled prior to the war, whether Lee committed treason since his state of Virginia had left the Union and he had resigned his commission in the United States Army. Put that aside. Lee’s greatest achievement, in my opinion, was his refusal to disperse his army and conduct a guerrilla-type campaign that would have further torn apart the country. Such an action would have cost countless lives and prolonged the conflict, possibly for decades. Under pressure from many of his officers as well as President Jefferson Davis, Lee did the manly thing and surrendered. Grant also proved his greatness in the generous terms he provided that did much to reconcile the nation. I truly enjoy this channel and your awesome magazine.

[@emmgeevideo]

Lee's objective and the objective of the Confederate States generally was to become an independent nation. A war was fought to achieve that objective by the Confederate States and it was fought by the United States to preserve the Union. When it became obvious to the leadership of Confederate armies (remember, Lee was in charge of just one of those armies, not all Confederate armies) that they couldn't win the war, they surrendered. It wasn't "manly". They knew months earlier that the war was lost and if they were sensible (maybe even "manly") they would have surrendered even sooner. Had they surrendered earlier, they would have saved many lives and prevented the destruction of property and infrastructure. Instead Lee himself squandered the lives of the men he seems to have loved for nothing. When he finally did decide to throw in the towel, it was obvious even to him that there was no way he could win. What would he have gained by condoning a guerrilla war? The aim of the war wasn't to kill Yankees. It was to win independence for a group of states that declared independence. Yes, guerrilla fighters would have killed people but they would never thereby achieve independence. I personally think he finally decided enough was enough. He didn't want to see more of his men die. And oh by the way, desertions were rampant by this time. The vast majority of men who had been willing to die earlier when it was reasonable to think they could become independent by force of arms decided they wanted to live. As for Grant and your beginning statement about "treason", he was fighting to preserve the Union. When his opponent surrendered, he knew that the objective was won. Yes, he was generous in his terms but why not? My guess is he knew that to fully achieve "preserve the Union" he needed to do something to help ease the former rebels back into the Union. I think it's easy to romanticize war and talk about valiantry and honor and manliness. These were professional soldiers, no more no less. Lee did the smart thing, not the "manly" thing. Likewise Grant did the smart thing.

[@brianhannan8030]

Two great comments 👏 Thanks Y'all 👍

[@nonamesplease6288]

Given the bloody, horrific, and yes, ungentlemanly and uncivilized history of the guerilla conflicts that occurred within the Civil War, it's really hard to imagine a man like Lee engaging in such a conflict. I imagine that there wouldn't have ever been a situation, even at an earlier stage of the War, that Lee would have preferred to send his men out to be bushwackers over gentlemanly surrender.

[@emmgeevideo]

@@nonamesplease6288 This "gentleman" thing is poppycock. Let's consider another armed rebellion where a group of states believed that it was a separate nation and was willing to fight a greater power to achieve independence. George Washington was a "gentleman" by any definition. Yet he led one of the most successful guerrilla wars in history. Yes, there were periods of combat where American troops would line up on the battlefield and shoot musket volleys at the opposing British (and mercenary) troops. But there were long periods where American guerrilla fighters would engage the British by day and disappear into the night as ostensible normal citizens. To repeat my earlier comment, the American Revolution was fought with the objective to make the British go away and to achieve independence. The Confederate States had the same aim. I doubt that anyone in the South thought that the Southern states had the economic and industrial means to defeat the Northern states. They wanted to win a war of public opinion as much as a military war. If the public opinion in the North turned against the loss of life and even felt some sympathy for the South's desire to be independent, then the South would win its independence. If guerrilla tactics would have helped in the course of the war, I have no doubt that the "gentlemen" commanding the troops would have been willing to turn the guerrillas against the Yankees. They battled in service of independence for the Confederate States of America. They didn't fight as "gentlemen". And oh by the way, when you look at the carnage of the war on both sides, please explain what is gentlemanly about it. By the 1860s war had become a matter of industrial killing, with artillery and long-range rifles that killed at a distance. It involved sieges and blockades that starved civilians. It involved long supply lines that were often sparse and required pillaging the countryside. "Gentlemen" indeed.

