Unfavorable Treatment of Robert E. Lee Among

¶ … Unfavorable Treatment of Robert E. Lee

Among the most important goals of any historian, or history writer, ought to be to present information about events and individuals without any slant or bias. How do historians accomplish this feat? By sticking to their sources, and developing their argument without trying to steer those sources toward their own personal viewpoints. Whether or not authors and historians have done as much for Robert E. Lee, who served as a Confederate General in the United States Civil War is under consideration in this discussion. Two prominent works, Ordeal by Fire by James M. McPherson and Lee Considered by Alan T. Nolan will serve as the basis for determining whether or not Lee was treated fairly in the history books. By the definition of fairness being an unbiased presentation of sources, Nolan did not seem to be as just in his delivery of Lee, painting him as inconsistent with less regard to temporal context than would be expected of a fair portrayal.

Of course, both of these books deal with Lee in a number of circumstances, during the duration of the Civil War and the events leading up to -- and following -- those four years of battle. For purposes of comparison, these texts will be examined herein on the basis of each author's presentation of Lee's stance on slavery and emancipation. Nolan brings up the subject of Lee's views on the Southern institution of slavery early in his book -- in the second chapter. This is noteworthy because the events he discusses do not actually occur until the war is almost over. While Nolan's book is not organized chronologically, it can easily be surmised that he means his view of Lee's stance to carry through as one of the main points of Lee Considered.

Regarding Lee's view of slavery and emancipation, Nolan writes:

...with the war over and lost, Lee told representatives of the United States

Congress that he had "always been in favor of emancipation -- gradual emancipation" (emphasis added). But […] while still at war, he had described slavery as "the best" relationship between the races and had said that emancipation involved "evil consequences" to both races (Nolan, 1991, 23).

In this quote, he makes no secret of his emphasizing the word "always." What Nolan fails to point out is the difference in context for both of Lee's statements. It may be that, when speaking to the United States Congress, Lee felt comfortable voicing the truth of his convictions, while the letter in which he referred to slavery as "the best" sort of arrangement was written to another member of the confederacy. While Nolan does not hide this information, his combination of these two sources to prove an inconsistency, without at-length discussion of the origin of both sources and their intended audiences, imbeds within the readers mind the notion that Lee was, himself inconsistent. While that may have been the case, these sources, juxtaposed so carelessly, merely serve enough for suggestion.

On the same subject, McPherson delivers a much more straightforward and unbiased presentation. In his text, The Civil War, McPherson writes:

Never a strong proponent of slavery, Lee believed that if emancipated, the slaves would fight for 'their country' more readily than for the Yankees. "We must decide whether to use them ourselves," wrote Lee. "I think we could at least do as well with them as the enemy, and he attaches great importance to their assistance" (1982, 478).

McPherson cited works by James D. McCabe, Jr. And Emory Thomas. While his presentation is clearly unbiased, as he simply stated what Lee said without pulling into the discussion sources and quotes that draw sharp contrast without due explanation for said discrepancy in Lee's views, he may have done better to cite the actual documents in which Lee expressed his opinions.