Talk:Robert E. Lee/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gettysburg

"Gettysburg" should be part of the section "Commander, Army of Northern Virginia". It was one of the battles Lee fought as commander of the ANV. It's too long, and contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, JEB Stuart's cavalry was not "slightly ill." It's also got NPV problems. To say that Longstreet was Lee's "best corps commander" and that an attack was conducted against his "sound judgment" is not NPV. LinusK (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Same question as above, what sources are you using to back your points? We don't use original research and instead defer to what reputable historians say. Like this:

"Of three corps commanders, only Longstreet gave Lee evidence of competence."

Thomas, Emory M. Robert E. Lee: a biography. WW Norton Co. 1995. p. 320.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether Longstreet was Lee's best general is one of those cocktail party discussions that could go on forever. The point is not that some historians think he was great, or that others think he was crap, the point is that it's an opinion - and a controversial one at that - that's been stated as if it was fact.

"Authors of the Lost Cause movement focused on Longstreet's actions at Gettysburg as a primary reason for the Confederacy's loss of the war. His reputation in the South was damaged for over a century and has only recently begun a slow reassessment." James Longstreet

"Military historians consider Jackson to be one of the most gifted tactical commanders in United States history." Stonewall Jackson

Whether Longstreet is Lee's best general is an controversy, not a fact. You could find infinite sources for either side of the controversy, but taking one side or the other is not npv. And stating it as a fact, when it's not, is inaccurate. LinusK (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that you meant to have "in article..." before the names above. As you have it now, you make them look like quotes they said (which they did not). When you want to balance an article with opposing points of view, you do it with sourced statements (attributed and cited). You say "infinite sources"...find one from a credible author or historian that labels one of the other corps commanders at Gettysburg as better than Longstreet then to prove your point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article:

"Some of his subordinates were new and inexperienced in their commands, J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry was out of the area, slightly ill, and thus Lee was less than comfortable with how events were unfolding."

slighty ill is referring to Lee. This sentence could be clarified.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Slightly ill" modifies "cavalry". The writer may have meant to say that Lee was ill, but that's not what he said.

As to Longstreet, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Again, my objection is that it's not NPOV; not that it's unsourced.

If you disagree, can you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusK (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that the sentence above could be improved so as to be clearer. I don't see anything violating NPOV based on what I see. Longstreet had sound judgment (real easy to see now in hindsight and kinda indisputable) and was the recognized corps commander to look to for counsel (probably why Lee did just that). With the loss of Jackson, who would have been considered the best until he fell, Lee turned to the next best thing. You must not think so.(?)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

abilities as a tactician have been praised

While Lee's abilities as a tactician have been praised, his tendency to throw troops head long into superior forces caused him problems on several occasions (Pickett's Charge being the best known example). This has caused Lee's abilities as a tactician be called into question. Jmcolsmith (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ari14850, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The third paragraph says Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse. This is a substantive error.

Courthouse as one word refers to the actual court house in a village or town. The surrender actually occurred at the McLean house (it was purposefully not done in the actual Court House so as to avoid giving it a legal imprimatur - formally recognizing the confederacy which the union never did.

The correct text should read "Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865". It is correctly spelled later in the article (general in cheif section, 2nd para)

Ari14850 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Antietam date

I would respectfully suggest changing the date listed for Antietam. According to "Landscape Turned Red" by Stephen W. Sears, the battle commenced at dawn, September 17, 1862, and was concluded by nightfall. It was fought on one day only.

Listing the dates for Antietam as 9/16/1862-9/18/1862 is of questionable accuracy, and though these dates frame the actual battle day, they omit stating it directly.

September 17, 1862 was the bloodiest day in American history. It was the day Antietam was fought. It should be stated.Gannfan (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.213.134.227, 23 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello. You have Fitzhugh Lee listed as Robert E. Lee's son. W.H. Fitzhugh (aka Rooney) Lee was his Nephew. Fitzhugh's Father was Sidney Smith Lee, Robert's brother. Please fix this error. This is in Fitzhugh's book about his uncle. Best Regards, Matt

98.213.134.227 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Fitzhugh Lee was the newphew. William Henry Fitzhugh Lee was the son. -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

small issue

Is there a reason that the name "Second Battle of Bull Run" is used in favor of the name "Second Battle of Manassas"? Should the Confederate name be used on a page with predominantly Confederate content?

Wrong link and quick fix

The link for Ravensworth should link to Ravensworth (plantation) instead of the UK site. Also the great great grandfather of Robert E. was Richard Lee II, not Henry Lee I.

Some Questions

I question whether this article is objective, even in the slightest, in regard to Lee's expressed behavior on slavery. I want to know why the story of his failure to honor his father-in-law's wishes, regarding the freeing of the Custis's 70 or so slaves upon his death, is not mentioned. Why did Lee chose not to honor his wishes? Also, why is not the documented story of his performance in regards to his run-away-slaves in in the article? Did I miss it? Where is the story of his paying for their recapture...than then their subsequent whipping upon the return? Lee himself was present, and required the man to be whipped with 50 lashes, and the woman with 20. After his own overseer refused Lee insisted that the lashes be "laid on hard"...he then found someone else to carry out his intentions. He then sold both of them as slaves in Alabama. They escaped to tell their tale and have it written down for posterity. Question: Why is this not covered?

Why is the issue of slavery, CENTRAL to the "old south"...not treated at all? Why is WIKI..semi locked...treating this guy like a southern saint? Underlying this article is the biased idea that the Civil War was about states rights. Central to the whole war was the slavery, of one human being lording it over another. Lee strongly approved. Why is this treated with kid gloves? Why is his seething hatred of abolitionists, such large part of his motivation to fight for the south...why is this not even mentioned?

Why is nothing of the north's view that this man was a traitor to his country...after that country educated him in the arts of war? Why is nothing made of his use of his military skills in THE most ignoble cause in American history? Why is there nothing about how northerners felt about the deaths of 600,000 men on both sides...sacrificed so he could make his point about preserving old Virginia's slave society? Why is there nothing about how so many northerners felt Lee was to blame for the lengthening of the conflict...and how they felt so disdainful towards him, that their turned his home in Arlington into a union cemetery...the national cemetery of the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.180.179 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue of Robert E. Lee and slavery has been addressed in Lee's views on slavery. The whipping incident has been mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is suppose to be objective in all articles. Lee was never put on trial for treason or rebellion, although President Andrew Johnson wanted him to be. Ulysses S. Grant stuck up for Lee not to go to trial. Lee, as far as I know, was not an instrumental factor in the South dissolving the Union, only afterwards as a general during the American Civil War. Part of military conflict is that people get killed. The responsibility for 600,000 casualities can not soley be put upon Robert E. Lee. When Lee invaded the North he was careful not to kill civilians. There is a valid question on Lee's responsibility with treatment of Prisoners of War, both white and black Union soldiers. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In the American Civil War article, wikipedia does mention that the main cause for the Civil War was was slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's put into George Washington's article that he was a traitor to Great Britain, shall we? The only difference between the two men is that Washington won and Lee didn't. The only reason for that is that Lee didn't have French help, and the victors get to write the history. Lee was not a traitor; it is well documented that his first loyalty was to Virginia. A lot of people in Lee's time put state loyalty ahead of that to the U.S.; this was not unusual for that era or even disapproved of. As far as Arlington goes, you should know that Lee's son successfully sued the government for stealing his family's property, and the only reason the cemetery remains there is that Custis Lee negotiated its sale to the U.S. rather than force them to move the graves. Jsc1973 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Seperate article on Lee and the American Civil War

This is just a suggestion. I believe a seperate article on Robert E. Lee and the American Civil War would be good. That way more in depth coverage can be done on the actual battles. A Lee article would compliment the Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea I just dont have the skills to make a new article
-The lost library (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Distortion of the 1864 campaign

Grant was not fighting a war of attrition against Lee. The intent was that the Shenandoah Valley and Bermuda Hundred campaigns were cores of offensives that would lead to Lee having to go after one or the other, meaning he'd have no choice but to confront Grant in the kind of campaign (rapid, hard-hitting maneuver) that Grant was best at. As it was, in eight weeks Grant rendered Lee's army irrelevant in the strategic sense and outfought it in the tactical sense. Too, disproporionate space is given to the Seven Days'-Chancellorsville and Gettysburg fighting at the expense of the defeat of Lee's army.

A little less than a year over three campaigns should not be given less space than the Battle of Gettysburg. Which, after all, was one battle and another instance where a Yankee outgeneraled Lee. I suppose this is the usual unwillingness to admit the South lost the war because it faced better generals, but really, people, we need to give attention to the fact that Lee lost and credit the Army of Northern Virginia with splendid defensive fighting. Too, the Siege of Petersburg was the longest individual battle of the Civil War and thus from sheer duration alone would to me owe a lot larger space in a Lee article than Gettysburg over three days does.