[@nonamesplease6288]

@@emmgeevideo I'm not talking about other generals. I'm talking about Robert E. Lee. General Lee was a specific personality and I would still find it hard to imagine him, as opposed to other generals, fighting or condoning a nasty guerilla war. I agree to disagree on this point. As for the Revolutionary War, I think you have things backwards. The Americans, especially Washington, primarily used classical military tactics to fight the war. Irregular combat by guerilla forces were never a feature commanded by or condoned by the leadership of the Army. Irregular combat is a feature of any civil war, and make no mistake, our revolution was a bloody civil war, with local forces raiding and bushwacking and sometimes organizing for a stand up battle. The Battle of Kings Mountain is an example of this. But the war's primary battles, (Saratoga, New York, Trenton, Yorktown, etc...) which actually affected the outcome of the war, were fought by an American army that was a regular army at its core, traditionally armed and equipped, trained in conventional battlefield tactics, and led by officers trained in regular warfare. Both armies had light and rifle units adapted to the conditions in America, but these were a feature of both regular opponents. Essentially, the small, local guerilla conflicts that occurred were very much like those in the Civil War - a sideshow between neighbors that caused needless suffering and property damage but had very little impact on the final outcome of the war.

[@jefferyhorton7496]

Something that would be interesting for you to do a program on. Would be “Apostle Lee’s” involvement in the formation of The Baptist Belt in the South. After the Civil War he did travel with Evangelist Jones. Reorganizing Baptist churches the North had closed. And planting new ones. Not many history books address this.

[@davidrasch3082]

Lee lived in an era when a man's oath is his bond oftentimes superceding the law.

[@Quinncannon]

This was a time before all people thought of themselves as "Americans", people from each of the states thought of themselves as Virginians, Tennesseans, South Carolinians, Georgians, etc. When their states seceded, of course most able bodied men enlisted or were commissioned into the Confederate States Army, to defend their states against an invading Army. General Lee was not going to use his sword against his native Virginia. He honorably resigned his commission from the US Army, before taking a commission in the CSA. I am a descendant of Confederate soldiers, even at least one veteran of the Revolution.

[@robrussell5329]

Except that they seceded before there was any Northern invasion. They seceded because Lincoln was elected (he was against adding new states as slave states.)

[@bjohnson515]

The sport of the 21st century academic is to berate Lee. How things have changed when both sides recognized Lee as someone who was trapped by the allegiances, erected statues to him, named institutions after him. In 1958 a US Navy submarine was named after Lee. President Eisenhower unabashedly kept a portrait of Lee on his office wall. History has been twisted from the favorable recollections of Lee, by those who lived in his era and reminisced for the years beyond his death, to the false prism of today's academics who seem bent on "inventing" their own version.

[@jaytravtulsa1]

Lee was a great commander from a purely military point of view. Morally, worse than zero. Montgomery kept a portrait of Rommel in his trailer during WW2, does that mean Monty supported the policies of the Third Reich?

[@bjohnson515]

@@jaytravtulsa1 When Monty was President of the United States did he have a submarine named after Rommel?

[@jaytravtulsa1]

@@bjohnson515 Eisenhower was a military man, same as Monty. Lee was a great general fighting for an immoral cause, same as the many brilliant Nazi officers. Are you suggesting that Ike supported Lee’s move to resign his commission and lead a rebellion against the USA?

[@MrRAGE-md5rj]

Shut your mouth, Yankee. Robert E. Lee was a deeply moral and Godly man. He encouraged his men to work peaceably towards preserving the country and it's unity, despite all that had been done to the South, both by federal agents and the Yankee generals, particularly by the hated General Sherman. If Lee was "morally worse than zero", then he would've sent his men all to die in one last, prideful battle. Instead, he CHOSE to surrender, much to the anger of Jefferson David and even other Confederates who would say "Lee didn't fight hard enough" and such. Even President Lincoln highly regarded General Robert E. Lee. Is Lincoln morally worse than zero, too?@@jaytravtulsa1

[@bjohnson515]

@@jaytravtulsa1 You dont believe Lee when he said he was fighting for Virginia against federal coercion and invasion? Lee never said he was fighting for the "immoral cause". Was it a rebellion? Was the South attempting to overthrow the federal govt? Or were those states wishing to depart the Union? Virginia ratified the Constitution with the proviso that if felt harmed by being in the Union, they could "resume powers" so delegated. The ratification was accepted by the Constitutional Convention. Virginia invoked that reserved right. Virginia was invaded.

