(Ed.'s Note: The board of trustees of Texas Southmost College is going to consider trustee Dr. Tony Zavaleta's motion to rename the Robert E. Lee Youth Center in one of its upcoming meetings. Lee, the commanding general of the Confederacy, surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in 1865 and then spent his remaining years defending his support of the Lost Cause. Here's an article that explores the views of newspapers and periodicals on Lee after the defeat of the South.)By Cayce Myers
Journalism History
Reporting Lee’s surrender, the Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper published by William Lloyd Garrison, said, “With the slap in the face to loyal soldiers, General Robert E. Lee retires from the field, as unrepentant and as foolishly defiant a rebel as his master [Jefferson] Davis.”
Lee was described as a “deserter from the old flag who ran away with a lie in his mouth and entered the general service of the Confederate Army.” Another article from Prairie Farmer, a Chicago-based magazine, admitted that Lee had the quality of honesty but said he had “no claim of any kind whatever upon the regard of the American people.”
These articles used the term “traitor” to describe Lee, and called for his punishment. An article in the New York Evangelist, an abolitionist publication, said Lee was a “thorough-paced traitor.”
Another from the Youth’s Companion, a Boston magazine that was known for publishing pieces by antislavery advocate Harriet Beecher Stowe, argued Lee would still have his home at Arlington if “he [had] been true to his country when most she needed him.”
The Independent commented on Lee’s return to Arlington, arguing that allowing him to return to his home would be “rewarding him for his treason.” Perhaps the harshest article came from the Ohio Farmer, which commented on Lee’s destitute status after the war. It said:
Robert E. Lee is now so poor that he has not the wherewith to clothe himself. If this be true, let the government relieve him at once—give him ten feet of rope, and six feet of soil. If every traitor earned this reward, Lee surely is the one.
Some articles linked Lee’s name with treason at every possible juncture. The New York Times, then managed by pro-Union Republican Henry Jarvis Raymond, likened Lee to a Latin American “generalissimo” and called for Lee to be put on trial for treason. Similarly the Chicago Tribune, a paper with abolitionist sympathies that openly supported the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, characterized Lee as a traitor to the United States.
In fact, the Chicago Tribune stands out among the press as one of the most critical papers of Lee and his postwar stature. In several articles the Chicago Tribune attacked the popular perception that
Lee epitomized chivalry and had a Christian character. Smaller papers repeated this condemnation of Lee. The Independent reported Lee’s 1866 congressional testimony concerning the South, in which Lee said, “The South accepted the present condition of things in good faith.”
The Independent further said Lee could have taught lessons against “hypocrisy” through his “shining illustrations of them in those military orders and bulletins wherein he habitually invoked the blessing of Divine Providence on his efforts to destroy his country.”
These negative portrayals of Lee also included articles about Lee’s personal life before the Civil War. The Independent told of Lee having a slave woman whipped in Virginia.75 The article said, “Only think of it! A woman-whipper as well as a traitor at the head of a college—an instructor of young men!”
Lee was described as a “deserter from the old flag who ran away with a lie in his mouth and entered the general service of the Confederate Army.” Another article from Prairie Farmer, a Chicago-based magazine, admitted that Lee had the quality of honesty but said he had “no claim of any kind whatever upon the regard of the American people.”
These articles used the term “traitor” to describe Lee, and called for his punishment. An article in the New York Evangelist, an abolitionist publication, said Lee was a “thorough-paced traitor.”
Another from the Youth’s Companion, a Boston magazine that was known for publishing pieces by antislavery advocate Harriet Beecher Stowe, argued Lee would still have his home at Arlington if “he [had] been true to his country when most she needed him.”The Independent commented on Lee’s return to Arlington, arguing that allowing him to return to his home would be “rewarding him for his treason.” Perhaps the harshest article came from the Ohio Farmer, which commented on Lee’s destitute status after the war. It said:
Robert E. Lee is now so poor that he has not the wherewith to clothe himself. If this be true, let the government relieve him at once—give him ten feet of rope, and six feet of soil. If every traitor earned this reward, Lee surely is the one.