Battrarules (talk) 8:56 20 April 2011 UCT —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

A seige is a long drawn out process where one army has to give up do to lack of supplies. Wikipedia can not say who the better General was. If a source does, then that is alright. This article does state that Lee surrendered to Grant, and that in effect, states that Grant was the victor over Lee. However, Grant was in charge of all the Union Army. His role in the Army of the Potomac was to push forward. He did this successfully with high casualties. The overall strategy designed by Grant, President Lincoln, and Scott was what really won the war for the North. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Grant certainly WAS fighting a war of attrition against the South in the summer of 1964, and he fought the War with that strategy until the last day of the War. Every general before Grant had been relieved of command for failing to succeed militarily, and each of these former commanders had tried to out-general Lee. Grant simply took the approach to attack Lee with overwhelming numbers of men and materiel anytime he faced him, regardless of conditions on the field. With each failed attack, Grant would simply order another failed attack, and except for the support he had from the President he would have been relieved himself because of the slaughter he was causing to his own army.

At Cold Harbor Grant ordered a series of senseless charges which resulted in 7,000 U.S. casualties within 20-minutes, against Lee who suffered negligible losses. Grant was warned by his own staff that he would "use up" his army in that summer alone when Union casualties became greater than the sum of previous war years combined.

Grant did not make the same mistake as his predecessors by trying to defeat Lee tactically. Grant simply took the view that the North had more bodies than the South had bullets to shoot them down with. He applied that view because he knew how to defeat Robert E. Lee. And, he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnpd (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seven Days Battles - added key developments

The reaction to the collapse of the Peninsula Campaign provided Lincoln with the political ammunition to proceed with emancipation. This is one of the great ironies of the war, and for Robert E. Lee. His offensive strategy success, according to McPherson, precipitated the initiation of the "hard war" policies, which targeted the property of southern Americans.Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of the Seven Days is listed as "inconclusive." There was nothing inclusive in the outcome of that battle. The South achieved a complete tactical and strategic victory in forcing McClellan to abandon his Peninsular Campaign and leave Virginia entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnpd (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Section: Commander, Army of Northern Virginia

I've done a makeover on this section, but left most of the original material intact; it was mostly a matter of rearranging it.

I opened the section with existing Lee biography, then moved the history of the battles after this; it makes more sense this way - take a look.

Added(in italics) : After the Seven Days Battles until the end of the war his men called him simply "Marse Robert", a term of respect and affection.

Added: ...but his aggressive actions unnerved McClellan, who retreated to a point on the James River, all but abandoning the Peninsula Campaign.

Added: ...the war would go on for almost another 3 years and claim a half million more lives, and end with liberation of four million slaves and the devastation of the Southern slave-based society.

Added: ...McClellan's men recovered a lost order, that revealed Lee's plans. McClellan always exaggerated Lee's numerical strength...

Added: Lee urgently recalled Stonewall Jackson, concentrating his forces west of Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg, Maryland. In the bloodiest day of the war, with both sides suffering enormous losses, Lee withstood the Union assaults.

Added: It was a victory over a larger force, but it also came with high casualties; it was particularly costly in one respect: Lee’s finest corps commander, Stonewall Jackson, was accidentally fired upon by his own troops. Weakened by his wounds, he succumbed to pneumonia. 36hourblock (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.58.63.85, 21 May 2011

To the list of high schools named after Gen. Lee, Please add: Robert E. Lee High School, Midland, Texas

99.58.63.85 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Already listed at Robert E. Lee High School. According to the page comments, it doesn't belong here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "In the spring of 1864" paragraph in the intro this part "the Confederacy was unable to replace his losses or even provide adequate rations to the soldiers that did not desert." I think the "replace his" should be changed to "replace their", or else the Confederacy should be changed to Lee. Claycrete (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add the following fact to the "After the War" section:

In 1866, Mercer University awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws to Confederate General Robert E. Lee, the only college or university to grant him an honorary degree.[4][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.235.57 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

4.^ a b c d e f g h i j k Bryant, J. C. (September 15, 2008). "Mercer University". The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Georgia Humanities Council and the University of Georgia Press. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1448. Retrieved March 24, 2010.

8.^ Tyler, Lyon Gardiner, ed (1915). "Under the Confederacy". Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography. Volume 3. Lewis Historical Publishing Company. p. 69. http://books.google.com/books?id=Dvdov5YWXUkC&pg=PA69.

Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.235.57 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

April 17, 1861 was the day Lincoln asked Lee to lead Union forces & day that State of Virginia seceeded

The article should be edited to be more accurate. April 17, 1861 was the day that Lincoln asked Lee to command the Union forces and it was also the day that the State of Virginia seceeded from the United States. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit chronological order of Lee's victories

The following statement from the article...

They were made evident in his many victories such as the Battle of Fredericksburg (1862), Battle of Chancellorsville (1863), Battle of the Wilderness (1864), Battle of Cold Harbor (1864), Seven Days Battles, and the Second Battle of Bull Run.

should be changed so as to correctly reflect the chronological order of these battles...

They were made evident in his many victories such as the Seven Days Battles (1862), Second Battle of Bull Run (1862), Battle of Fredericksburg (1862), Battle of Chancellorsville (1863), Battle of the Wilderness (1864), and the Battle of Cold Harbor (1864). - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraphs are too long. Please. Five or six lines, max, especially as how wide are the Wikipiedia lines.

And truly, Robert Lee had only a single good calendar year, from the end of the Seven Days Battle (in which he did not distinguish himself) to Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg (what was he thinking).

Yes, he had the visage of a Greek god, and, perhaps (I wasn't there), the personality of somebody who was simultaneously a Greek god and a regular guy, but he was not that great a general.

Spartacus was better. Thomas Jackson was better. Even MacArthur was better.

So please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.77 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the messages at the top of this page. Everyone has opinions, but a talkpage is not a forum for everyone to chip in with their own opinions; it's a waste of space and reading time because there is absolutely nothing we can do with your subjective opinion to improve the article. If you find an opinion in a published source, we can look at the appropriateness of quoting it. Your only comment touching on improving the article, about the width of the screen, is actually a setting on your personal computer, not everyone has the same width setting. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames: The "Marble Man" or "Model?"

Hi. I was recently listening to The Teaching Company's 'Robert E. Lee and his High Command' series by Dr. Gary W. Gallagher from the University of Virginia. Great series. Anyway, he referred to General Lee's nickname not as the "Marble Man" as is written in the information box on this page, but rather the 'Marble Model.' He also suggested that this nickname might not have been entirely free from ironic meaning. Anyone here know anything about that or if "Man/Model" or both is/are the historically correct nickname? I'm familiar with a biography on Lee called "The Marble Man" but Mr. Gallagher sure seems to know his Civil War... Thanks118.7.207.60 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture - Marriage and family - Not Robert E. Lee

The picture posted under "Marriage and family" appears to be of a young female and her mother, not the Young Robert E. Lee. The Supposedly male child has long curly hair, and what appears to be a dress. This does not match the picture description as "Mary Anna Custis Lee and her son, Robert E. Lee, Jr., c.1845". I could be mistaken with local customs of that time, and the blurry and decayed state of the picture.
File:Mary_Custis_Lee_and_Robert_E._Lee_Jr_1845.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdesmet (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the photo; the source of the photo is wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Supposedly male child has long curly hair, and what appears to be a dress..." This doesn't make sense at all. It was fairly common in the Western world to dress small children with dresses. Or else, was Afonso, the heir to Emperor Pedro II of Brazil a girl (see here and here)? --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't RE Lee Jr. and that was not common to dress the males like girls in the Southern US. See my comments below that the photo comes from a wiki and not a publication. I think we would need an additional source which could be considered reliable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So Emperor Pedro II's grandsons Pedro Augusto (Peter August; see here with his parents) or José Fernando (Joseph Ferdinand; see here, at the middle, between his brothers) were what? Girls? --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are different cultures and not exemplary of Southern US culture at that time. I would suggest that you try to locate another source (preferably from books not websites that may have republished a bad photo). I have written Encyclopedia Virginia for an explanation. I also note what is written at the bottom of their page under the photo.."Image courtesy Virginia Historical Society. Additional publication or distribution of this image without the explicit written consent of Virginia Historical Society is prohibited." ..which seems to indicate that they have copyright on a previously unpublished photo and we are in breech of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's quite clear that you have no knowledge of 19th century fashion (See here, here and here why). About the copyright violation, see Commons policy (See here and here). There are countless pictures taken from museums and that's not a problem. If you don't like the picture because for some reason you don't like the idea of a small boy in dress then say it and remove the photo. But please don't try to find 1,000 different reasons which none makes sense. --Lecen (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the photo for another of Lee and one of his sons. Now I see why this article is a mess and won't ever become a FA. There are no editors with enough knowledge of the subject in question. I'm out of here. --Lecen (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Robert Lee's wife photo

I'd like to know why the photo of General Robert Lee's wife was removed. Why the source given to the photo isn't reliable? --Lecen (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It says "Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee, artist, author, and wife of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, poses for a daguerreotype portrait with her son, Robert E. Lee Jr.". The source given is Encyclopedia Virgina which took the photo from the Virginia Historical Society. If they aren't reliable, what else is? --Lecen (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at the thread above. That isn't RE Lee Jr. in that picture (can't you tell that is a girl?) and the Encyclopedia Virginia is nothing more than a wiki itself. They certainly got this one wrong. We need to leave it out while we discuss because it is clearly wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) The Encyclopedia Virginia is a publication of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. How is that an anonymous, unverifiable, all-comers-equal collaborative webpage with no existence off the internet? See the WP article.

(2) In the 19th Century, boys and girls were dressed in dresses for toilet training. Mothers let boys hair grow until about age five, cut it then and not before, and kept a lock as a keepsake. The boys then dressed as men. There was no "childhood" until invented in the late Victorian era among the upper and middle class. Even then, after age five, working class boys dressed as their fathers and went to work at child labor.

