Prof. McWhorter, I hate to get technical with something you said, but if you reduce Robert E. Lee's position as General of the Confederacy to "fighting for enslavement," that is a narrow view of that seismic conflict known as The Civil War. Before I go any further, let me state that I am NOT arguing that Lee did not stand for slavery and thereby, the South as a whole did NOT secede from the Union over the matter. However, as those of us who study that history know, it was FAR MORE complex. We live in an era when the issue of slavery is centered around its morality, and I, for one, am thankful that a previous generation decided the immorality of slavery before I arrived on the scene. Meaning, I do not have to think about the morality of slavery because no one I know and no one in this country knows of anyone who has been a slave. Therefore, yes, Lee was fighting for enslavement, but he was also fighting against a Federal Government that was beginning to mandate the laws of individual States. In this case, slaves were property, and the issue was whether this property was legal and could be transported to other states that had outlawed such property. We still have that issue today with abortion rights, the legalization of marijuana, sanctuary cities, etc. How much power does the Federal government have over the States? Furthermore, Lee seceded with his state, which was Virginia, and Virginia did NOT secede until Lincoln called upon the state militias to put down the insurrection in the Lower South (a form of Lincoln legalize, which by calling it an insurrection, Lincoln was also inferring the states had never seceded.) I suppose as a Southerner, and I consider myself to be an enlightened Southerner at that, this is the rub because we lost that war, and we suffered the physical and emotional devastation of that war. Many men, who never owned slaves and some who hated the institution, fought for the Confederacy over this very issue. They thought they were fighting the Second Revolution. So there is so much more that encompasses a Robert E. Lee statue than just slavery and casually reducing his decision to fight for his state, a decision he labored over, to a grandstand defense of slavery is historically inaccurate and unjust. End rant (now, since you live in New York City, please come see my one man show Shirley Chisholm, Robert E. Lee, & Me, which I will perform as part of the United Solo Performance Festival on Saturday, November 13th at 2:00pm.) :)
Being from the North we were taught in school in the 50'-60's, that the Civil War (War between the States)was fought primarily over slavery. My parents, well read in history, tried to emphasize that the war was really about federalism & preserving the Union vs States Rights and the ability to secede & that slavery was just the dividing issue. They always said there were southerners who were against slavery for various reasons, but pro-States Rights while there were plenty of pro-Unionists who either could have cared less about emancipation and equality as proven by the Jim Crow laws in the North. Several immigrant populations though they fought were quite racist (some still are). Do you know how it was taught in parts of the country not involved in the War or not yet states?
Prof. McWhorter, I hate to get technical with something you said, but if you reduce Robert E. Lee's position as General of the Confederacy to "fighting for enslavement," that is a narrow view of that seismic conflict known as The Civil War. Before I go any further, let me state that I am NOT arguing that Lee did not stand for slavery and thereby, the South as a whole did NOT secede from the Union over the matter. However, as those of us who study that history know, it was FAR MORE complex. We live in an era when the issue of slavery is centered around its morality, and I, for one, am thankful that a previous generation decided the immorality of slavery before I arrived on the scene. Meaning, I do not have to think about the morality of slavery because no one I know and no one in this country knows of anyone who has been a slave. Therefore, yes, Lee was fighting for enslavement, but he was also fighting against a Federal Government that was beginning to mandate the laws of individual States. In this case, slaves were property, and the issue was whether this property was legal and could be transported to other states that had outlawed such property. We still have that issue today with abortion rights, the legalization of marijuana, sanctuary cities, etc. How much power does the Federal government have over the States? Furthermore, Lee seceded with his state, which was Virginia, and Virginia did NOT secede until Lincoln called upon the state militias to put down the insurrection in the Lower South (a form of Lincoln legalize, which by calling it an insurrection, Lincoln was also inferring the states had never seceded.) I suppose as a Southerner, and I consider myself to be an enlightened Southerner at that, this is the rub because we lost that war, and we suffered the physical and emotional devastation of that war. Many men, who never owned slaves and some who hated the institution, fought for the Confederacy over this very issue. They thought they were fighting the Second Revolution. So there is so much more that encompasses a Robert E. Lee statue than just slavery and casually reducing his decision to fight for his state, a decision he labored over, to a grandstand defense of slavery is historically inaccurate and unjust. End rant (now, since you live in New York City, please come see my one man show Shirley Chisholm, Robert E. Lee, & Me, which I will perform as part of the United Solo Performance Festival on Saturday, November 13th at 2:00pm.) :)
Being from the North we were taught in school in the 50'-60's, that the Civil War (War between the States)was fought primarily over slavery. My parents, well read in history, tried to emphasize that the war was really about federalism & preserving the Union vs States Rights and the ability to secede & that slavery was just the dividing issue. They always said there were southerners who were against slavery for various reasons, but pro-States Rights while there were plenty of pro-Unionists who either could have cared less about emancipation and equality as proven by the Jim Crow laws in the North. Several immigrant populations though they fought were quite racist (some still are). Do you know how it was taught in parts of the country not involved in the War or not yet states?