Some articles linked Lee’s name with treason at every possible juncture. The New York Times, then managed by pro-Union Republican Henry Jarvis Raymond, likened Lee to a Latin American “generalissimo” and called for Lee to be put on trial for treason. Similarly the Chicago Tribune, a paper with abolitionist sympathies that openly supported the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, characterized Lee as a traitor to the United States.
In fact, the Chicago Tribune stands out among the press as one of the most critical papers of Lee and his postwar stature. In several articles the Chicago Tribune attacked the popular perception that
Lee epitomized chivalry and had a Christian character. Smaller papers repeated this condemnation of Lee. The Independent reported Lee’s 1866 congressional testimony concerning the South, in which Lee said, “The South accepted the present condition of things in good faith.”
The Independent criticized Lee’s use of the term “good faith” and underscored Lee’s treason, saying it would “be unfair to infer his meaning [of good faith] from his practice in breaking his own solemn oath of allegiance to the United States.”
Lee’s traitor status was linked to his personal shortcomings. Articles emphasized Lee’s cruelty as a commander, and directly held Lee responsible for the mistreatment of Union troops in the Civil War. The Liberator stated: Having once committed his [Lee’s] own fortunes to the rebellion, he was never known to check or discountenance the most revolting crimes committed in its name. The wretched
keeper of Libby prison [at Richmond] received promotion at his hands; and the pitiful story of the prisons . . .came up to him every day with proofs that could not be doubted.
Lee’s responsibility in maintaining Confederate prisons was depicted in other articles from the Liberator, one of which argued, “Lee had the power to prevent or mitigate the sufferings of out
prisoners, the worst tyrant and tormenter, from the remotest ages of Paganism down to the cruelest instrument of the French Reign of terror, was not so wicked as he.”
These articles about Lee’s role in the mistreatment of Union troops emphasized the idea that Lee could have stopped this cruelty. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, a Methodist-based newspaper
that supported abolitionist views, stated, “he [Lee] had but to say the word, and the Federal prisoners would have been treated like ordinary prisoners of war.”
Another article from the Liberator told how Lee was close enough to the prisons themselves to hear the suffering. It said, “He was so near them that, on a still night, he might have heard their dismal groans; he knew their horrible condition . . . he was all powerful, and had only to speak to have our brothers fed and clothed.”
The Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal pointed out Lee could have improved the conditions for the Northern prisoners but chose not to because of his low moral character. It said, “One word was needed from General Lee to put an end to the terrible cruelties and indignities inflicted on Union prisoners.”
Lee’s new civilian career as president of Washington College was equally criticized. One article from the Independent sarcastically wrote what Lee would be able to teach the students some lessons in low-character at the college. The article said: If he [Lee] desires to impress on them the obligations of truthfulness, he can remind them of the oath which he took to support and defend the Government of the United States, and how he has kept that oath the last four years.
Lee’s traitor status was linked to his personal shortcomings. Articles emphasized Lee’s cruelty as a commander, and directly held Lee responsible for the mistreatment of Union troops in the Civil War. The Liberator stated: Having once committed his [Lee’s] own fortunes to the rebellion, he was never known to check or discountenance the most revolting crimes committed in its name. The wretchedkeeper of Libby prison [at Richmond] received promotion at his hands; and the pitiful story of the prisons . . .came up to him every day with proofs that could not be doubted.
Lee’s responsibility in maintaining Confederate prisons was depicted in other articles from the Liberator, one of which argued, “Lee had the power to prevent or mitigate the sufferings of out
prisoners, the worst tyrant and tormenter, from the remotest ages of Paganism down to the cruelest instrument of the French Reign of terror, was not so wicked as he.”