They certainly got this one right. Restore the photo until a preponderance of reliable sources can document that it is either misidentified or that it is a fake. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, the photo is not Robert E. Lee, as the original poster thought; it's his son, Robert E. Lee, Jr. (I made the same mistake, initially!)

Secondly, it's sourced to the Virginia Historical Society who have it on display in their museum. I would assume the VHS would know what they're doing in this area. (I think it was fairly common to dress little boys like little girls in those days; and when I zoom in on the child's face, I can see a certain "masculinity" there.)

Thirdly, assuming the VHS know what they're about, the only issue is copyright, which I know nothing about. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen for the response. I acquiesce to the source of the photo as being a reliable source. I couldn't verify authorship (missed it) and thought it to be a wiki. It was when I was looking for more on the photo that I noticed their disclaimer which seems to indicate that it might be under copyright. Contrary to what Lecen may think, I was not trying to think up reasons to delete it but rather found a concerning issue about copyright while searching for attribution. I first thought the photo was inaccurate and removed it and although I'm topically familiar that some may have dressed boys as girls, I still can't convince myself that they haven't misidentified the child in the photo especially since Lee had several daughters...but that is irrelevant as I don't need to be personally satisfied for its inclusion on Wikipedia. That leaves my only standing concern that it might be a copyright issue.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

After receiving assurance from someone that I feel to be one of our resident experts on copyright issues, I have no further objection to using the photo.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting an expert opinion on the copyright issue, Berean Hunter. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lee's Civil War battle summaries

The statistics for the Battle of Cheat Mountain are inconsistent with the statistics presented in the main article of the Battle of Cheat Mountain. The most blatant inconsistency is the strength of the CSA (15000 vs. 5000). Should this be corrected? Altay8 (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"King of Spades" and Negroes

As a secondary comment to the fact that Robert E. Lee was called "king of spades" was the fact that when Lee first ordered the digging of trenches a lot of his white soldiers protested and proclaimed "Digging is not fit for a white man"!, implying that digging was only for negroes. This fact is mention in civil war author's trilogy: Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.32.171 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors

Have found a few errors in this article that need to be addressed. Jawilson136 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Amnesty Pardon

The amnesty section contains the following sentences: "For 110 years Lee remained without a country, as the Confederacy had dissolved and Lee's United States application and oath were lost and disregarded. It is probable that someone at the State Department did not want Robert E. Lee to regain citizenship while Lee was alive.[91] "

The second sentence is utter conjecture bordering on nonsense, and not supported in a singe scholarly publication. the reference is to a discussion board comment by a single person who has no peer reviewed material, indeed no published material. they are simply a civil war buff who comments a lot on forums. That is not a wikipedia quality reference. Anyone who has done archival research of govenrment records knows misfiling is extremely common. ascribing any motive to it is simply unsupported. 71.252.87.118 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I've removed the sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) On Palm Sunday April 9, 1865

(edit request) On Palm Sunday April 9, 1865. The 'coincidence' of it being Palm Sunday was not lost on the highly religious Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and his staff, other Christians at the McLean House, and the primarily Christian nation - North and South. Five days later, President Abraham Lincoln was shot on Good Friday and died the next morning, which, again, was perceived as very 'coincidental' by the nation when they learned of it in their Easter Sunday newspapers. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) George Washington Custis - step-grandson & adopted son of George Washington

(edit request) George Washington Custis - step-grandson & adopted son of George Washington. The connection of Washington & Lee is very important! [ref]Ketchum, Richard M. The World of George Washington p. 251 (American Heritage, 1974) - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Schools

There is a Lee high school in midland texas, some one should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.70.252 (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) April 17, 1861: Lincoln decided to offer Lee command of Federal Army and State of Virginia seceeded

(edit request) To be accurate, it was April 17, 1861 in Washington DC when Lincoln decided to offer Lee command of the Federal Army through the mediator presidential aide Francis P. Blair at his mansion (later known as Blair House). On that same day, the State of Virginia Legislature voted for secession. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Francis Blair was father of Montgomery Blair, a member of President Lincoln's cabinet. The elder Blair was an adviser to Lincoln. On April 17, 1861, just three days after the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln asked Francis Blair to convey his offer to Colonel Robert E. Lee to command the Federal Army. The next day, Lee visited the Blair mansion (later Blair House across Lafayette Square from the White House. Lee blunted Blair’s offer of the Union command by saying: “Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves at the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?” [ref] http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=663&subjectID=2 [/ref] [ref] http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ext/html/site/hb/category/25431/actionParameter/exploreByBuilding/buildingId/724 [ref] - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

Under the "Vehicles" section of the article, I think it should be mentioned that The General Lee was the name of the 1970 Dodge Charger featured in the CBS television series The Dukes of Hazard.

72.48.120.76 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: Added, with citations, to the subsequent section where it seemed better placed. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

Robert E. Lee High School, Staunton, VA

Hooleyhoopty (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Garbled Sentence on Lee's View of Slavery

" At Arlington, the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. " As that stands it is not a sentence. The quote needs correction. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)}

It is an exact quote from Freeman - on page 373 rather than page 372 as shown in the footnote - so it cannot be corrected. I also don't agree that it is not a sentence. Perhaps it is not the type of sentence one sees much now, about 70 years after it was written. If you look at it closely and break it down as follows, you might agree. The phrase at the end of the sentence, which may have led to your conclusion, refers to the "servants" earlier in the sentence. Thus, the servants (who had become the masters of their master) had become notoriously indolent (apparently being the method by which they became the masters of their masters). As the article notes, that is Freeman's interpretation. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship

President Ford's act of "restoring" Robert E. Lee's citizenship was a redundant and unnecessary.

The date that Robert E. Lee was restored to full citizenship is incorrect and has been lost to most history. All Confederates were given full amnesty, erasing all legal memory of any offenses, by congressional act in 1898. The Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432, 55th Congress removed the parts of the 14th Amendment that kept ex-Confederates as non-citizens.

"An Act of Congress" Approved June 6, 1898, /73 provides:" . . . that the disability imposed by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution heretofore incurred is hereby removed."

Letter to Mrs. Sam. A. Davis, Glendale, Ca., from Major General J.A. Ulio, U.S. War Department, Jan. 16, 1945.

[portion of the copy of letter of 27 June 1936, regarding General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A]

"...Following General Lee’s death, October 12, 1870, Congress, by the acts of May 22, 1872 (17 Stat. 142), and June 6, 1898 (30 Stat. 432), removed all political disabilities imposed by the 3rd Section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It seems clear that General Lee was in fact pardoned by President Johnson, if not by the proclamation of July 4, 1868, then certainly by that of December 25, 1868, and that any political limitations to which he was subject by the Fourteenth Amendment were removed by the act of June 6, 1898.

It is the opinion of the War Department that full and complete amnesty was accorded to General Lee by the several proclamations and acts of Congress above referred to, and that there remains no disability with respect to him upon which a further act of the Executive or of Congress could be operative even if he were still living.

Sincerely yours,

J.A. ULIO,

Major General,

The Adjutant General" 201 File, Old Records Division, Adjutant General's Office, 1917- , RG 407, National Archives Microfilm M-2063, Military Service Records of Robert E. Lee [Major General James Alexander Ulio, Born June 29, 188, Died August 3, 1958] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenaeum 1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

President Ford's action was "redundant and unecessary", yet is historic and politically helped him in the South. It should be noted in the article. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported citizenship content

I have been researching the events of the controversial citizenship status of Lee. Although it is evident he prescribed to the provisions of the the first Presidential amnesty pardon his paperwork was lost or otherwise hidden. The second Presidential amnesty pardon, as far as I can tell, was unconditional with no special restrictions, to wit: " ... unconditionally, and without reservation, to all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof. ". For whatever reasons, political or otherwise, this was called into question and fully resolved by President Ford. This does not mean the historical records were wrong, nor does it change (that I can find) the meaning and intent of the aforementioned unrestricted pardon. For this reason, unless I can be shown where I missed something, I am asking the active editors of this article to review for removal the below mentioned and unsupported content from the "President Johnson's first amnesty pardon" section;

• For 110 years Lee remained without a country, as the Confederacy had dissolved and Lee's United States application and oath were lost and disregarded.

AGREE with unsigned above. As I understand it, only Jefferson Davis, by law, was exempted from general amnesty, perhaps the legislative second?

_ _ Summer 1975, Independent Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr., was already aware he would face a substantial electoral challenge from Democratic "Bud" Zumwalt, retired Admiral USN and resident of Virginia most of his adult life, even when active duty took him abroad. Byrd sponsored the bill for declaring Lee a U.S. citizen, with a press release using the wording we now find in the article. Supporters of U.S. Senator Bryd, his predecessor's son and never in uniform, claimed Zumwalt a "carpet bagger" in charges made by "Byrd Democrats" in the runup to the 1976 Democratic Senatorial convention.

_ _ Zumwalt's forces answered that his Virginia relatives in the Revolution were patriots, while Byrd's were Tories loyal to George III. In summer 1976, Byrd's connections secured him an honorary membership in the Virginia Order of the Cincinnati, a male patriotic order descendant of Revolution U.S. officers. Senator Byrd was reelected and voted with the Republican caucus on most issues. It is hard to imagine a reason that Ford in 1975 would not sign on, since he was benefitting from Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and anticipated a close election in the next year with a Southerner, Jimmy Carter.

