Talk:Robert E. Lee/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed bibliography

This bibliography survey on Lee is meant to be the basis of sourcing for replacing the cherry-picked popular press cherry-picking now included in the article sources with scholarship over the most recent thirty years. This is what I was able to gain from my WP subscription to Questia, omitting titles directly addressing Lee's generalship.

The mainstream scholars should number at least five --- 1997 Emory M. Thomas, Robert E. Lee: A Biography, 1999 John M. Taylor, Duty Faithfully Performed: Robert E. Lee and His Critics, 2014 William C. Davis, Crucible of Command: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, 2015 Michael Korda, Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, and 2017 R. David Cox, the Religious Life of Robert E. Lee.

Our revisionist stable should include at least four: 2000 Michael Fellman, The Making of Robert E. Lee, 2007 Elizabeth Brown Pryor, Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee, 2015 Jonathan Horn, The Man Who Would Not Be Washington: Robert E. Lee’s Civil War and His Decision That Changed American History --- and also 1977, reprinted in 1990, Thomas L. Connelly, The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society, for his representation of the Abolitionist pamphleteer viewpoint.

Of course editors need to be cautioned by the critiques of the revisionists appearing in the Journal of American History --- they note the historian’s fallacy that conflates apologists for slavery as a positive good for white society versus Lee who viewed it as an evil for white society – what was true for most Deep South profit-seeking slave-holders was not necessarily true for Lee, a sometime slave-holder from Virginia in the paternalistic mold. Even Eugene Genovese acknowledges a distinction among those engaged in the evil practice between the Southern bourgeois and seigniorial practitioners.

Any further additions of reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources would be welcome improvement to the practice of WP editor cherry picking the cherry-pickers in the popular press. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would hesitate to use the term revisionist in this way. Taylor, and admitted Lee enthusiast, calls himself "counter-revisionist", in my opinion, as an attempt to disparage the academic historians view of Lee since 1977, marking particular criticism of Connelly, Grady, McWhiney, Jamieson, Keegan, and Nolan. Taylor makes note of Castel, Davis, and Gallagher as historians who put Lee in "proper perspective" (this is from the first chapter of the book, in particular pages 6-9 of my version - can be checked out at https://archive.org/details/dutyfaithfullype00tayl). If one insisted that Taylor's viewpoint be included, I think those three authors, especially Davis and Connelly which are in your list, are likely to be very useful for finding compromise. For what it is worth, Taylor discusses the 1856 letter on page 40 and 41 of my version giving an account which balances Lee's being "opposed to slavery" against being unable to "imagine how blacks could prosper in a free economy" and quotes parts of the letter which say slavery is evil and which say slavery is "necessary".

Your list of "mainstream" (sorry for the scare quotes) includes Michael Korda, who while a brilliant person (and former editor of Simon and Schuster), isn't an academic historian. However, his biography was well received. Cox's book was also well received, but is more limited in scope than others, as the title suggests.

From your "revisionist" list, you are including very well respected academic historians. If I was making a list, I'd put Thomas, Davis, and Cox in that list and call it "mainstream academics". I'd put Korda in his own list and call it "well-received popular biography". Given some of the poor reviews of Taylors book (see: Thomas, Emory M. "Duty Faithfully Performed: Robert E. Lee and His Critics." The Journal of Southern History 67, no. 2 (2001): 469.), I'd put him in a list called "less-well-received popular biography". I wouldn't hesitate to add many books to this lists.

All that said, this article could use an updating in the quality of its sourcing and any of these books could be an improvement in many places. If you feel like it, I'd support going ahead and making such an update, with the caveat that you mostly leave the slavery section alone until better consensus is made at the talk page so as to avoid any misunderstandings.

You then discuss, I think, the review of Pryor by McCaslin (whose work you left off the list). I think that McCaslin's criticism of Pryor is fair, but I'm not sure your point. In Lee In the Shadow of Washington, McCaslin discusses the letter on page 59 (according to google books), focusing on Lee's dislike of abolitionism. In my opinion, McCaslin is one of the few recent historians who doesn't pair the two aspects of the 1856 letter (the two aspects being that he believed slavery is evil and slavery is necessary), but does discuss Lee's conflicted view. Pryor is more critical and references Fellman, Connelly, Nolan, and Thomas among others in her discussion of the issue.

My opinion is that there is probably too much here to really go into in a broad biography about Lee, but I would support improvements on the slavery section based on most of these books much more than one based on Long. Sory if this comment is vague, I'm not quite sure of what you were getting at with your comment and I thought it would be useful to give my thoughts. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

As you may have seen, there is no difference between the transcript of Lee’s letter in Emory M. Thomas and in Alexander L. Long. I take it that the consensus at WP is to avoid Lost Cause hagiography references, indeed to suppress the acknowledgment of their existence — which makes a certain sense in an ideological way I suppose. I got the link to Long as an open source online, that is all --- I did not mean to promote Long's partisan agenda by referring to the outdated and discredited relic of neo-Confederate literature. I very much regret I have been misunderstood; one editor was surprised to find that I know slavery to be the cause of the Civil War and that I have been documenting the fact with reliable sources on Wikipedia in contributions for over ten years.

In any case, we have on our research and reading list for the Robert E. Lee article: mainstream academics: Emory M. Thomas, William C. Davis, R. David Cox, Richard B. McCaslin; revisionist academics: Michael Fellman, Elizabeth Brown Pryor, Jonathan Horn, Thomas L. Connelly; popular biography: Michael Korda, John M. Taylor; military critiques: Albert Castel, William C. Davis, Gary Gallagher — versus — Perry Jamieson and Grady McWhiney, John Keegan, Alan T. Nolan.

My point is that the article as it stands in several places conflates fact based stereotypes of Deep South cotton plantation practice and protest, with the historical figure of Robert E. Lee who neither practiced bourgeois profit-taking as a slave-owning planter --- he did not like slave-holding — nor did he apologize for slavery as a moral uplift for republics, Christianity or himself. In those misleading places, the article --- which is lead astray by editor cherry picking of cherry picking popular press articles --- should be amended by well sourced contributions, whether from primary documents which I failed to do at the RfC, or from the preferable scholarly accounts from our reading list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the use of wp:primary sources and the proposed passage

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus against inclusion, due to concerns about original research and a desire for the use of secondary sources for contextualization and determining due weight. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Talk page contributors: @Smmurphy, Dimadick, Snooganssnoogans, TheVirginiaHistorian, Moxy, Daniel Case, Gedcke, IAC-62, Neutrality, Dr.K, Anythingyouwant, Elonka, Princewilliam3, and Darthkenobi0:. You are receiving this notice for an RfC at Talk:Robert E. Lee of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which is contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his son from Texas as found at Long, A. L., Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Additionally, @Shadowfax0:, @Alexandre8:, @Bilsonius:, @Johnlumea:, @Kelvan.f:, @GenkiNeko:, @Deisenbe:, @A D Monroe III:, @Gwillhickers:, @Rjensen:, @Infrogmation:. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the “Lee’s views on race and slavery" section contain the passage with information from Lee’s letter to his son from Texas and Congressional hearings, quoted in A.L. Long as sourced, and (1) expanding the elements of Lee’s belief reported in the article and (2) replacing the block quote partially mirroring the letter with text written in an encyclopedic style? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In an 1856 letter from Texas to his son from his Texas frontier post, Lee described slavery to be an institution of what he called a “moral and political evil”, detrimental to both slave and master. but he acceded to the inevitability of slavery under the U.S. Constitution during his own time. While Lee expressed his “feelings [were] strongly enlisted in behalf” of the “colored race”, he expressed a greater concern for the damage being done whites under slavery. Additionally he saw slavery as what he termed "a painful discipline” for those enslaved, associating it with improving the “colored race” compared to its African roots cultures by Christianization during its time of captivity.