These articles about Lee’s role in the mistreatment of Union troops emphasized the idea that Lee could have stopped this cruelty. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, a Methodist-based newspaper
that supported abolitionist views, stated, “he [Lee] had but to say the word, and the Federal prisoners would have been treated like ordinary prisoners of war.”
Another article from the Liberator told how Lee was close enough to the prisons themselves to hear the suffering. It said, “He was so near them that, on a still night, he might have heard their dismal groans; he knew their horrible condition . . . he was all powerful, and had only to speak to have our brothers fed and clothed.”
The Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal pointed out Lee could have improved the conditions for the Northern prisoners but chose not to because of his low moral character. It said, “One word was needed from General Lee to put an end to the terrible cruelties and indignities inflicted on Union prisoners.”Lee’s new civilian career as president of Washington College was equally criticized. One article from the Independent sarcastically wrote what Lee would be able to teach the students some lessons in low-character at the college. The article said: If he [Lee] desires to impress on them the obligations of truthfulness, he can remind them of the oath which he took to support and defend the Government of the United States, and how he has kept that oath the last four years.
The Independent further said Lee could have taught lessons against “hypocrisy” through his “shining illustrations of them in those military orders and bulletins wherein he habitually invoked the blessing of Divine Providence on his efforts to destroy his country.”
The article concluded by saying Lee’s past should preclude him from being a college president. It said: A rebel who renounces his political heresies and comes loyally back into the Union might do, on a pinch, for a college president; but an impenitent traitor burdened with the sixty thousand murders for which Robert E. Lee will have to answer, here or hereafter, is the last man who ought
to seek notoriety at this moment.
to seek notoriety at this moment.
These negative portrayals of Lee also included articles about Lee’s personal life before the Civil War. The Independent told of Lee having a slave woman whipped in Virginia.75 The article said, “Only think of it! A woman-whipper as well as a traitor at the head of a college—an instructor of young men!”
However, these criticisms of Lee show a degree of recognition of the hero status he held in some circles. A book review in the American Quarterly Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register,
an Episcopal magazine published in Connecticut, commented on the “unqualified eulogiums heaped
upon General Lee.”
an Episcopal magazine published in Connecticut, commented on the “unqualified eulogiums heaped
upon General Lee.”
Lee was depicted as man who still adhered to old Confederate sympathies. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal told that Lee was writing “‘school books, in which the Confederate cause will be glorified."
The Independent asserted Lee did not deserve the status of hero, stating, “We are tired and sick of the
folly which makes a hero of this blood-stained traitor. In our view he is the guiltiest man in all the Confederacy.”
folly which makes a hero of this blood-stained traitor. In our view he is the guiltiest man in all the Confederacy.”
Despite Lee’s new role as college president the northern press still sought to portray Lee as unrepentant and ultimately undeserving of his quiet life on a college campus. The New York Evangelist suggested Lee still wanted to maintain militaristic animosity toward the North. The article
reported Lee, as the president of Washington College, wanted cannons for “the instruction of his military school in gunnery practice”—Lee’s request was denied.
reported Lee, as the president of Washington College, wanted cannons for “the instruction of his military school in gunnery practice”—Lee’s request was denied.
9 comments:
Who he's recommending Chavez I doubt it, its more like a gringo any bets?
Article shows journalism failed America then just as it fails us today. Give us facts not opinions. Human brains can form their own opinions when presented unfiltered raw data instead of what a journalist thinks how we should think. Give it a try yourself.
@7:14 Y tu gringo Biden que?
August 28, 2020 at 10:09 AM
I D I O T A!
6:27 P E N D E J O
August 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM
E S T U P I D O - M A M O N
@7:14 I bet it's a a half Coco hillbilly mutt!!! Lol
September 1, 2020 at 11:34 AM
"a a" What you going to alcolic annonymous estupio? hillbilly half-wit idiota lol
"a a" el chupon IDIOTA!!
Post a Comment