_ _ Agree to the proposal to REMOVE the unsourced sentence. FURTHER, the earlier extensive quote from Ford's message is disproportionate emphasis and it does not bear on the * LIFE OF ROBERT E. LEE * -- including this inaccurate, partisan posturing: "In approving this Joint Resolution, Congress removed the legal obstacle to citizenship which resulted from General Lee's Civil War service." That is not sourced scholarship, but merely frantic attempts to entrench republican southern state electoral votes against the upcoming 1976 electoral reaction to Watergate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal but wonder if an act, for political reasons or otherwise, should be allowed to wrongly reflect historical facts. The restoration of Lee's citizenship can actually only be questioned if there would be legal reasons to contest President Johnson's (article listed) second amnesty pardon or that the included words "to all and every person" did not somehow include Lee or "with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities", somehow excluded citizenship. Although Ford's second "Lee" amnesty is an historical fact, propagating the inaccuracy by Wikipedia with, "Lee was posthumously officially reinstated as a United States citizen by President Gerald Ford in 1975.", with nothing added and certainly with no source, is inaccurate. A piece by Gail Jarvis (http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis93.html) includes the question, "Does this mean that General Lee has the distinction of being the only American to be pardoned by two Presidents — 100 years apart?".

• The article lists a first and second amnesty pardon but there were four with only the first and last erroneously listed in the article.
  • Johnson amnesties: First, May 29, 1865; Second, September 1867; third, July 4, 1868; and fourth, December 25, 1868
    • "...on September 7, 1867, Johnson, desiring to hasten Reconstruction, narrowed the excepted classes to three, one of which being “all who held . . . a military rank or title above the grade of brigadier general, or the naval rank or title above that of captain.” Johnson extended another proclamation less than a year later on July 4, 1868, granting amnesty to all former Confederates, excluding approximately three hundred, who were “under presentment or indictment in any court of the United States upon a charge of treason or other felony.” (Koontz 1996, vii)- [1]-Retrieved 2013-02-13

Lee was indicted for treason in June 1865, and therefore was excluded from the first three, but the fourth (listed as the second) included "every person", without any restrictions, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Otr500 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: In case there is doubt that the Amnesty of December 25, 1868, somehow excluded Lee from citizenship, possible because of the indictment that just "went away" or the 14th Amendment that restricted the rights of voting and holding office, on June 6, 1898, Congress approved an amnesty that was universal and unconditional for any Southerners still disabled by Section 3 of Amendment 14 (par.21). This only removed any restrictions on the rights returned on Christmas day 1868. This apparently would make the actions of President Ford far more than just trivia, as it certainly was a "second" Lee pardon. It would also have been a symbolic gesture as Ford was supposedly returning something that was already obtained because the Supreme Court determined that an automatic pardon could be denied if it was refused by the recipient which did not happen.

If there is no objections (ideas or opinions), nor proof to the contrary, I will attempt to edit the article to change the "two" listed amnesties to one titled Presidential pardon (or "pardons" if appropriate), and one titled Congressional pardon, with the Ford pardon subtitled to include the interesting fact that Lee received two "full" Presidential pardons. If someone knows of some obscure reasons or exceptions to nullify the information I have come across please let me know. Otr500 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit request)Secretary of State James Madison

I do not know whether James Madison sent Lee's father to the West Indies or not, but if he did it in 1812 he was not Secretary of State at the time as the article says, but rather President (since 1809). The Secretary of State in 1812 was James Monroe.AnthroMimus (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The inline cite leaves no doubt that the future President Madison is the person referenced. This is obviously false information and can be removed. Otr500 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article

I still wish to bring this article to Featured Article standard. To do that, major changes would have to be done here. In case someone opposes it, please let me know. --Lecen (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

the article is mediocre, especially on the Civil war. It often says more about Lincoln Grant & Union leaders than about Lee! What "major changes" does Lecen propose. And what expertise does he have? --he has done excellent work on Brazilian history but seems to have few or no edits on any aspect of US history or the Lee or the Civil War or other US generals. Rjensen (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would use as primary source Douglas Southal Freeman's "Lee", probably the best and most well known biography of Robert E. Lee. I would fill the article with pictures taken from Emory M. Thomas' "Robert E. Lee: an album". For the article itself, it would be very alike Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. The same structure, same size, etc... This means, I should make it clear, that I won't write a detailed military biography. I won't waste time talking about military maneuvers, battles, etc... This should be the focus of an article called "Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Civil War" or similar. --Lecen (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a very ambitious goal--but of course Freemen is best for his brilliant style and his understanding of Lee's character. Freeman's military analysis of the war years is sadly out of date. "waste time" on battles???--well Lee is famous primarily for his successful battle tactics, certainly not for his mediocre strategy. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, then, forget about my idea. Leave the article as it is. I wanted support, not people placing obstacles in my way. I'll go work on something else. --Lecen (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph copyedit -- intro. ‘Civil War’ @ R.E. Lee

Paragraph -- intro. ‘Civil War’ @ R.E. Lee -- key: proposed changes in bold

Old version	New version
The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28. He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the CSA.[n.]	The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28. He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the CSA.[n.]
-1.a→ After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. Lee turned down an April 18 offer by presidential aide Francis P. Blair to command the defense of Washington D.C. as a major general, as he feared that the job might require him to invade the South.[n.]	-1.b→ Lee was recalled to Washington to meet with Virginia-born Francis P. Blair, son of Lincoln’s cabinet Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, who had opposed violence to admit Kansas as a slave state.[n.] Offered command of the defense of Washington on 18 April, Lee refused on the spot, seeing that Lincoln's volunteer army would move against organized resistance. Lee immediately reported to Virginia-born Winfield Scott, general of the army.[n.]
-2.a→When Lee asked Scott, who was also a Virginian, if he could stay home and not participate in the war, the general replied "I have no place in my army for equivocal men."[n.]	-2.b→ Scott recommended that Lee resign before receiving orders to active field duty, "I have no place in my army for equivocal men."[n.] Resignation would hurt old army comrades -- of thirteen colonels then serving from southern states, Lee was only one of three to resign. And his family was sharply divided.[n.]
-3.a→ Lee resigned from the Army on April 20 and took up command of the Virginia state forces on April 23.[n.]	-3.b→ Two days later, Lee resigned on 20 April. Governor Letchner sent representatives to meet with Lee and Scott concerning Virginia service. General Scott refused but the next day Lee rode to Richmond by train where he was formerly offered the command of Virginia’s defense with the rank of major general on April 23.[n.]
-4.a→ Mary Custis was the only one among those close to Lee who favored secession, and wife Mary Anna especially favored the Union, so his decision astounded them. While Lee's immediate family followed him to the Confederacy others, such as cousins and fellow officers Samuel Phillips and younger brother John Fitzgerald]] remained loyal to the Union, as did 40% of all Virginian officers.[n.]	-4.b→ Among Lee’s own family, “the majority of his generation" favored the Union side, wife Mary Anna especially, and younger brother John Fitzgerald Lee, wartime U.S. army judge advocate, and Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee of the Union blockade. At Arlington House, Lee wrote letters explaining his decision to General Scott and family. Mary Custis and Lee’s immediate family followed him into the Confederacy, but other Lees and 40% of all Virginia officers remained loyal to the Union.[n.]
-5.a→ While historians have usually called his decision inevitable ("the answer he was born to make", wrote one; another called it a "no-brainer") given the ties to family and state,	-5.b→ While historians have usually called his decision inevitable. One wrote that withdrawing his oath and resigning his U.S. army career was "the answer he was born to make". Another called active rebel service in a civil war, a "no-brainer" given his ties to family and state.
recent research shows that the choice was a difficult one that Lee made alone, without pressure from friends or family. [n.]	Recent research shows that the choice was a difficult one that Lee made alone, without pressure from friends or family. [n.]

• This COPYEDIT is to add material to bring CONTINGENCY into the narrative surrounding Lee’s decision, by (a) REMOVING the passage, After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. It should be removed because -- there is no documentation among Lee's papers to the effect that he believed that so, AND he make presentations to both sides that he wished to sit out the crisis on the sidelines until sighting the mobilized camps in strength on his train trip to Richmond for himself.

- (b) the copyedit otherwise does not alter the SUBSTANCE of the previous article text, but adds specifics and context shown in bold. Material from the Elizabeth Pryor source as written will be carried forward to show copy edits using both sources.

• SOURCE: Elizabeth Brown Pryor, “Thou knowest not the time of thy visitation: a newly discovered letter reveals Robert E. Lee’s lonely struggle with disunion”. (2011) ‘Virginia Magazine of history and biography’, vol. 119, no.3, pp.277.