But Lee wrote of better things for African Americans, and that with prayerful support, the "sure influence of Christianity" would bring about the final abolition of human slavery as an act of God’s doctrine on earth in what Lee conceived as a “miracle” at a time of God’s own choosing. Regardless of slavery’s ultimate extinction as God’s "doctrine", Lee did not believe that an end of slavery should come at the hands of what he termed "unlawful violent action" by Abolitionists whether in civil war or servile insurrection, nor did he believe the institution of slavery should be preserved by secession of Southern states and the destruction of the Union.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The concrete objections to the initial proposal have been met in the updated markup to the best of my ability. All of the elements in the current text in the article are preserved, including that Lee expressed a greater concern for the damage being done whites under slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Point of order. @TheVirginiaHistorian:. In RfCs, the "Survey" section is normally reserved for !votes of support or oppose with their own explanation, since they are WP:NOTVOTEs, but opinions adding weight to reach consensus, not based on popularity, etc. In addition, the "Threaded discussion" section is normally for actual threaded discussions about issues in the discussion, not votes. I suggest quickly re-ordering these sections to allow for typical RfC progress. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of the survey made in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. Explicit support and opposition to the passage in its second revision which answers the previous objections is of interest here, --- as the inclusive changes embracing editor comments seem to have been ignored in discussion here at Talk. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This RfC does not follow the example formatting; the example includes several uses of ~~~~. These each represent different editors adding separate comments, not all done at once by the single originating editor. Please look at other complete RfCs.

RfC formatting is up to the proposer, but there's a good reason for following the example formatting. As currently structured, this RfC is bound to fail. By presenting this RfC as black and white, with only "Support" or "Oppose" options with reasoning pre-selected, tends to eliminate any chance of some consensus -- an agreement of ideas that may satisfy most everyone. RfCs that end with a simple majority (~60% or so) in favor with no new middle-ground or compromise presented that actually resolves the issue, are almost always closed with "no consensus", which yields no change to the article -- the same result as everyone voting no.

(Also, I'm pretty sure none of those pings worked. They have to be on the same line as your signature, no more than a few at a time, each group with its own new signature.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III:

They will have worked. The maximum was raised from seven to twenty some time ago, subsequently to fifty circa August 2015. The user names need not be on the same line as the signature, merely on a newly-created line; provided that the signature is also on a newly-created line (not necessarily the same one), and all these lines were created in the same edit, a notification will normally work.

Like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for saying "line" when I meant "edit". I received Redrose64's ping just now -- none for the RfC. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I'm still trying iterations, without success yet. Thanks to both though. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support

• Support inclusion of passage, which is more inclusive than the previous iteration, expanding the previous two elements to eight by carefully using quotes from wp:primary sources as sourced. 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support (conditional) first, I would change some of the language in the above proposal. Instead of saying "But Lee hoped for...", we instead should say "Lee wrote that ...", adding no further opinion of our own, which TVH hasn't done here.  Using primary sources: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care... There is no Original Research here because the proposal doesn't advance any unusual or radical idea. Lee's memoirs have been reputably published by numerous publishers over the years, are widely recognized by historians, as are Jefferson's and Grant's memoirs. As controversial issues go, it's important to be clear about all perspectives for the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support when attributed as 'Lee wrote' instead of phrased as an analysis 'Lee hoped for', which seems what some of the oppose editors are objecting about. I also vaguely recall other works talking to his dislike of slavery that might be good or better to use, but this would do for now. Suggest place it near the letter to his wife. I'll also suggest the whole section seems a bit UNDUE -- what historians said or he wrote about his feelings simply was not a big part of his life events or impact and is described as not done much about -- but this text seems not more UNDUE than quoting a few historians of no apparent importance or community view. (Why are they quotes anyway ? Makes it look like SYNTH edits.) Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support (V. conditional) the amount of text seems excessive and could be reduced to a sentence or two - possibly alongside the 'wife' letter. I also endorse the comments made by Markbassett and Gwillhickers about inapt phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of passage. Personal correspondence to a family member provides insight into the views of a historical figure. I agree with Gwillhickers that it should be stated as "he wrote..." Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose, the passage because it isn't carefully reported wp:primary sources, it is wp:original research, --- or alternatively, it is wp:undue because Wikipedia should exclusively use secondary sources for subjects with a lot of published research. 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this is original researched based on primary sources. It would be a lot better if a historian has analysed these letters and offered an interpretation. In any case, the language used appears to be editorialising, such as stating, in Wikipedia's voice: ...unlawful violent action by Abolitionists whether in civil war or servile insurrection... This content is not suitable for inclusion in the present form. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – As proposed, this would first need reliable, independent sources explaining its significance. This also includes inappropriately emotive language which should be more clearly attributed to a specific statement at a specific time. For example, instead of saying he "believed" it to be a moral evil, he "described it as" a moral evil. Likewise, when, exactly, did he "hope for..." these things? This would have to be rephrased according to independent sources, with appropriate context provided by those sources, not Wikipedia editors. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate User:TheVirginiaHistorian is trying to build the best online encyclopedia. He has my best wishes and my assistance if he requests it. However, for a subject as extremely well researched and covered as RE Lee, wikipedians must rely on what the best historians have said. For the Wikipedia article to put forth the (IMHO fringe, however "true") assertion made in this RfC, we'd need substantial backing in multiple reliable secondary sources. We cannot for ourselves assert the subject's intentions or feelings based on primary sources. That's not our function; that's the definition of original research. When scholarly research on a subject occupies such a vast body of work, we can't jump to conclusions based on a NYT article's assertions either. We are required to use the consensus of the best authorities, even for minority view assertions. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been trying to think of something useful to say that I or others haven't already, but I've written quite a bit about the issue in the above section and now in the threaded discussion below. I don't have more to add here at this time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We could probably do for more in-depth discussion of this quote (it's attracted more attention recently), but it has to be done through secondary sources. Beyond that, while I usually prefer paraphrases to direct quotes, the proposed change actually removes what seems to me to be both an accurate and well-sourced paraphrase (In an 1856 letter to his wife he maintained that slavery was a great evil, but primarily due to adverse impact that it had on white people.) It's important to remember that secondary sources don't merely provide us with interpretation, but also with focus and weight - ie. if we have multiple secondary sources saying that that's the important part of this quote, it is WP:OR for us to downplay that part in favor of other aspects. The rewrite functionally (and, based on some of the comments below, deliberately) encourages a somewhat revisionist reading of the source in a way that differs from the secondary sources we're using; that implication is its own form of subtle original research. Given the extreme attention this particular letter has received, it should be possible to find secondary sources for any aspect that is worth elaborating on. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don’t think it’s wise to remove the well-sourced and longstanding blockquote from the letter to his wife, and replace it with other stuff. Better to keep that blockquote, and then briefly summarize whatever is notably different in the letter to his son. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as presented. I believe the current whole section could do with work, and has some hints of SYNTH already in it. But the stated goal of this proposal, to emphasize selected "elements of Lee's belief", falls directly under SYNTH, since the selection of which elements to emphasize (out of what amounts to a primary source) is done by the WP editor, not a secondary source. Two SYNTHs don't make a right. The section needs improving, but this restricted proposal won't accomplish that. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose the proposed text for the following reasons:
  • (1) This is a WP:OR summary of a primary source. There is zero reason to use a primary source on a subject which has been examined by a large number of high-quality academic sources.
  • (2) The editor’s summary of the primary sources omits seemingly important information from the letter (note that I’m not arguing that such text should be included, because we shouldn’t be relying on primary sources in the first place). (2a) Lee, for instance, blames the cruelty of slave-holders on the abolitionists who "excite angry feelings" in them. (2b) Lee also says that blacks are better off as slaves in America than as still living in Africa and that slavery is "necessary for [slaves’] further instruction as a race”. (2c) Lee says that Abolitionists are pursuing an “evil course”.
  • (3) The editor gives a dubious interpretation of parts of the letter. (3a) The proposed text implies that Lee saw the end of slavery as imminent and that he was hoping for its end or actively working towards its end through prayer. In my reading of the text (which again, is totally irrelevant because editors should not be providing WP:OR summaries of primary sources), Lee is instead making the common pro-slavery argument that slavery was the will of god, and that no active measures should be taken to end it and that abolitionists are fighting against what god intended. My interpretation is one that reliable sources mirror.[1][2] (3b) I have no idea what the editor means by this: "Additionally he saw slavery as what he termed "a painful discipline” for those enslaved, associating it with improving the “colored race” compared to African cultures by Christianization during its time of captivity”. It’s definitely not in the letter.
• In short, there are three problems with the text, with the first one being insurmountable. Wikipedia should never rely on primary sources when dozens of high-quality academic sources are easily accessible on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose no need to use primary source.....or news papers. Bit concerning we have to editors that don't semi to be aware of scholarly publications... wars over news papers and primary sources get us no where.--Moxy (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is simply OR. The discussion below shows that there are secondary sources that discuss how Lee's view of slavery was not positive, and those should be used instead of drawing our own inferences form primary sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per BusterD, Aquillion and Snooganssnoogans — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC) via the Feedback request service