[@happychildhood591]

Thank you Ron for another great presentation. I learn so much listening to what you have to say!

[@davide9658]

Thank you Ron for this excellent presentation on Gen. Robert E. Lee. He has been routinely and unjustly maligned in the current iconoclastic and historical revisionistic society we suffer with today. As a Virginian whose ancestors fought under his leadership, I grew up admiring his skills as a military leader as well as his grace, dignity and humanity in such difficult circumstances. He was, and is still considered an American hero to many like myself. It has been painful to see statues in his honor removed and his reputation assailed. As you point out, he played a critical role in bringing that war to a close and initiating the peace and reconciliation that followed. It would not have been possible without him.

[@johnschuh8616]

Only Lee had the moral authority to persuade the South to submit to Federal Authority. He would have been embarrassed by the number of heroic statues erected in his memory, but as one of millions of Southerns who wear his Christian name with pride. I despise the spirit in which they have been pulled down. It is a mean spirit such as moved the early Protestants who destroyed stained glass windows that honored men and women more holy than themselves.

[@owensomers8572]

@@johnschuh8616 You imply that the statues of Lee were erected to celebrate his "moral character", when in fact they were erected to glorify lost cause revisionism. If you despise "the spirit in which they have been pulled down", you are a lost cause revisionist.

[@johnschuh8616]

@@owensomers8572 YOU infer. There has been too much aligning the character of a good man and an outstanding commander. He did become the symbol of the Lost Cause, but just as the Lost Cause historians tore down the reputation of General Grant, causing the country to forget that when he died he was rightly the most famous American in the world, so you iconoclasts denigate a man who was justly considered just a generation ago, one of our great Americans.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

The slave was never compensated and instead abandoned by the abolitionist after emancipation. 40 million contiguous acres to the freed slave. That is the lost cause that matters. Who do you suppose was the one man that might have been able to make that happen? @@owensomers8572

[@owensomers8572]

@@johnschuh8616 And yet, in your initial comment, while lamenting how the sainted slave owner, who had so little moral integrity that he resigned his commission in the United States Army for perceived financial benefit for himself and his family, but later came to realize the folly of his choice, and asked to not be memorialized recognizing the vitriol it would breed, you go on to "despise" those who most closely followed his wishes. Yeah, lost cause revisionist.

[@KevinCave-rj8eq]

Hey Ron please describe this some more detail most people think men fighting in the civil war on slaves they did not most of them didn't even had hogs to feed your family in children you were conscripted at 14 years old!! If you didn't u were hanged do you honestly think that grew up in plantations??? You're a great historian keep it up 👍🍀🍀🍀

[@thehowlingmisogynist9871]

Am still mystified by Pickett's Charge - Lee saw what happened at Fredericksburg on Marye's Heights!!

[@jeffmilroy9345]

Milroy screwed him up at Winchester. Southern manpower attrition had taken its toll. Lincoln in despair at the pitiless defeat put in Meade just 3 days before the battle. Lee had no other option but to attack since Vicksburg was about to fall and the election would soon be at hand. It was win big or go home. The future of the south and the country really depended on him winning the Gettysburg battle to some degree and getting some terms everyone could accept to end hostilities. Instead, the heirs to slaves remain to this day uncompensated for all the wealth that had been created through slavery (and then destroyed through scorched earth war by zealous abolitionist hawks). I calculate the slaves were due at least 40,000,000 contiguous acres (a land mass about equal to the the area of Illinois). They expected it by Christmas 1865 - instead they received nothing - a big fat zero to this day.

[@williammitchell5058]

I think if General Lee had lived in the first century, he would have been one of the apostles. He and Jackson were two great Christian soldiers.