- Prior also wrote “Reading the Man: a portrait of Robert E. Lee through his private letters (2007), winner of the Lincoln Prize, where she observed, “There were four Virginians at that White House reception on March 13. Two—Lee and Joe Johnston—chose to go with the South; but two others—General Winfield Scott and George Thomas—remained with the Union.” She seeks to make a corrective to historians “critiquing other scholars, rather than truly analyzing historical materials, [because that] becomes a kind of re-tread history, causing us to parrot historical errors”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

His views on secession

These two statements (quoted in sequence) appear to be contradictory:

'Writing to his son William Fitzhugh, Lee stated, "I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union." While he was not opposed in principle to secession...' 109.157.18.114 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Kookie Kinship

Henry Lee I was Robert E. Lee's great grandfather, not great-great grandfather as stated. His grandfather was Henry Lee II and his father was Henry Lee III. These relationships can be verified on the Wikipedia pages for the relatives mention. --74.79.231.49 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013

Not being a qualified writer nor historian, I would request a major contributor rewrite the "Early role" section of Robert E. Lee from a more equalized point of view. This biased presentation of a significant part of Lee's career, slights all points of views, by slanting it to the proverbially obvious whitewashed history used in times past. Lee's early set backs and his transition into military adviser to Davis reflect on his elevation and the outcome of the war.

Newmans2001 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: While this is certainly a valid topic of conversation for the talk page, an edit request isn't the way to go about it. Edit requests are there to request specific changes to an article, in the form of "Change 'X' to 'Y'." I'm sure I know less about this topic area than you do, and as such I have no comment as to the merits of your statements, but I'm closing the request itself. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 03:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

General Robert E Lee

Your article is scathing at best and is quite prejudiced. History is what it is and it is to no avail to take anything away from such a great leader as Robert E Lee. Your entire dialog focuses on the problems within his immediate family and you are in grave error. The General had alot of experiences in the South and on various plantations..........if you study your history you will find that he was in Charleston right outside of the Ashley river region and its great plantations and was a guest of a Plantation owner right on the point. You should give thisarticle to someone else to write since you are close minded and biased and unable to draw from your readily available sources about how great, God fearing, intelligent and noble General Robert E Lee was.........you should truly be ashamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.103.70 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a guest at plantations is not experience. His experience with slavery was within his own family. Perhaps you should check out your own biases. Robert E Lee was a soldier; his views on slavery was that it was an evil that everyone needed, the article covered that. This article does not glorify Lee, he comes across well compared to other Southerners but he definitely does not come across in a way lost causers would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.186.182 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox flag

Lee served under the "Stars-and-Bars", the history article at WP should picture the flag of his time. The only Confederate flag that meets criteria for historicity and scholarly convention is the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865. The Stars-and-Bars (SAB) with 7, 9, 11 or 13 stars was official 750 days. Adopted and flown “everywhere in the Confederacy” (Coulter, p. 116),

Stars and Bars - the Confederate flag of history that Lee served 1861-1865

The alternate image description for the Blood-Stained-Banner suggests the BSB is in use “since 1865”, yet Jefferson Davis in his “Short History of the Confederate States of America” said the Confederacy “disappeared” in 1865. Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen. He flew the Stars-and-Bars at Beauvoir, Mississippi in retirement until his death, 1867-1908. He was the only man not allowed U.S. citizenship under general amnesty, explicitly excluded from US citizenship by name. Heritage Auction offered the original Stars-and-Bars flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” The quote is sourced to the Southern Historical Society Papers. SHSP, 24, 118. In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.

The Stars-and-Bars is the flag symbol of the Confederacy and Confederates 1861- 1865 according to reliable sources during and after the American Civil War. Robert E. Lee served under the Stars and Bars, the Infobox should reflect that history. The alternative flag was a banner no one then ever saw, required by a statute passed at the abandonment of Richmond but never then published -- and the Confederacy since 1865 “disappeared”, in the words of Jefferson Davis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

LightXHorse

Accourding to Henry Lee III it's Light-Horse Harry, and not Light Horse Harry as it is used here at the moment. -80.133.114.1 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing - the Battle of Cheat Mountain

With regards to the section "Lee's Civil War battle summaries"

The numbers of men involved on both sides as well as the total casualties listed are HUGELY inaccurate. The source given (americancivilwar.com) makes no mention of the battle that I could find, and is merely a link to an online page with a list of major battles in the war. Cheat Mountain is nowhere on the list. I would describe this as "highly dubious". The numbers somehow gleaned from this website completely contradict the (cited)figures given on the wikipedia page for the battle. This may be an innocent mistake, but I believe it is some rather sneaky POV pushing. See for yourself....

Battle of Cheat Mountain page: 5,000 Confederate (~90 casualties), 3,000 Union (88 casualties)

Robert E. Lee page: 15,000 Confederate (100 casualties), 2,000 Union (21 casualties)

bit of a discrepancy there....

As things stand the numbers are an insult to Lee - the Confederate ranks have been tripled, while Union is nearly cut in half. The casualty figures are even more biased and differ drastically from all other available sources. There is no mention made that the "battle" itself was never actually joined, and that criticism of Lee was centered around his failure to press the attack. Instead, the (short lived and seldom mentioned) "Granny Lee" nickname is given primary importance. Coincidence? I very much doubt it. Currently the section reads as if Lee was somehow defeated in a major field engagement by a heroically outnumbered Reynolds. This could not be further from the truth, as anyone familiar with the battle will tell you. A serious breakdown in Confederate communications and reliance on bad intelligence are the accepted reasons for Lee's blunder. Only minor skirmishing took place, with roughly equal losses suffered on both sides.

Intentional manipulation of the facts or not, this issue must be resolved. And soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.120.93 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Cold Harbor 'victory'

At Cold Harbor, Grant was temporarily blocked, and Lee was again unable to stop Grant's advance; the Union army corps blocked any advance on Lee's part, and simultaneously marched south across Lee's front and executed a river crossing without interference. How was that a 'victory' for Lee? Cold Harbor was one in a series of engagements in Lee's successful strategic withdrawal, it seems to me. I prefer the previous version.

I've no interest in an edit war, however. On a different item, I added to the Notes section, Grant referred to the Cold Harbor assault as his "greatest regret" of the war in his memoirs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry E. Lee

The article for Robert E. Lee's father states that he died in Georgia, yet this article says that he went to the West Indies (both say he did) and never came back before he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erisin (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013

This article uses slanderous language. I don't think it's appropriate to use "radical" to describe the Republicans when it was Abraham Lincoln who had just issued the Emancipation Proclamation and waged a war to end slavery. Please remove the adjective "radical" from "radical republican."

JBM Titan (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Radical Republicans" is the term used to describe those who would integrate the freedman into U.S. politics, economy and society, to distinguish them from the "Moderate Republicans" who were content to free slaves as an end to slavery, they brought the Thirteenth Amendment. "Moderate Republicans" are associated with "Presidential Reconstruction", "Radical Republicans" are associated with "Radical Reconstruction" which included punitive measures such as setting up military districts in the formerly Confederate states, they brought the Fourteenth Amendment addressing citizenship in the states and the Fifteenth Amendment addressing voting in the states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus would be to not make the edit, perhaps we can mark this as answered? Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Answered. Historians and general readers use the term "Radical Republicans" in American historiography of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Mason

Charles Mason, who was #1 in the West Point class of 1829 (in which Lee graduated 2nd), resigned his commission after two (2) years, in 1831, not just one (1) year as it reads in this article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.32.208 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement

I think the Robert E Lee article needs improvement to get to the GA status. The article seems to be cluttered with two many photos. Keeping all of the narration in paragraph form would help too. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree the illustrations need to be down to about one per 300 words or so.

There are four images of Lee in 1865. My favorite is Lee seated in the General-in-chief section, Lee with son Custis (left) and aide Walter H. Taylor (right) by Brady, April 16, 1865. The others can be removed.

There should be a separate section to concerning The Surrender, or the two images for that should be in Battle of Appomattox, not here, since images are supposed to support the text and be aligned to it. This should not be the Robert E. Lee image gallery category, but an article following the WP manual of style.

And I would like to see it conform with WP:ACCESS, aligning the images to the right for the sight-impaired reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian. I agree. Those would be good edits in the right direction to get Lee to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

edit. Lee's views on slavery

The section "Lee's views on slavery" has two extended quotes which do not conform to encyclopedic style. They appear out of chronological order of the paragraphs treating Lee's views on slavery during the American Civil War.

The first is an extended quote of a letter from Lee to his wife in 1856. The second is an extended quote from historian for context before the Civil War. They require paraphrasing in both cases. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to qualify Lee's endorsement of manumission for slaves who served as Confederate soldiers being limited to only those providing "outstanding" service. In a letter to Andrew Hunter of the Virginia Legislature on January 11, 1865 General Lee wrote “In my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary [Africian-American] force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.83.127 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points. a) Are there online references to confirm? b) Would you be so kind as to take the time to register as an editor so as to contribute here with sources? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See Gallagher, Gary W. Lee and His Army in Confederate History, p. 170. Levine, Bruce Confederate Emancipation : Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War, pp. 36-37. Rafuse, Ethan S. Robert E. Lee and the Fall of the Confederacy, 1863-1865, pp. 216-217. There are other sources, including some on Questia. Some of these sources describe Lee's view on manumission/emancipation as expressed in the 1865 letters on pages which are not in the online previews. There may be other preview pages available but these three seem to adequately make the point. I think Lee's views on slavery before the war seem to be a little less clear or at least wavered from time to time. Recall that he was required as executor of George Washington Parke Custis's will to free the Custis slaves. Donner60 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding depth of resources. I hope some of this makes it into the article. Southern views on slavery during the Civil War were neither uniform nor static. Those who were more nationalist and less racist, sought emancipation for uniformed service for the duration, just as Washington came to advocate over the course of the American Revolution. It was a tradition of the ancient Roman republic. Regardless of the larger political ambitions of secessionists promoting slavery, it is my impression that most Virginians were in the rebel ranks to repel the invader, hence the official state nomenclature, the "War of Northern Aggression". Lee is an exemplar of diversity in the Southern ranks on this matter of exceptional emancipation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

delete redundant. Citizenship restored

'Citizenship restored' section seems wildly out of proportion with great legislative detail and it is redundant.