Comment

• I have read the material, but do not feel knowledgeable enough about either RE Lee or WP policy to offer an opinion. I don’t share everyone’s horror of original research, WP is full of it, but agree this is an exceptionally well studied person and caution is called for. deisenbe (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I have offered this passage and it has now twice been deleted in two forms including the newest one promoting another editor's favorites of Lee’s beliefs, eliminating the previous objections reasonably put forward. I seek a consensus here to publish the latest proposal in article main space because it is inclusive of Lee’s points made in the letter frequently referenced in scholarly works, and inclusive of all editor contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Please don't use typographical quotemarks (“”) or typographical apostrophes (’), they go against MOS:QUOTEMARK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Are you referring to the direct quotes taken from Lee's letter in quotes? The link you provided is not applicable as it refers to titles of books. -- Wait I think the quotes need to be explicitly attributed to Lee, not to be confused with the editorial voice of WP. Revisions made to the proposal. I hope that "answers the mail" for your comment. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  It says 'Quotation marks and apostrophes in "imported" material should be changed if necessary.' Let's consider the first of the two quoted paragraphs, omitting the reference. This is

  Lee believed slavery to be an institution of what he called a “moral and political evil”, detrimental to both slave and master, but he acceded to the inevitability of slavery under the U.S. Constitution during his own time. While Lee expressed his “feelings [as] strongly enlisted in behalf” of the “colored race”, he expressed a greater concern for the damage being done whites under slavery. Additionally he saw slavery as what he termed "a painful discipline” for those enslaved, associating it with improving the “colored race” compared to African cultures by Christianization during its time of captivity.

  In that paragraph, I count 4 instances of the left curly quotemark (“), and 5 instances of the right curly quotemark (”). It should be amended to become

  Lee believed slavery to be an institution of what he called a "moral and political evil", detrimental to both slave and master, but he acceded to the inevitability of slavery under the U.S. Constitution during his own time. While Lee expressed his "feelings [as] strongly enlisted in behalf" of the "colored race", he expressed a greater concern for the damage being done whites under slavery. Additionally he saw slavery as what he termed "a painful discipline" for those enslaved, associating it with improving the "colored race" compared to African cultures by Christianization during its time of captivity.

  Now let's consider your opening statement,

  Should the “Lee’s views on race and slavery" section contain the passage with information from Lee’s letter to his son from Texas and Congressional hearings, quoted in A.L. Long as sourced, and expanding the elements of Lee’s belief reported from two to eight?

  This has one instance of the left curly quotemark (“), and three instances of the right curly apostrophe (’). Even your initial post in this section (the one beginning "I have offered this passage ...") contains two instances of the right curly apostrophe (’). Please try to avoid using these characters in all situations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Sorry. I should use the "Insert" array at the bottom of an edit panel to correct for my keyboard to avoid curly quote marks. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Please don't use the characters in the "Insert" list just after the degree symbol (′ and ″); these are prime and double prime respectively, not quotemarks at all. The only valid quote marks are the straight ones, " and '. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Very well, if the straight quotes are not readily available anywhere in Wikipedia pages, Where do I find the straight quote marks on my keyboard? They appear "straight" and not curly both on the keys and in the text printed in the draft section on WP, --- exactly the same as those found in your examples in my page view in the published text. Further, the straight quote marks found from my keyboard effect both WP conventions for italics and bold, which a previous keyboard did not with curly quote marks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  The straight apostrophe (') is the one that makes italics when doubled, bold when tripled. Its ASCII value is 27 hex, 39 decimal. On most keyboards it is a single keystroke, one of the keys at the right-hand end of the ASDF row. The straight quote (") is found on some keyboards as a shifted straight apostrophe; on others it is shifted figure 2. Its ASCII value is 22 hex, 34 decimal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And the straight apostrophe and quotation marks were used in my case using the last key of the ASDF row just before the return. What a wonderful hobby you have developed here at WP. I suppose I should thank you for the chance to reconsider the evolution of my keyboards. In so many cases I can still feel that I am on the wrong side of the "digital divide". Good reminiscing with you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• The proposal merely fills in many of the previously excluded elements of sources now cited in the article. For instance, in the NYT article “What Robert E. Lee Wrote…” we have a passage with an element of Lee's letter now deliberately omitted that the proposed language would include what the existing article source Jacey Fortin of the NYT explained,

"Of all the letters by Lee that have been collected by archivists and historians over the years, one of the most famous was written to his wife in 1856. 'In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country,' he wrote."

The idea of the proposal is to give a more complete picture of Lee’s beliefs on race and slavery, and this element from a common source wp:cherry pick out of the account by opponents should be INCLUDED. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that trying to use a primary source to advance a particular perspective (as, by my reading, you say you're trying to do here by accusing the secondary sources of cherrypicking), you're committing original research - you seem to think that by using nothing but one primary source, you can avoid it; but that's not the case. Your selection of quotes seems, from my perspective, clearly intended to imply a particular interpretation of the document. (What you describe as a "more complete picture.") If your goal is to include the perspective implied in that Times article, why not cite it directly? Obviously it's not an ideal source for a subject who has had so much written about him, but to the extent that opinions on him have changed recently it might make sense to include some newer sources like those; and it's better than trying to reconstruct their perspective via primary sources without citing it directly. --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, Thanks for the reasoned support. I did try twice to include elements of Lee's belief found in newspaper and magazine articles in this section, and both were removed by wp:bully reverts by User:Snooganssnoogans without discussion on Talk. The "newer" popular sources actually make some attempt at giving a balanced picture of Lee's somewhat complex views on race and slavery, but Snooganssnoogans will not admit them. This is an effort to improve the article without barring Snooganssnoogans for bad behavior -- more editors in the mix is already an improvement. The RfC support is not progressing well over the first five days, but there seems substantial support for improving the article with secondary reliable scholarly sources, which I find encouraging as it directly contravenes POV pushing by Snooganssnoogans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is just a load of rubbish. I explained to you why your WP:OR summary of a primary source did not belong in the article, and my rationale mirrored those of most of the editors commenting on the RfC (e.g. no reason to use a primary source on an extensively studied subject, dubious interpretation of the primary source, dubious decisions as to what to omit and what to mention). You then repeatedly tried to re-introduce your summary of the primary source to the article, even though it was opposed by three different editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Their objections were all met in each case before contributing the next contribution for a more complete narrative of Lee's views on race and slavery. You persist in a narrow POV which neither your own sources or Lee's 1856 letter support.

Snooganssnoogans, Why not admit the elements of my proposal that are referenced in your cited NYT article as coming from a reliable historian in wp:good faith? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• @K.e.coffman:, Though opposing, thanks for your contribution. Of course, “original research” requires a conclusion other than the wp:primary sources which the text is careful not to do. You raise an interesting consideration of style balance concerning the difference between wp:weasel and “the voice of Wikipedia”. It is Lee’s term “unlawful violent action” including Lee’s categories of “civil war and servile insurrection” --- and not any original research, which an inspection of the letter at Long, A. L., Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83 will show. Such was the case in Bleeding Kansas, although it was the slave power that tried to foist an unlawful slave constitution on that territory, and such was the case in Abolitionist John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry.

