PORTFOLIO

Mat Tuck

​

It’s been nearly three weeks since the violent protests broke out in Charlottesville that injured many and claimed the life of one counter-protestor. Bloody street fights broke out between anti-racists and far right supporters. At the center of the conflict stood the statue of Robert E. Lee mounted atop a horse in a heroic pose. According to the New York Times, the city of Charlottesville planned to tear down the statue after years of pressure from some residents, city officials and organizations like the N.A.A.C.P., who deemed the statue to be a symbol of racism. But is this a fair assessment?

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Image Courtesy of Newsweek.com)

​

The conversation still seems revalent even three weeks later as arguments about Lee can be heard throughout various news websites and even in the hallways here at the University of St. Francis. To some, the statue represents a civil war which was fought to save the union and put an end to slavery in America. To others, the statue represents southern pride in an experienced and remarkable American general. Regardless of who represents each side of the argument, the question remains, should a statue of Robert E. Lee be considered racist?

​

Let’s look at some facts about the Confederate general that perhaps not everyone realizes about Robert E. Lee.

​

To start off, Lee was a war hero before the American Civil War. Lee served under Major General Winfield Scott during the United States war with Mexico in 1846. According to the Historynet website, Lee helped Scott find ways around Mexican strongpoints or to capture them. Lee’s invaluable engineering knowhow helped America win that war. General Scott thought very highly of him. Lee also quickly recaptured the U.S. arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia after the radical abolitionist, John Brown and his followers seized it in 1859.

​

Another not-so-well-known fact about Lee is that he was opposed to succession from the Union. When several southern states succeeded after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, Lee refused to join them as their Brigadier General. It wasn’t until the succession of his home state of Virginia that Lee reluctantly agreed to join with the Confederacy. He simply wouldn’t fight against his home state.

​

Next, after the Civil War ended Lee sent his men home. Many in the south wanted to continue fighting the war guerilla style. According to the Civil War Trust website, a formal ceremony at Appomattox “marked the disbanding of Lee's army and the parole of his men, ending the war in Virginia.” This event triggered the similar surrenders across the south, which ended the fighting of the Civil War. Lee implored his soldiers at Appomattox to accept the war’s outcome and return to their homes.

​

This last fact about Lee may be the most significant point to make when discussing if he should be considered a racist symobol. Lee thought slavery was evil. In a letter to his wife in 1865 Robert E. Lee described slavery as an evil that would one day come to an end when God decided it was time. Lee did however own a small number of slaves that he inherited from his mother. According to the New York Times, Lee “considered himself a paternalistic master but could also impose severe punishments, especially on those who attempted to run away.” And even though Lee may have considered slavery to be wrong, he did, in the same letter, mention how he thought the slavery of Africans was a positive in the sense that it introduced them to God.

​

So, is it fair to call Robert E. Lee a symbol for racism? Maybe yes. But also, maybe no. At the very least I hope you are a little more informed about the man whose statue caused so much fighting and distress.