The passage is redundant to two previous sections in the article, under 'After the war', heading "President Johnson's first amnesty pardon" which adequately explains Lee's first petition and why it failed, and "President Johnson's second amnesty pardon", which adequately explains the restoration of Lee's citizenship and the subsequent Joint Resolution of Congress honorific.

The joint resolution of Congress was indeed an individual honor to General Lee, but he had his citizenship restored in the general amnesty and it is already noted in the earlier sections. Without taking anything away from U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr.'s honorable intentions, this section does not conform with encyclopedic style.

Proposal: remove entire section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps just add that while it shows Lee's continuing high profile, the resolution was unnecessary due to the general amnesty - if in fact that is accurate? I am not sure whether there were any permanent exclusions to the amnesty or perhaps it was broadened at a much later date after Lee had died. At least initially, as I recall, Confederate government officers and generals were not given amnesty but had to seek individual pardons. If the post-war amnesty was not extended to include these persons, Lee would have had to apply for a pardon. If he did not, his citizenship may not previously have been restored. A little research probably could clear this up. In any event, even if it were unnecessary, the eventual restoration had some notoriety at the time, including a ceremony which could be referenced. Thus, the gesture could be considered part of Lee's legacy - he is still receiving such notice after such a long period of time. Donner60 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnson's second amnesty covered Lee without further application. The article now takes notice, "Lee, with this full amnesty pardon by President Johnson, could not be held liable for treason or insurrection against the United States. Lee was posthumously officially reinstated as a United States citizen by President Gerald Ford in 1975.[94]" There need not be a detailed account retelling how the legislation was passed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the followup. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox flag disruption

Lieutcoluseng reverted the flag used by the historic figure Robert E. Lee without sources or discussion on Talk. The proper stars-and-horizontal-bars flag is restored. That is the flag of the historic Confederacy in addition to the square battle flag of the St. Andrew's Cross (X). Here are two sources for consideration. One dismisses the Blood-stained-banner, the other establishes the First National Flag for use at WP.

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by American Starkiller 27 April 2014 is likewise unsourced and undiscussed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about an historical figure, the flag represented in the Infobox should be a flag under which he served, not an unsourced, unexplained banner never seen by contemporaries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

1850s - Lee's *Alleged* Whipping of Slaves

1. This article fails to clarify that *The New York Tribune* was Horace Greeley's newspaper and that Greeley was a leading abolitionist. Therefore, it should be noted that there is good reason to doubt the veracity and objectivity of Greeley's reporting of the alleged incident.

2. This article states that Wesley Norris *confirmed* the whipping incident years later. But it was impossible for him to *confirm* it. His statements are those of a *questionable* eyewitness of an incident that Robert E. Lee said never happened. By saying in this article that Norris *confirmed* it, the writer is giving the reader the false impression that it is a fact. Simultaneously, the writer states that Lee merely *claimed* that the incident never happened. The choice of wording gives the reader the impression that Lee's statement can be doubted whereas Norris's is beyond doubt, i.e. *confirmed* as fact. This impression is false.

3. It should also be noted that the *National Anti-Slavery Standard* was a dedicated anti-slavery newspaper, which implies that there is good reason to doubt the authenticity of their reporting on matters relating to slavery as well, especially at a time many people were looking for reasons to put Lee on trial for treason.

4. Although neutrality is an important principle of Wikipedia, there as so many instances of a lack-of-nuetrality by the writers who have been permitted to contribute to the Robert E. Lee article, that the article should be unlocked thereby permitting more objective editors to correct the errors and modify the biased commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.83.127 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

All well reasoned. Do you have proposed language which would allow the Tribune allegations but place them in proper context with Lee's denial? What is the proposed rewrite for the passage? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lee was a top Confederate leader and thus the enemy of the abolitionists. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources, and this is a good example of why we rely on modern scholarship not the primary sources of the polemics of the 1860s. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you produce some modern scholarship that comments on the incident? That would be required to decide how to cover it. Your doubts about the sources veracity are at this point OR, untill you can show that some modern historians share them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here is one recent biography of Lee that agrees with RJensen that it is extremely unlikely that Lee himself whipped Mary Norris.[2]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Note that the 1859 source is a letter to the editor -- which fails Wiki tests as a reliable source. Neither Greeley nor any other journalist said Lee did the whipping and Wesley Norris says Lee stood by but did not personally whip anyone as the 1859 letter claimed. The 1866 statement by Wesley Norris was solicited and rewritten by abolitionists activists trying to discredit Lee after his testimony to Congress. The story was rejected in a recent (2013) book on Lee. DeRosa, Marshall L. (2013). The Enduring Relevance of Robert E. Lee: The Ideological Warfare Underpinning the American Civil War. Lexington Books. p. 19. Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Better scholarship gives us a better narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Maunus: But please note however that while Fellman finds it unlikely that while Fellman considers it unlikely that Lee personally whipped Mary Norris, the text explicitly argues that he almost certainly had all the slaves whipped after they were recaptured: he says only "That Lee personally beat Mary Norris seems extremely unlikely. . . . corporal punishment (for which Lee subsituted the euphemism 'firmness') was an intrinsic and necessary part of slave discipline. Although it was supposed to be applied only in a calm and rational manner, overtly physical domination of slaves, unchecked by law, was always brutal and potentially savage" (66). Radgeek (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of Lee's slaveholding career and the management of the Custis estate in the 1850s previously contained a great deal of more modern scholarship than the current version of the article. I think it is highly unfortunate that most of this material has been pared down, and pared down in an extremely one-sided fashion, apparently to heavily favor claims cited to Freeman's 1934 biography at the expense of claims made by other and more recent biographers, and to sideline the treatment of Lee's career as a slaveholder.

I recently re-added material that had been featured drawing from Michael Fellman's 2000 biography, The Making of Robert E. Lee, which (unlike Freeman's 1934 biography) devotes a couple of chapters to sustained topical treatments of Lee's views and Lee's actions with regard to slavery and with regard to race. The material cited to Fellman was subjected to a blanket reversion by User:Rjensen with a claim that he was concerned about the use of primary sources (referring to links made to the text of Custis's will, the text of the two accusatory letters to the New York Tribune, and the long block quote and citation to the text of Wesley Norris's 1866 testimonial in the National Anti-Slavery Standard). But this description of the revert is at best careless, and at worst disingenuous: most of the material eliminated consists of eliminating passages and opinions to Fellman, a secondary source that User:Rjensen claims to meet RS standards. Further, the claim that even linking to the original text of primary sources that are referred to in the article "is dangerous grounds" is absurd and patronizing; this seems like selective treatment of "primary sources" when the article is full of direct quotes from Lee and his own letters and public statements. If User:Rjensen feels that there is a serious WP:RS or WP:NOR problem with, say, the (fairly lengthy) discussion of the contents of Norris's testimony, with direct quotation from the source, etc., then that can be selectively edited down without a blanket revert and without destroying the accurate links to historical materials that are being referenced in the course of recounting different secondary-source views of them.

Moreover, the text that was reverted to:

On June 24, 1859, Lee was accused by a letter published in the New York Tribune of having three runaway slaves whipped and of personally whipping a female slave, Mary Norris. One of the recaptured slaves, Wesley Norris, denied that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris in an 1866 interview printed in the National Anti-Slavery Standard, Lee said it was all a lie.

... contains at least two serious factual errors and one serious citation issue:

1. The text claims that there was "a letter published" in the Tribune; in fact there were two letters published in the Tribune, as the corrected text indicates and links to.
2. The text reverted to also claims that Wesley Norris "denied that Lee had personally whipped Marry Norris." This is either sloppy or disingenuous writing; in either case it misrepresentats the contents of the testimonial. The testimonial does not "deny" that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris -- Norris's testimonial does not address the earlier allegations at all, to affirm or deny them. His version of events (which I assume to be more reliable than the third-hand accounts in the Trib letters) suggests that Lee stood by and watched all three being whipped, and says nothing about Marry Norris being personally whipped by him. But to portray the interview as "denying" an allegation that it does not mention is a mistake. And to present the interview -- which was primarily concerned with recounting the whipping -- as if it were only or primarily concerned with "denying" the allegation is a serious distortion, and really a disingenuous representation, of what the first-hand accounts were actually about. (One might go so far as to call this misleading manipulation of primary sources in a "politically charged" context.)
3. Finally, the shorter text claims that "Lee said it was all a lie." Lee wrote a private letter in April 1866 (collected in Ch. XII of his son's Recollections and Letters) to a "gentleman in Baltimore" concerning not the Standard interview, but another article in the Baltimore American, in which he said only that "The statement is not true" but that he refused to debate it in a newspaper controversy. It's not clear from the text of the letter which parts of the account he disputed. But in any case, if Lee's unspecific denial, such as it is, is going to be referenced here, it ought to be given at least a citation, if not a direct quotation.