It is established law in this democratic republic that civil war is unlawful as held by the U.S. Supreme Court, --- that is not my original research, but commonly known information, despite the repeated exertions here on WP by unreconstructed wp:fringe Lost Cause Civil War buffs. The consensus of mainstream opinion holds here at WP. Still, I have amended the passage to read, “what Lee termed 'unlawful violent action’…” to meet your reasonable objection to the draft text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm still trying to come up with a full response, but I'll note that A. L. Long, whose biography you are citing, must be read with great care and possibly should not be considered an unbiased chronicler. After serving on Lee's staff as a secretary, Long was a key member of the Southern Historical Society which created the "Lee cult" and the Lost Cause movement, and many modern writers criticize Long for pro-Lee biases. For some further reading on his role, the society, and modern views on Long's writing, consider: Connelly, Thomas Lawrence. The marble man: Robert E. Lee and his image in American society. LSU Press, 1978, and: Starnes, Richard D. "Forever Faithful: The Southern Historical Society and Confederate Historical Memory." Southern Cultures 2, no. 2 (1996): 177-194, or for a more light reading: Cartmell, Donald. The Civil War Book of Lists. Career Press, 2001. p198. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smmurphy, Thanks for the additional caution. In my careful paraphrasing now copyedited with your suggestion, I was careful NOT to use any conclusions drawn by Armistead Lindsay Long, but instead directly conveyed Lee's meaning from the quoted letter, expanding the points made in the article's block quote to replace the block quote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not suggest any such copyediting. Having given this more thought, I am coming to strongly believe that citing Long as a historical authority is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think Lee's 1856 letter is an important insight into his thinking, I would have recommended you use a different reference which discusses it. Since we have contemporary references, you wouldn't need to use the primary source. You may feel sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to interpret Lee, but your proposal does not reflect the interpretations of Lee's letter in contemporary sources, and, as has been repeatedly suggested by others, I think you should cite and use a contemporary source, rather than Long or Lee. I would have recommended Levine's discussion which I discuss below. At this point, however, I do not mean to suggest a counter-proposal or changes to your proposal, as given the amount of time you've had to improve your proposal even before this RfC, I'm not sure incremental improvements to it will be sufficient. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smmurphy I have made several attempts to modify the blatant POV pushing manifest in the existing article text by using the same sources currently applied from newspapers and magazines. This proposal in the RfC is another attempt on my part at including Lee's views on race and slavery by clearly stating in simple declaratory sentences his views found in a famous and often referenced letter of 1856 --- without interpretation --- in a more complete way that the cherry picked newspaper article which cherry picked a reliable scholar.

I find your support in the use of secondary scholarly sources encouraging, and rather than barring the edit waring user who will not admit Lee's views from her own chosen sources, I will next seek to expand the coverage of Lee's views on based on secondary sources, peer reviewed publications if I can, which are generally held at WP as superior to newspaper and magazine snippets from off-the-cuff author interviews --- not to remove information but to expand it in a more comprehensive manner to transform the one-dimensional POV pushing caricature of Lee into a more complex description grounded in reliable sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• @Grayfell:, thank you for your contribution, though opposing the text. I have amended the text which asserted that Lee “believed” what he wrote in his letter to say he “described” slavery, to meet your objection.

It is interesting that on reading the letter at Long, A. L., Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83, that you like User:Snooganssnoogans insist that prayerful supplication to God for what Lee termed a “miracle” on earth must be contingent on Lee's specifying to the Ruler of the Universe a DATE CERTAIN in his prayers and documented in his letter before this “view on race and slavery" can be admitted into the article.

Lee made the religious instruction for his son’s prayer life as a patriarch of the time was wont to do without specifying exactly “when” the miracle would be manifest on earth. Indeed Lee referred to God's "own time”, — the submissive supplication of a believer which is difficult for the modern mind to comprehend without the reassurance of a reliable scholarly source, given the present-day cultural expectation of God as Santa Claus making good on December 25 each year. I will look for a reliable source accounting for Lee's prayer life to strengthen the proposal, but I still believe that the letter, conveyed in direct descriptive language as called for in wp:primary sources, includes important information on Lee’s views on race and slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You either misunderstand or are misrepresenting my comments, and your dismissive comments about my supposed religious views suggests both. I do not care when Lee hoped for miracle might hypothetically happen, although hoping God does something whenever He gets around to it while actively working against that goal is still entirely consistent with "Santa theology".

No, what I was saying is that the article would have to make it clear when and in what context Lee expressed these hopes. We cannot know what his "true" hopes were, only what he said or acted on. If this was only expressed in a few letters, this should not be presented as vitally significant to his worldview unless specifically supported as such by reliable sources, which would presumably provide context as to what he really meant, and why these comments were important.

Your misinterpretation of my comments is a good demonstration of the importance of secondary sources. You are, by Wikipedia's standards, no more qualified to interpret my comments than you are to interpret Lee's. In both cases you have made a subjecting interpretation in support of a prior assumption, and in both cases this was inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, the proposed text is copyedited per your suggestion. I commented on your characterization of Lee's beliefs, not on any supposed belief of yours. Lee was not "actively working against" the end of slavery in 1856, you mistake the historical record. I make no prior assumption about Lee's writing, I only directly report it as he made his views at the time in 1856 known. You have mistaken a discussion of Lee's views into a personal attack, but rather than asserting that you are unqualified to make a contribution, I have incorporated your recommendation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. The phrase you proposed, at the time I !voted, did not explain when this letter was written, and your initial edit actually removed that context. I saw the citation, my point was that the article did not explain this information to readers. That's not even the major problem I have with this approach, however.

The phrasing you propose, then and now, does not indicate why this letter was being highlighted and interpreted to strongly emphasize a very specific, and very controversial idea. Why two separate paragraphs, based only on the primary source? Why remove one of the reliable sources already there? If this isn't your personal opinion, where is the secondary sourcing which could support this re-contextualization? Why does this one letter, presumably among thousands he wrote in his life, support that he opposed slavery in some esoteric sense? How on Earth is this a neutral approach? If you cannot support and contextualize this letter's significance with reliable, independent sources, my opinion that this is pseudohistorical lost cause romanticism and cherry-picking is just as valid as yours that it's important historical context for the nuanced beliefs of a deeply religious slave-owner. The way to prove me wrong would be with reliable secondary sources establishing that this perspective is academically significant. Only with those sources could we even begin to include something like this, not before. If he expressed this hope only in private correspondence with close family members, and that's the best source that can be found, than it's clear to me this is not a proportional or neutral proposal. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayfell If the importance of the private letter from Lee to his son from a Texas duty station in 1856 is explained by a scholarly source, it seems I have your support for a more complete presentation of Lee's views on race and slavery. Making esoteric sense of Lee's letter is of course impossible if the guidelines for use of wp:primary sources are to be followed. The only thing allowed is directly conveying the information from the letter in a way that anyone without expertise in the area can understand.

Of course, the next step after the RfC if it fails, is to find reliable secondary sources establishing Lee's written account of his beliefs in 1856 are academically significant. Why do you require only repeatedly, publicly and widely available reporting of Lee's beliefs? He was a serving regular Army officer from West Point following the War of 1812, he did not make any such pronouncements at all --- including those now recorded in the article section entitled "Lee's views on race and slavery". Rather than removing the section, I would like to make it more complete. I am surprised at your POV defense of wp:cherry picking.

You are free to sort through my contributions at American Civil War and Confederate States of America and Congress of the Confederate States to see that I have made something of a WP career overturning pseudo historical lost cause romanticism. It is settle law by the U.S. Supreme Court that secession and civil war are unconstitutional. Part of understanding Lee is to represent his changing perspective as expressed while he was President of Washington College, Lee saw himself as a Virginian before and during the Civil War, and as an American after when he took the loyalty oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery.