[@robrussell5329]

No doubt, since Jesus often preached about the wonders of slavery, and of war.

[@brianhannan8030]

Hell yeah Ron 😎 Thank God Lee made the right decision at Appomattox 😅 Thank you! Great story 😁

[@Paulftate]

semper fi 👋 ♥

[@Melrose51653]

Not willing to use his sword against his fellow Virginians,but willing to use it against his fellow countrymen puts it in a different perspective. Every school child knows some people felt more loyalty to their state than to the country as a whole but do you believe troops from NY, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine etc served based on state loyalty ?

[@tomjones2202]

I'm 66 and been a student of the civil war most of my life and I still cant come to grips with how I feel about RE Lee.. Patriot or traitor,,, good man or bad man.

[@danielkitchens4512]

His state secede so Lee resigned from the U.S military and joined his state before it even joined the confederate states , that is not a traitor. Now if Lee had done what Benedict Arnold had done yes he be a traitor.

[@danielcline7413]

My deciding factor was an interview I came across with a french aristocrat type person and although I'm proud to live in america Lee's words rang true and somewhat reconciled my horrible conceptions of the man after pickets charge .I'll try to condense it for you when asked about the reasons for his stand in the war lee replied it wasnt really about slavery or economics but about the fact now these are Lee's words that he believed that the union had played the role of tyrant both at home and abroad and his fear that his beloved state would suffer the repercussions of these acts into the future .I'm sure he was referring to the treatment of the natives and and alot of other small skirmishes both at home and abroad that in his opinion did not represent the quality's of the america he believed in most of these acts performed in a quite selfish way that were intended to help a chosen few and not really in the best interests of our then forming country .I do not wish to debate the topic of slave ownership by certain individuals just trying to give you a different view and thanks for yours!

[@robrussell5329]

Lee's entire persona was invested in the military. And, he liked a good fight. But in 1861 he picked the wrong side, and the wrong cause, and likely came to realized it very early on. Lee was a great military man but is to be pitied as a person.

[@SeanRCope]

Once you read the story of him whipping a female slave personally. Kinda takes the all the admiration away.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

Lee had no choice. His army was starving and the abolitionists had won with 2:1 manpower odds and all its industrial strength despite Yankee textile firms making fortunes in king cotton. And having won emancipation - they abandoned the freed slave in a hostile world without succor or reparations. And moreover, it can be argued every gain in national product from slavery had been squandered in scorched earth warfare without asking of the enslaved "is this ruined countryside what you wish for all your generations have labored for? They were never awarded any ownership on the plantations they served. As the song goes - "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose". If only Lee had been able to get terms for the gradual emancipation of slaves early in the war - slave reparations might have been provided in the form of vast tracts of newly acquired pioneer land. A hollow victory. After all the maimed and dead - no one was willing to forgive the opposing side.

[@Wentz789]

I blame the war on Lincoln. He could have left us alone.

[@MrRAGE-md5rj]

Fair, though I feel like James Buchanan deserves at least some of the blame, as well.

[@hesavedawretchlikeme6902]

True. That's why many southerners call it the war of northern aggression. As for the slavery issue---it was dying out. Mechanization would have taken over, the farms could not operate properly without a slower transition. The Rothschild money financed both sides in many ways. Russia helped the north, (how we made the later deal to gain Alaska). It was about money, power, control of a central government instead of states rights.

[@robrussell5329]

@@hesavedawretchlikeme6902 It was about Slavery. One by one, each state seceded due to Lincoln winning the election (Lincoln as against adding new states as slave states.) No invasion had occurred when Virginia seceded. That's why Lee could ride into Washington to be interviewed for the Union job.

[@user-rg9yz5ou4y]

Your Civil War Research Trail" runs through the Confederacy, not the Union.

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

Appreciate the feedback. If you take the time to review all 473 videos in the channel, you'll find the research trail runs far and wide across all the states and into other countries.

[@flintlockhomestead460]

By her own reasonbing the testimony of one witness is enough to prove their relationship began in 2019. There is no way the people of Georgia and America can have faith in the fairness and impartiallity of our justice system if Fani Willis and her office are retained on this case.