I do not consider the blanket reversion of the material from Fellman or the links to the text of the letters discussed in Fellman and Freeman to be acceptable. It is irresponsible to draw a treatment of Lee's slaveholding almost entirely from a single biography in 1934 written in the clear intent of valorizing Lee and minimizing concerns about his slaveholding, which makes several unsourced POV claims not supported by more recent biographers. Of course there is plenty here that could benefit from selective editing; possibly also trimming. But if this information is simply wiped out again, then I will restore it again.

Radgeek (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fellman says it is "extremely unlikely" that it happened. So why include it? Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He does not say that it is "extremely unlikely" that the Norrises ran away, or that they were recaptured by Lee. He states this as a matter of documented fact. (As it is; you can find discussion of it in Lee's family letters.) He does not say that it is "extremely unlikely" that Lee had the Norrises whipped or hired out off the plantation after they were forcibly returned to Arlington. If you've read the chapter, he states at length that this was highly typical of Lee's treatment of other "disobedient" slaves (as, for example, in the case of "Reuben, Parks & Edward," which is recounted BY FELLMAN and sourced TO FELLMAN, and which he does not, of course, think extremely unlikely to have happened). The only thing that Fellman describes as "extremely unlikely" is that Lee personally whipped Mary Norris, an incendiary claim (at the time, given Southern standards of male "chivalry") made in the Tribune letters and not made in Norris's first-hand testimony. Fellman nowhere, ever, states that it is "extremely unlikely" that the slaves escaped, were forcibly returned, or were whipped at Lee's orders. Freeman thinks this unlikely, but Freeman has nothing to base this on other than an unsourced assertion about the "usage" at Arlington and is directly contradicted by the evidence from Lee's own letters that is discussed in RS such as Fellman.

Your edits, in any case, do not merely delete discussion of the alleged whipping of Mary Norris. They delete five paragraphs of material concerning affairs at Arlington, including discussions cited to secondary sources about conflicts over the terms of Custis's will, management problems unrelated to the case of the Norrises, and also reintroduce unacceptable factual errors, as discussed in the above. Nor do your reversions keep the allegations of the Norris whipping from being included in the article in the first place! Your edit mentions them, right here: "On June 24, 1859, Lee was accused by a letter published in the New York Tribune of having three runaway slaves whipped and of personally whipping a female slave, Mary Norris. One of the recaptured slaves, Wesley Norris, denied that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris in an 1866 interview printed in the National Anti-Slavery Standard, Lee said it was all a lie." You haven't taken the incident out; you've just cut it so as to fit your POV interpretation of the events, and to remove any citations to secondary sources discussing the incident. Moreover, your uncited, POV version of events reintroduces unacceptable factual errors, as discussed above -- the statement in your redacted version about the number of letters is verifiably wrong. The statement about the content of Wesley Norris's testimony is verifiably wrong. The statement about Lee's response is unverifiable in its current form and needs a citation.

You are not removing discussion of an "unlikely" allegation in your reverts on this article; what you are doing is making the discussion of the allegations an unsourced pile of POV, by removing citations, destroying documentary work with blanket reverts, and deliberately working to avoid the use of secondary source references. As a consequence you are also reintroducing factual errors into the article. That is irresponsible, and POV.

Radgeek (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lee's Civil War battle summaries should have links

The battles that Lee was part of that have their own article should be linked to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.7.17 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Second Battle of Deep Bottom in August changed to Southern title "Fussell's Mill". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations

There is a variety of citation styles throughout this article; I'll be working on making this more consistent. Also, the "Bibliography" section is normally for sources that are actually cited within the article; they are usually cited multiple times, and short references are used within the article, the bibliography providing full details on the work. There are some sources in the bibliography that don't seem to be cited here at all; if they are important, these should be in a "further reading" section. Omnedon (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There are so many works in the Bibliography section which are not cited anywhere in the article that the "Further reading" section would be much larger than necessary. I'm going to list uncited works here and remove them from the article; if some are felt to be particularly important for a "Further reading" section, then they can easily be re-added. Omnedon (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncited works

• Connelly, Thomas L. "Robert E. Lee and the Western Confederacy: A Criticism of Lee's Strategic Ability." Civil War History 15 (June 1969): 116–32.
• Eicher, John H. (2001). Civil War High Commands. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3641-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Fuller, J. F. C. (1957). Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-13400-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Warner, Ezra J. (1959). Generals in Gray: Lives of the Confederate Commanders. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-0823-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Biographical

• Blount, Roy, Jr. Robert E. Lee, Penguin Putnam, 2003. 210 pp., short popular biography, ISBN 0-670-03220-4.
• Carmichael, Peter S., ed. Audacity Personified: The Generalship of Robert E. Lee Louisiana State University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8071-2929-1.
• Cooke, John E., A Life of General Robert E. Lee, Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
• Dowdey, Clifford. Lee 1965.
• Fishwick, Marshall W. Lee after the War 1963.
• Flood, Charles Bracelen. Lee — The Last Years 1981.
• Gallagher, Gary W. Lee the Soldier (University of Nebraska Press, 1996)
• Pryor, Elizabeth Brown. Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters. New York: Viking, 2007.
• Smith, Eugene O. Lee and Grant: a Dual Biography, McGraw-Hill, New York (1991)

Military campaigns

• Bonekemper, III, Edward H. How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War. Sergeant Kirkland's Press, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 1997. ISBN 1-887901-15-9
• Bowden, Scott and Ward, Bill. Last Chance For Victory: Robert E. Lee And The Gettysburg Campaign. DaCapo Press, 2003.
• Brown, Kent Masterson. Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign. University of North Carolina Press, 2005.
• Cagney, James. "Animations of the Campaigns of Robert E. Lee" Click Here for the Animations (2008)
• Cavanaugh, Michael A., and William Marvel, The Petersburg Campaign: The Battle of the Crater: "The Horrid Pit", June 25 – August 6, 1864 (1989)
• Davis, William C. Death in the Trenches: Grant at Petersburg (1986).
• Dowdey, Clifford. The Seven Days 1964.
• Dugard, Martin. The Training Ground: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Davis in the Mexican War, 1846–1848 (2009) and text search
• Freeman, Douglas S., Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command (3 volumes), Scribners, 1946, ISBN 0-684-85979-3.
• Fuller, Maj. Gen. J. F. C., Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, Indiana University Press, 1957, ISBN 0-253-13400-5.
• Glatthaar, Joseph T. General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse (2009) excerpt and text search
• Grimsley, Mark, And Keep Moving On: The Virginia Campaign, May–June 1864 University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
• Harmon, Troy D. Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg Stackpole Books, 2001
• Harsh, Joseph L. Taken at the Flood: Robert E. Lee and Confederate Strategy in the Maryland Campaign of 1862 (Kent State University Press, 1999)
• Johnson, R. U., and Buel, C. C., eds., Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. 4 vols. New York, 1887–88; essays by leading generals of both sides; online edition
• McWhiney, Grady, Battle in the Wilderness: Grant Meets Lee (1995)
• Maney, R. Wayne, Marching to Cold Harbor. Victory and Failure, 1864 (1994).
• Marvel, William. Lee's Last Retreat: The Flight to Appomattox. University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
• Matter, William D. If It Takes All Summer: The Battle of Spotsylvania (1988)
• Miller, J. Michael. The North Anna Campaign: "Even to Hell Itself", May 21–26, 1864 (1989).
• Rafuse, Ethan S. Robert E. Lee and the Fall of the Confederacy, 1863–1865 (2008) excerpt and text search
• Rhea, Gordon C. and Chris E. Heisey. In the Footsteps of Grant and Lee: The Wilderness Through Cold Harbor (2007)
• Rhea, Gordon C. The Battle of the Wilderness May 5–6, 1864, Louisiana State University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-8071-1873-7.
• Rhea, Gordon C. The Battles for Spotsylvania Court House and the Road to Yellow Tavern May 7–12, 1864, Louisiana State University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-8071-2136-3.
• Rhea, Gordon C. To the North Anna River: Grant and Lee, May 13–25, 1864, Louisiana State University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8071-2535-0.
• Rhea, Gordon C. Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26 – June 3, 1864, Louisiana State University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8071-2803-1.