In this Robert E. Lee article, I was the editor purging the chart summarizing battles from substantial POV triumphalist secessionist bias. -- Please join me in removing the flag of the new-secessionists, the so-called Third National Flag of the Confederacy with the red bar at the end of the fly, from the info boxes in all the Confederate soldier biographies, at least those from Virginia, and replacing it with the Second National Flag, the political flag of a circle of stars and three bars which flew over the armies, --- or removing the image altogether as in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the way to prove me wrong on this belief is with reliable sources. Your personal views and editing history are a distraction at best, and an appeal to authority at worst. At the end of the day, this proposed edit emphasizes Lee's ambivalence about slavery, which is, in my opinion, disproportionate unless supported by sources. Worse, this supposed ambivalence is constantly abused to support the lost cause mythology that the war wasn't really about slavery, which is utterly false. I don't think that's your intention, nor should you be held accountable for other people's sloppy history, but the end result is what matters. As I said, why is this letter being included among the thousands he wrote in his lifetime? Did Lee's views change over time? Of course, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which personal letter best reflects this change. Our job is not to describe the path of Lee's (supposed) moral rehabilitation, it is to reflect what reliable, independent sources have to say about it.

The current quote is supported by a secondary source which specifically emphasizes the quote as significant, and also provides some context for it. Your initial edit removed that source. If that source were just a compilation of his letters which provided no context or indication of greater significance, than yes, it would've been cherry-picking.

The context provided by the source states that Lee viewed slavery as abhorrent in the abstract, while in practice fully supported slavery, continued to own slaves, considered Africans and their descendants as completely inferior, and viewed abolitionists as a fundamental cause of America's problems. His words were at odds with his actions. Any edit which presents this letter outside of the context provided by the source is inappropriate. Could the current block-quote be better contextualized? Well, sure, of course, but your proposals are not a step in the right direction, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk)

User:Grayfell, There is NO “supposed moral rehabilitation” to be had for Lee's joining an effort for the forceable overthrow of a democratic republic without the constitutional means of an Amendment, which some secessionists of principle at the time attempted in Congress and failed. That said, the “result that matters” is that Lee’s views can be seen in the narrative of the article, in this case those in the context of an 1856 letter, without unnecessary ideological compulsion to misrepresent him for a preconceived result.

The cause of the Civil War was slavery, the effort by secessionists to perpetuate and extend slavery, by unconstitutionally, violently destroying the Union which they feared would one day peaceably, constitutionally, abolish slavery. But Lee’s words in 1856 were not “at odds with his actions”, he was sworn as a U.S. Army officer to support the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, a Constitution which at the time admitted slavery.

To his credit, as President of Washington College adjacent VMI in Lexington, Virginia, Lee acknowledged a change of view by explaining that before the Civil War and during he thought himself a Virginian, and afterwards, he became an American, swearing a loyalty oath in writing to the U.S. Constitution. It is relevant to this section because the U.S. Constitution then abolished slavery in the U.S.

I appreciate your reasonable position that an accounting of Lee’s views in reliable sources CAN be admitted to the article. I wonder why one editor insists on wp:cherry picking newspaper and magazine articles to convey only part of Lee’s views on race and slavery as reported in the articles cited? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we're not disputing that slavery was the cause of the war, and I hope that's not the extent of our common ground, here.

Lee acted in ways that did not align with his stated values. At best, he placed his loyalty above his abstract ideals, but he expressed this loyalty through his resignation. It was, apparently, a difficult choice for him, but he made the wrong decision. He made the deliberate and conscious choice to fight on the losing side in defense of the slavery system. In this way, his comparatively enlightened personal statements do not match with his actions. Slavery was not central to his personal views, but that is not an excuse, because it was absolutely central to what he fought for. Whatever his abstract hopes and private prayers might have been, his documented actions were absolutely in support of prolonging slavery indefinitely.

For most content, especially controversial content, Wikipedia editors should not pick quotes to emphasize a perspective that isn't supported by reliable sources. If a direct quote is chosen to emphasize a preconceived notion of what should be in the article, but that content is not otherwise supported as being significant, that's a form of cherry-picking. Your edit is, in a way, worse, since it re-frames the quote to this end. There are thousands of possible quotes that could be included, so deciding which to emphasize is not trivial, and figuring out how to contextualize them is not trivial either. If a reliable source highlights that quote as being significant, it may very well also be cherry-picking, but that would have to be discussed on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, Lee did indeed express his loyalty to Virginia above the United States at his resignation, and in that he was mistaken. At the time, both Virginia and the United States were unjustly permitting slavery, so his personal view that slavery should in God’s time be abolished was not at issue at the time of his initial Confederate service.

What was central to what he fought for was the “expulsion of the invader”, and so the wryly termed “late unpleasantness” in the framing of a grandmother (b.1898) is officially “The War in Defense of Virginia”, in Virginia. Had the secessionist conspiracy been successful in its unlawful Confederate rebellion, it would have prolonged and expanded slavery, which I find morally reprehensible.

(So in my view, Lee should have immediately freed the Custis estate slaves, and not used their rented service to pay off financial indebtedness before their manumission in 1862 — those creditors banking on Custis plantation slavery should have been stiffed for their deal gone bad at Custis’ death, tough luck in a speculative market. However personally lamentable for the Lees, the business of the estate should not have engaged Lee's sense of personal honor, "nothing personal, its just business".)

Interestingly, Lee’s 1862 manumission was in Virginia counties where the Emancipation Proclamation did not extend -- a footnote of some interest to our narrative in this section. I am looking into Wikipedia:Project MUSE and JSTOR to assist in research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• @BusterD:, thank you for your contribution, though opposing the text. It is interesting that both you and User:Smmurphy are concerned that in an article for a well researched figure like Lee, multiple reliable sources should be used to include his views in an often cited 1856 letter, termed “famous” by our NYT reporter.

It is also interesting that both of you along with User:Rjensen denigrate the use of newspaper and magazine articles by reporters unacquainted with the literature surrounding the quoted scholarly sources. Yet that is what we now have in several instances of wp:cherry pick that in one-sided POV pushing further cherry pick the news sources, such as User:Snooganssnoogans deliberately omitting NYT Jacey Fortin’s effort to balance an account of Lee’s views on race and slavery by referencing the 1856 letter and his view of slavery as a “moral and political evil”. Snooganssnoogans simply edit-wars by reverting each attempt to include what Fortin includes in his article.

The proposed text using the WP guidelines at wp:primary sources, is meant to correct for the unwarranted bias that is now reflected in the article section, contradicting even the suspect cherry picked news sources. In the proposal, only direct simple descriptive language — easily understood by the general reader without special expertise in the subject area as specified — is used to account for Lee’s views on race and slavery as found in the 1856 letter quoted in Long, A. L., Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83.

No conclusion or inference of my own is made; there is no wp:original research in the proposed text. Amazingly, before Lee's prayer for the end of slavery in the letter can be included in the article, both User:Grayfell and User:Snooganssnoogans insist that Lee's account contain a date certain for his prayers, --- when there is no such construction in Lee's own words for his humble petition which is without arrogant insistence on a date of delivery for his hoped for "miracle" anticipated in what Lee termed, God's "own time". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As above, this is a severe misrepresentation of my statement. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, what does you think you mean, "Likewise, when, exactly, did he "hope for..." these things?" -- I have identified the source of Lee's views here as coming from his Texas letter of 1856, so you know Lee wrote that he "hoped for" an end of slavery in 1856. Are you not calling for "exactly" a date certain in Lee's prayers before they are admitted as an indication of his 1856 views of race and slavery? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• I’m ambivalent. This Wikipedia article already includes an extended quote from a letter to his wife:

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

The letter to his son merely repeats a lot of this stuff, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant, exactly so, the block quote is to be replace with a passage expanding coverage of Lee's points in the letter and rendering an encyclopedic style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, the description of slavery as a "moral and political evil" originates in Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, and was a common phrase. Lee's 1856 letter is an example, Lee was well aware of Jefferson's book and was quoting/paraphrasing Jefferson. I've been looking at google scholar results of peer reviewed sources on Lee which discuss that quote (for instance, look at results of the search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=30&q="moral+and+political+evil"+lee), and most contextualize the quote by including Lees feeling that slavery is worse for whites than blacks and/or that it was necessary for the improvement of the slaves - both sentiments are also present in Jefferson's book.(here is a random example of an article from that search with such a discussion: Anthony James Joes (1997) After Appomattox: The guerrilla war that never was, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 8:1, 52-70, DOI: 10.1080/09592319708423162). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My initial goal was to try to find the best sources on Lee which discuss that letter and using that source to try to understand the proposal and what is good or bad about it. I'm not sure how well I can perform that task, but Bruce C. Levine, a very popular historian on the period, uses the quote quite often, for example is on page 22 and 23 of Levine, Bruce C. The fall of the House of Dixie: the Civil War and the social revolution that transformed the South. Random House Incorporated, 2013. Levine gives a similar account of Lee's feelings to the one in my previous comment and I don't see the proposal as reflecting what Levine wrote. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am curious about the support of the proposal from User:Gwillhickers, which says that "Lee's Memoirs ... are widely recognized by historians, as are Jeffeson's and Grant's memoirs". This comment seems a bit unclear. Lee did not write an autobiography as Grant and Jefferson did. Lee's Memoirs was never purported to be written by Lee, and instead was written by Armistead Long. Also, as I pointed out earlier[3], most historians today consider Long's writing in that book and elsewhere to be highly biased and unreliable. I'm not sure if Gwillhickers wants to clarify, but I wanted to point this out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If its been established that Long, in fact, distorted or changed the meaning of Lee's thoughts on slavery I would be interested in looking at a definitive example. Grant had a Union bias, but his memoirs are acclaimed to be well written and factual, virtually to the letter. We can't rush to impeach a source simply on the assumption of Long's bias alone. We also have to be careful of speaking on behalf of "most historians", who, as in almost all walks of history, have varying views. Is there a source that says "most historians" doubt Long's work? Does it offer anything other than opinion and assumptions? It's also very likely that Lee was influenced by Jefferson. You seem to mention this as if it somehow undermined Lee's sincerity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smmurphy, not to quibble, but I wonder if I misunderstand your first paragraph. It cannot be that when Lee adopts a formulation of Thomas Jefferson's that Lee's belief for himself is inadmissible in a passage on "Lee's views on race and slavery". In my direct declarative reporting of Lee's written comments found in the 1856 letter, I have been careful not to use any interpretive language from Long or Levine, because the intent is to properly write in accordance with wp:primary sources.

I likewise look forward to enhancing this section with references from reliable sources, --- that additional legwork finding scholars who say what Lee said seems required to persuade those voting in opposition to admit Lee's views in the section, "Lee's views on race and slavery".

There are additional agendas to answer for any further development of the article section, including on anachronistic assertion by an editor proposing that Lee could never had hoped for an end of slavery in 1856 if he fought to expel what he mistakenly saw as an invasion of Virginia 1861-1865. Later as President of Washington College, Lee explained that before and during the Civil War, he was a Virginian, and since then he had become an American. For what it is worth, Jubal Early was a Unionist delegate to Richmond's Secessionist Convention in 1861 who proposed that Virginia be neutral in any forthcoming conflict, blocking any Northern army marching south, and blocking any Southern army marching north. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For historians discussing Long, I point you again to my earlier comment citing Connelly, Starnes, and Cartmell. Regarding whether most historians discredit him and the movement he helped found, this is extremely well established and there are volumes and volumes written about it. You might consider Gallagher, Gary W., and Alan T. Nolan, eds. The myth of the lost cause and Civil War history. Indiana University Press, 2000. as a place to start. If McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is the definitive volume for you, the chapter To the Shoals of Victory discusses it. Feel free to pick your favorite contemporary academic historians of the Civil War, I'd be surprised if you could find three that endorsed the movement. TheVirginiaHistorian disavowed it in a recent comment in this thread[4].

Regarding mentioning Jefferson, I was trying to take this proposal seriously. In order to do so, I felt it was important to understand why he thought the way he did. My understanding of the context, based on the citation of Levine I gave and on other reading I've been doing, is that Lee's professed feelings were a common sentiment in the Virginia aristocracy of that era due, in a large part, to the influence of Jefferson's book. The words, "moral and political evil" are currently quoted in this article as coming from Lee. Because they are originally Jefferson's and not Lee's, I think it would be appropriate to mention this in the article. Also, based on Levine, I really do think that a mention of Jefferson's influence in Lee's philosophy on the issue could be appropriate. I don't think tracing Lee's thinking to Jefferson undermine's Lee's sincerity. Indeed I would expect most of Lee's philosophy to be based on others, he wasn't himself a philosopher or a theologian. At this point, I do not mean my words to mean to suggest a counter-proposal or changes to the proposal, as given the amount of time that's been given to improve the proposal even before this RfC, I'm not sure incremental improvements to it will be sufficient.

Regarding using interpretive language from Long or Levine, this issue has been well discussed by others, but I wish to point out that you certainly are not using Levine in your proposal. I don't have any comment on your last paragraph regarding agendas to answer for. I don't see that comment as having much to do with the proposal. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smmurphy, Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, I hope you will become an active participant at this article in the future. Thank you for your support of using reliable scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• User:Snooganssnoogans, you again mistake use of permissible wp:primary sources which simply conveys the meaning by direct declaratory sentences, with forbidden wp:original research with editor conclusions. There are none in the proposal.

There is no intimation in Lee’s letter of his seeing God as a Santa Clause providing “the end of slavery as imminent” on a date certain such as December 25, 1856; Lee refers to God’s “own time” in humble supplication as his Prayer Book required. Most 19th century Episcopalians did not view God as a Santa Clause, that is rather anachronistically a more modern formulation of the Prosperity Gospel.

What is the wp:weasel “seemingly important” omission as you say, “(2b) Lee also says that blacks are better off as slaves in America than as still living in Africa and that slavery is “necessary for [slaves’] further instruction as a race.” — Each element is included in the proposal, — but at the same time, your construction is satisfactory, it just leaves out Lee’s preference for Christianity over Islam and animism, which many modern scholars are at pains to avoid restating, regardless of the historical record, a kind of POV pushing by censorship.

Lee's religious context for his views on race and slavery -- in his own words, rather than a caricature of a hypothetical generalized slaveholder imposed upon him based on scholarship of the cotton belt Deep South -- can be left for another paragraph. Since your (2b) comment is the only concrete contribution you made, is that the copy edit required for support? I would happily admit it as a friendly amendment as I have three others here, for the sake of beginning the collaborative process with you in a collegial manner. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten proposal edit break

Perhaps at this point it would simplify matters if TVH rewrote the passage so that it offers Lee's words at face value, without saying anything that may make it seem we are speaking for Lee. In any case, we are not advancing any of Long's ideas here, only Lee's words. In so doing we do not embark on any original research. It makes little difference if Lee quoted a few words from Jefferson. They are the words Lee chose to describe his feelings about slavery. Everyone paraphrases someone else in part at one time or another. When it comes to describing the ills of slavery, there was no one man that invented that particular wheel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

With several copy edits to reflect suggestions and critique above, the modified proposal to directly convey what Lee wrote in the 1856 letter in accordance with wp:primary sources, so as to preserve the points now made in a one sentence paragraph and an unencyclopedic block quote:

In an 1856 letter from his Texas frontier post, Lee described slavery to be an institution of “moral and political evil” detrimental to both slave and master. While Lee explained his “feelings [were] strongly enlisted in behalf” of the “colored race”, he expressed a greater concern for the damage being done whites under slavery. Additionally he saw slavery as "a painful discipline” for those enslaved, associating it with improving the “colored race” compared to its African roots.

But Lee hoped for better things for African Americans, and that with prayerful support, the "sure influence of Christianity" would bring about the final abolition of human slavery as an act of God’s doctrine on earth in a “miracle” at a time of God’s own choosing. Regardless of slavery’s ultimate extinction as God’s "doctrine", Lee did not believe that an end of slavery should come at the hands of unlawful violent action by Abolitionists whether in civil war or servile insurrection, nor did he believe the institution of slavery should be preserved by secession of Southern states and the destruction of the Union.