Historiography and legacy

• Adams, Michael C. C. "Robert E. Lee and Perspective over Time," Civil War History v. 49#1 (2003) pp. 64–70
• Connelly, Thomas L., "The Image and the General: Robert E. Lee in American Historiography." Civil War History 19 (March 1973): 50–64.
• Connelly, Thomas L., The Marble Man. Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977.
• Fulmer, Hal W. "Southern Clerics and the Passing of Lee: Mythic Rhetoric and the Construction of a Sacred Symbol," Southern Communication Journa l55 (1990): 355-71
• Gallagher, Gary W. Lee and His Army in Confederate History. University of North Carolina Press, 2001
• Gallagher, Gary W. Lee and His Generals in War and Memory (1998).
• McCaslin, Richard B. Lee in the Shadow of Washington. Louisiana State University Press, 2001.
• McPherson, James M., and William J. Cooper, Jr., eds. Writing the Civil War: The Quest to Understand (University of South Carolina Press, 1998)
• Reid, Brian Holden. Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005.
• Ross, Michael A. "The Commemoration of Robert E. Lee's Death and the Obstruction of Reconstruction in New Orleans," Civil War History, Volume 51#2 June 2005, pp. 135–150 doi:10.1353/cwh.2005.0032

Primary sources

• Dowdey, Clifford. and Louis H. Manarin, eds. The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee. (1961).
• Freeman, Douglas Southall. ed. Unpublished Letters of General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A. to Jefferson Davis and the War Department of the Confederate States of America, 1862–65. Rev. ed. with foreword by Grady McWhiney. (1957).
• Lee, Robert E. Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee (2008 edition) excerpt and text search
• Johnson, R. U. and Buel, C. C. eds. Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (4 vols. 1887–88; essays by leading generals of both sides); online edition
• Taylor, Walter H. Four Years with General Lee (1877). full text online
• Taylor, Walter H. General Lee — His Campaigns in Virginia, 1861–1865. (1906) online complete edition

Schools

Currently we have a list of high schools named for Lee in the article. I'm wondering if a bullet list of 15 schools is really necessary in this article; I'd suggest instead a statement about how there are many primary and secondary schools in southern states named for Lee. I also wonder about the streets; there must surely be many streets in the South named for Lee. Generally speaking, lists are not well-looked-upon during GA and FA reviews; prose is usually preferred. I'd like to get this re-submitted for GA status soon; the last attempt seems to have been 7 years ago. Omnedon (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting as purely a procedural or structural question. Should there be a List article, Schools named for Robert E. Lee? And simply a link to the List? I am generally opposed to the clutter of lists in articles, but many biographies list one or two when they are that few, perhaps name a high school in each state? There are three universities named for Lee ... Throughout the South there are many high schools and elementary schools named for Lee in Virginia, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can probably expand a bit on the three colleges with a sentence or two about the background. As for the list, I'm thinking of something more like this: List of memorials to Jefferson Davis. That way it can be more than just schools, but anything named for Lee or established in his honor. Omnedon (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

GA status

I'm planning to submit this for GA review soon. Nearly all the references have been cleaned up, and all the bulleted lists have been converted to prose. If anyone would care to read over the entire article and see if anything else needs to be fixed up, that would be great. Small things, big things, doesn't matter. Omnedon (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, before we can go for GA, there are some things that need references. Generally each paragraph needs to end with a reference, and there are some "fact" tags in a few places that need to be resolved. I will work on finding citations, but if anyone else has them that would be good too. Omnedon (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty story

ex Rjensen talk page
Greetings. With this edit you not only removed information about the lost paperwork, but also about the second amnesty, which is significant. Please take more care when trimming information from articles. Omnedon (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

the LBJ story does not belong here--but who says it is important? the cite is to an informal discussion group not an RS. The reason Lee could not be prosecuted was Grant's very strong opposition. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

LBJ? Who are you referring to? Andrew Johnson issued a second amnesty in 1868, as the article stated before you removed that information. See [3]. Omnedon (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Andy Johnson :) My point is that it was Grant who made the decision not to allow Lee to be tried--he actually was indicted by a state court. The amnesty petition by Lee was not lost to history--all the newspapers reported it at the time; just the paperwork got lost. There is excellent coverage of the issue in a brand new scholarly book --we should cite it instead of an informal amateur blog page: William A. Blair (2014). With Malice toward Some: Treason and Loyalty in the Civil War Era. University of North Carolina Press. p. 240. Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But you removed the information about the second pardon, which has nothing to do with the lost paperwork issue to which you seemed to refer in the edit summary. Surely the second pardon is worthy of mention here and is entirely relevant. Omnedon (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

the AJ pardon issue: is it important or had the decision been made in 1865 not to indict Lee. Blair (2014) indicates the later. To say the amnesty was important regarding Lee will require a RS, which is not there. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But the amnesty is about more than just avoiding indictment. Lee did not receive the first amnesty. The second would apply to him. Omnedon (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And the second amnesty which applies to Lee is important because that is the context which makes the publicity stunt by Harry F. Byrd, Jr. in the mid-twentieth century unnecessary, "restoring Robert E. Lee's citizenship"--- except as a Senatorial courtesy to the Independent senior Senator from Virginia caucusing with the Democrats, to help him with his home-state vote in an upcoming election with a serious Democratic challenge. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I've found what I think i a better photo of Lee, but it's from very late in his life, so it might be better to put the old one back, and use this to illustrate the contemporaneous section of the article. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Quote

I noticed that the quote by Lee, "My own opinion is that, at this time, they [black Southerners] cannot vote intelligently, and that giving them the [vote] would lead to a great deal of demagogism, and lead to embarrassments in various ways," is repeated in the article. It's in the "After the war" section, but it's also in the "Postwar politics" section. Since I'm not a "confirmed user" (I haven't edited ten articles), I can't make the changes myself. Could someone check it out? Arieava97 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Arieava97

Using the CSA flag adopted by the army

Removed the Stainless Banner with battle flag union, white field, official 650 only days. After adoption, only sourced atop the Confederate Capitol, Richmond, Virginia (Samsing). The 2:1 ratio flag literally did not function, it did not fly on a flagpole, and it was seen as truce or surrender (Samsing). For the Confederacy at the time, it was “not satisfactory” ( Coulter, p. 119). The army did not use it, Lee did not fight under it. In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 p. 118 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"No-brainer"

This article states Lee used that phrase in a letter. This seemed odd to me since it's a fairly modern phrase.

The Merrium-Websters dictionary says It was first used in 1973. Is this vandalism? DavidRavenMoon (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't find that claim in the article. Could you recheck and supply more specifics? 2600:1006:B11A:ED71:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

the article says modern historians have used that term about his 1861 decision. so that's ok. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Regarding the sentence: He found the experience frustrating and difficult; some of the slaves were unhappy and demanded their freedom. Please remove "were unhappy and" as it unnecessarily connotes there are happily enslaved people on this plantation. The sentence can simply remain "He found the experience frustrating and difficult; some of the slaves demanded their freedom. MadisonDakota (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Inomyabcs (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gettysburg a “defeat” but Antietam “inconclusive”? What’s the difference?

Why is Gettysburg labeled a defeat for Lee while Antietam "Inconclusive (Strategic Union Victory)"? I fail to see the distinction. Both were Confederate invasions of states that had not seceded from the Union and both resulted in major causalities for Lee, not just proportionally but (at least perhaps) in absolute numbers. The only difference I can discern is that Gettysburg was later in the war, thus leaving Lee less time to recover and rebuild.

Look, the military brass on both sides simply could not discern that times had changed and were wedded to the Napoleonic tactics they studied at West Point. Rifled muskets and superior artillery changed the paradigm of war to greatly favor the defense as the results of most battles proved throughout the war. Grant's greatness was in his—if not theoretically then instinctively—being among the first to realize this shift and the necessity of adopting the strategy of attrition in order to defeat the South. (And for that they called him a “butcher.” He didn’t start the war, the politicians did!) There was no other path to victory than to bludgeon one’s way through the defensive positions of the South with force of numbers. (After Lee’s mauling of the North in the Wilderness, he expected a repeat of what had always happened in the past; i.e., a Union retreat north of the Rappahannock and the restoration of the status quo. He remarked in amazement when Grant refused to play this game: “And still they keep coming.”) Even Chancellorsville, Lee’s tactical masterpiece, resulted in more Confederate losses on a proportional basis than for the Union, though without doubt that should be labeled a Confederate victory as the latest Union invasion was repulsed.

But at Antietam, not only was Lee’s objective defeated, he might have lost more men in absolute numbers than had the Union; certainly more proportionately. It was a grievous defeat and should be clearly labeled as such without equivocation.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I note that at the Battle of Antietam, the Military History group has it as a "Union victory". I just think a POV snuck in here. The Union "victory" at Antietam is a "defeat" for Lee imo. The real defeat was that no Marylanders flocked to the Confederate cause to replace the losses, and no international recognition followed, and anti-war partisans of the 1862 elections for Congress were not materially strengthened, and the war went on to an inevitable conclusion. (Part of waging a "just war" is the possibility of success). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think there was every possibility of success for the Confederacy. IMO, it was a shame that Longstreet wasn’t in command. He wanted to stay on the defensive and take advantage of the South’s interior lines to shift troops by railroad from East to West when necessary, then back again. The hope of foreign recognition and assistance was probably always a pipedream, but the hope that the North would eventually give up was most certainly valid. The very nature of the rebellion was also against the South. If the Confederacy had won the war, how long would it have been before one or more states seceded from it? The banner of states' rights hung like an albatross around the neck of the Confederacy throughout the war. The "starving South," for example, had plenty of food (corn, rice, cattle, pigs and more) but lacked an efficient distribution system partially caused by hoarding by the states. If the South had played its cards right, it never should have lost that war for independence.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Chance of success for CSA = close to zero in my opinion. North was much more determined to win--and was much better organized to get the job done. North had a much stronger economic base and a MUCH stronger political base in the GOP. No viable strategy existed for CSA, especially when Lee failed to rescue the West in 1863. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but Longstreet’s idea of shifting troops to the West much earlier than when it was finally done might have salvaged the situation. Lee’s victory at Chancellorsville was done without part of Longstreet’s corps which was off on a movement south that has never really been explained.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And Longstreet's troops were defeated in the West. I agree with your ce proposal  Done. The Wilderness is also labelled "inconclusive", when Lee not only failed to recover lost territory in Virginia, but he made further withdrawal to Richmond following the defeat. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)