-

I am encouraged by the support for a change in sourcing away from the newspaper and magazine accounts of cherry picked interviews with scholars and the wide support in this RfC for inclusion of more of Lee's views on race and slavery than are now related in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on revision

Here is what blogger David Sivak said at one of Snooganssnoogans cites] above: "Although Lee called slavery evil, he believed God had ordained it for a divine purpose that would eventually end. Lee made it clear in his letter that he opposed forceful intervention into what he considered heavenly matters." Why cannot that aspect of Lee’s views of race and slavery be admitted into the article as formulated in the proposal — instead of never-ending ideologically driven POV pushing wp:cherry picking. Editors of the WP article should aspire to attain the balance of the cherry picking popular press -- at the very least.

In another Snooganssnoogans link to newspaper articles justifying her opposition to the proposal, she refers to a review on Elizabeth Brown Pryor “Reading the Man” from WSJ Fergus M. Bordewich,who wrote “Lee’s personal struggle over secession was emblematic of the nation’s torment”. --- But at present, the WP article on Lee’s views on race and slavery hardly conveys any torment or even two-sidedness, only one ideological caricature of the Antebellum Deep South cotton planter, which Lee was not.

In the Journal of American History review of Pryor’s book of March 2008, pp. 1262-1263, Richard B. McCaslin of the University of North Texas notes “Much attention is paid to Lee’s racism, which requires the author at times to rely on thin evidence…another chapter focuses on the words and actions of others about slavery. Pryor then declares that Lee must have felt and acted the same.” This is of course a fatal historical fallacy for anyone trying to avoid anachronisms.

Pryor as reflected the Wall Street Journal review of her book may not the the reliable scholarly source we are looking for about Lee’s views on race and slavery, although in general, McCaslin concludes that “Reading the Man” is a well-written biography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, we would need a better source for that interpretation than a blogger, that's all. Religious arguments in favor of slavery were a big deal in the lead-up to the Civil War, and we would need a good secondary source that could put this in context. Beyond that, though, Elizabeth Brown Pryor, a professional historian - exactly the sort of source we should be using in the article (and exactly the sort of person qualified to provide that sort of context.) One book review isn't really usable as a reason to discount a source, although if other prominent scholars disagree with her then we could document the scope of the disagreement. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, Using the review from a professional historian chosen to review a book in an academic journal such as the Journal of American History is just such a means to document the scope of disagreement between McCaslin and Pryor --- Pryor is an able biographer -- her assessments of Lee as a general are useful as noted in McCaslin's review, for instance -- but McCaslin notes that "Reading the Man" is methodologically flawed in her presentation of Lee's views on race and slavery because she extrapolates to Lee from unrelated sources, and emphasizes post-war Abolitionist interpretations to the exclusion of others. We can of course reflect scholarly disagreement, that would be an immense improvement over the cherry picked news article references compounded by WP POV pushing cherry-picking that the article now suffers from. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

What is unencyclopedic about the present block quote? Here it is:

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

. Seems encyclopefic to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t understand how that indicates the blockquote is unencyclopedic. Can’t we convey torment or even two-sidedness, while keeping the Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a WP bias against block quotes. At wp:quote farm we have, "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both." --- In this case, the topic can be expanded by increasing two or three of Lee's points of view to seven or eight economically with a paraphrase of the same letter in an encyclopedic style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It also says: “While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them.... Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified, there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article.” I count seven (7) blockquotes in this long article. If you think it’s excessive, then you ought to explain why you think the other six are more useful than this one. My opinion is that this one is more useful than the other six, because on such a sensitive subject we ought to let Lee speak for himself, in addition to our own description of his slavery views. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree on that point. In matters of controversy blocking the subject's views/quotes on such argumentative and opinionated grounds raises POV issues, to say the least, and is simply poor writing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond that, as I objected to above, the rewrite still depends heavily on direct quotes, while omitting a paraphrase that is well-sourced to secondary sources (In an 1856 letter to his wife he maintained that slavery was a great evil, but primarily due to adverse impact that it had on white people.) Breaking quotes up and jumbling them together with some framing that pushes a specific reading isn't a paraphrase and certainly isn't an improvement on a blockquote. I generally support paraphrases over direct quotes, but the proposed rewrite isn't one. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, (1) The rewrite MUST depend on direct quotes from the letter to meet the requirements of wp:primary sources. That is not a flaw, that is a strength of the proposal.

(2) No, the newspaper source is not reliable, it is a LA Times interview with Barton Myers, who was confused in an off-the-cuff telephone interview. "I think Lee found slavery quite annoying as a day-to-day institution to run. His public comments on this are out there in a letter from 1856 to his wife where he talks about slavery being a great evil, but a great evil primarily to white people, because of what it was doing to the lower classes within the South and that it was a moral drag on those people.”

First, Lee’s letter to his wife was not public comment. Second, the 1856 letter does not refer to slavery as an “evil primarily to white people”. Third the letter does not refer to “the lower classes within the South”. The citation is not reliable, and the proposal better carefully paraphrases the letter of 1856 rather than off-the-cuff ruminations to a reporter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if you’d please try to write so that people unfamiliar with the conversation will understand what’s being said. Lee’s letter to his wife was not public comment, but his letter to his son was? Are you saying that private comments are presumably less sincere than public comments, or vice versa? When you speak of “the 1856 letter”, weren’t both the letter to the son and the letter to the wife dated 1856? The letter to his wife does indeed refer to slavery as an evil primarily to white people, right? When you say the citation is not reliable, you mean the sourcing for the blockquote to his wife is not reliable? I would disagree with that, because the block quote to his wife is printed in many reliable history books. Those books’ authors, by the way, have deemed that blockquote more illuminating than any paraphrase. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The citation quoted in the lead to the block quote is unreliable from the confused Barton Myers who cannot distinguish public discourse from private correspondence, “I think Lee found slavery …”, as clearly quoted in my post above, not the block quote itself, which is limited to a couple of Lee’s points. Why introduce confusing distraction on this point in the thread where there is none?

The proposed text is more complete as to Lee's views on race and slavery, and rendered in an encyclopedic style to replace the block quote, while preserving all the block quote points, without the misdirection of the Barton Myers quote, so it serves the article better. The block quote is more appropriate to the full length monograph cited, but not in an encyclopedia article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The blockquote that’s in this article now (from the letter to his wife), has nothing at all to do with Barton Myers as far as I know. This article has seven blockquotes right now. Are you saying they should all be eliminated? Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Barton Myers citation in the LA Times article is the paragraph lead-in to the block quote. The block quote of this section is the second longest in the article, and it conveys fewer points of Lee's views of race and slavery from the letter than the proposal. Are you saying the extended block quote at "Lee's resignation" is satisfactory encyclopedic style?

Surely that one can be paraphrased to reduce the length without sacrificing points Lee made, while in this case the proposal will have about the same number of words and convey two or three times the number of Lee's points than the block quote. Interesting question, Is the block quote per se more important than conveying a more complete picture of Lee's views?

It looks like from the responses to this RfC to date that my proposal needs to be reworked with secondary sources saying the same thing in order to gain a wide consensus, --- but the follow-on proposal with reliable scholarly sources will still replace the block quote with more points written in an encyclopedic summary style than the block quote alone conveys. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the material cited to the LA Times that precedes the present blockquote. The blockquote itself has an adequate footnote at the end of it, so we don’t need the intro stuff that you object to. As far as the blockquote itself is concerned, I don’t see any fluff or insignificant stuff in it. It concisely conveys a lot of his views, and is also an interesting example of his writing style. If Lee has other significant things to say about his views on slavery, then they can be paraphrased before or after the blockquote. I also support cutting back on blockquotes in this article, including the extended block quote at "Lee's resignation". Doing so would make the blockquote about slavery (addressed to his wife) less susceptible to objections about excessive blockquoting. This blockquote is commonly selected in secondary sources, and it involves an issue of maximum interest to many readers. Sometimes there is great benefit to hearing things from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Regardless of the final nose count at this RfC, I believe I will have to return to the subject more broadly after more secondary source research to achieve an enduring consensus. As you say, I have no objection to hearing Lee's voice per se, I want the section to more completely describe more of Lee's complex views on race and slavery in a way I do not think the article does now. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

McCaslin on Lee, race and slavery

Turning to a mainstream historian, we have the following narrative from Richard B. McCaslin's Lee in the Shadow of Washington.

Like Washington, Lee’s father-in-law Custis freed his slaves in his will, but Lee used a provision to retain them in slavery to produce income for the estate to retire debt.

Lee did not welcome the role of planter while administering the Custis properties at Romancoke, another nearby the Pamunkey River and Arlington; he rented the estate’s mill. While all the estates prospered under his administration, Lee was unhappy at direct participation in slavery as a hated institution. Before leaving to serve in Mexico, he had written a will providing for the manumission of the only slaves he owned.

Father-in-law G.W. Parke Custis was a member of the American Colonization Society established to gradually end slavery by establishing a free republic in Liberia for African-Americans, and Lee assisted several ex-slaves to emigrate there. But he was never an ardent abolitionist, denouncing extremist proposals. Lee rejected what he called evilly motivated political passion, fearing a civil and servile war from precipitous emancipation.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place for notes like these (see: WP:TALK). This isn't a discussion board; I think you should move these notes to your user space or draft space. If/when you are ready, I think you should either edit the page or make suggestions here how you think the page should be edited. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smmurphy:Under your link at wp:talk#facts, it notes a proper use of article talk pages is, “New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial.”

Having made a reasonable contribution from a primary source as reported at first by A.L. Long and later by Emory M. Thomas in precisely the same way, and had my effort mischaracterized here as interpretations of original research advocating the Lost Cause --- which is anathema to me --- I mean to be careful to share the editorial process so as not to be so egregiously misrepresented again. That is, I wish to follow the direction of wp:talk#communicate.

I regret that this process may seem redundant, but then the RfC was proposed in good faith to be adopted as a more responsible editorial policy that the cherry picking of the cherry picking popular press which has led to repeated examples of manifestly badly sourced narrative versus scholarly representation in context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between notes and material for the page. If you are interested in adding material to the page, you should propose it as such (as you did below). This and the previous two sections do not read in that way. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine what part of Snooganssnoogans opposition is malicious trolling versus what is willful ignorance about the antebellum South generally, Virginia and Lee in particular. You will note that she continues to misrepresent my edits as removing hers, clearly a case of wp:own gone wild, even though again, I have not altered or removed her earlier contributions, merely added scholarly material either from primary documents or reliable sources.

I do now see that to work collegially in this space it is important to avoid use of or reference to 19th century sources, so I will happily abandon any hint of the practice. Mea culpa, mea culpa. I will not do it here again, it seems guilt by association runs rampant. Okay, I renounce A.L. Long, I denounce A.L. Long, I deprecate A.L. Long and his writings for any purpose here whatsoever. I guess I can simply substitute the same text transcript of Lee's Texas letter from a modern source in my posts above. Although that would make much of the character assassination aimed at me that followed seem pointless.

I agree that there is a continuing sourcing problem in the article using the popular press; I support any efforts on your part to simply delete them until reliable sources can be provided. In the meantime, I will continue to search for the linked references to support my previous reading.

For instance, Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit to a popular press sourced comment about Lee and the administration of the Custis will to the effect it was to retire estate debt within five years as provided in the will. --- It was not for some unspoken evil purpose of personal domination over blacks that one unsourced editor speculated above. He was good enough to retract his assertion following some reasonable discussion.

These are not random notes, they are meant to be incorporated into the narrative, perhaps with collegial assistance. Now I have shared a source from McCaslin to the same effect as my previous edit so that all editors can be on the same page when I go in and edit again. But I am not sure what to do about the continued character assassination from Snooganssnoogans wrongfully accusing me of removing her contributions when I have not --- nor do I intend to --- which I hope my bibliographic essay above demonstrates to any wp editor of wp:good faith. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Amendment to first paragraph at "Lee's views on race and slavery"

I propose the following paragraph amendments to the existing first paragraph promoting Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor, and instead address the topic at hand, “Lee’s views on race and slavery” including material from Michael Fellman, Richard B. McCaslin, Elizabeth Brown Pryor,

Both Robert and his wife Mary Lee were disgusted with slavery, but they also defended it against Abolitionists until a distant day of African repatriation might bring freedom to the enslaved. Countering southerners who argued for slavery as a positive good, Lee in his well known analysis of slavery from an 1856 letter to Mary called it a moral and political evil.

Like Washington, Lee’s father-in-law G.W. Parke Custis freed his slaves in his will. In the same tradition, before leaving to serve in Mexico, Lee had written a will providing for the manumission of the only slaves he owned. Parke Custis was a member of the American Colonization Society established to gradually end slavery by establishing a free republic in Liberia for African-Americans, and Lee assisted several ex-slaves to emigrate there. But according to historian Richard B. McCaslin, Lee was never an ardent abolitionist, denouncing extremist proposals. Lee rejected what he called evilly motivated political passion, fearing a civil and servile war from precipitous emancipation.

Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor offered an alternative interpretation of Lee’s voluntary manumission of slaves in his will, and assisting slaves to a life of freedom in Liberia, seeing Lee as conforming to a “primacy of slave law”. She wrote that Lee’s private views on race and slavery "which today seem startling, were entirely unremarkable in Lee’s world. No visionary, Lee nearly always tried to conform to accepted opinions. His assessment of black inferiority, of the necessity of racial stratification, the primacy of slave law, and even a divine sanction for it all, was in keeping with the prevailing views of other moderate slaveholders and a good many prominent Northerners."

On taking on the role of administrator for the Parke Custis will, Lee used a provision to retain them in slavery to produce income for the estate to retire debt. Lee did not welcome the role of planter while administering the Custis properties at Romancoke, another nearby the Pamunkey River and Arlington; he rented the estate’s mill. While all the estates prospered under his administration, Lee was unhappy at direct participation in slavery as a hated institution.

Even before what Michael Fellman called a “sorry involvement in actual slave management”, Lee judged the experience of white mastery to be a greater moral evil to the white man than blacks suffering under the “painful discipline” of slavery which introduced Christianity, literacy and a work ethic to the "heathen African". Lee protested he had sympathetic feelings for blacks, though they were subordinate to his own racial identity, and he believed blacks should be freed eventually at some unspecified future date. But in any case emancipation would sooner come from a Christian impulse within masters before “storms and tempests of fiery controversy” such as was occurring in “Bleeding Kansas” as Lee wrote his letter.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by amendments? Are you suggesting that the section be replaced by this text or that this text be added to the section? Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The user has replaced an opening paragraph which summarized Pryor and Foner's assessments of Lee's views on slavery with these paragraphs which depict Lee as some kind of abolitionist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have serious concerns with this text. While the sources are good, the user has shown himself to misread and stretch text and omit context in the past to depict Lee in the most favorable light on this issue. The text now basically implies that Lee was an abolitionist! I don't have the time to locate the sources or read them, but I recommend that other editors seriously look into this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with Snooganssnoogans. Further, the "amendment" as implemented[5] doesn't really deal with the issue that the section currently relies heavily on sources in the popular press (newspaper and magazine articles) even though scholarly sources abound. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First, there is no change in the previous edit including Pryor and Foner — Snooganssnoogans cannot be trusted in her continuing misrepresentations and personal attacks on my edits. It deals with the popular press contribution defended by Snooganssnoogans by placing it in context with scholarly referenced material, in a collegial gesture of good faith, although Snooganssnoogans has explicitly declared she will not work with the mischaracterization she has fabricated of me. Of course Smmurphy can remove all the offending popular press references with my support. When I tried to previously, Snooganssnoogans tried to begin an edit war by repeated reverts, personal attacks and an admonition to "read the damn sources". I'd rather not edit war, but read scholarly sources.

Second, it is Snooganssnoogans who misreads text, this time in this way:

1. The passage reads: "Both Robert and his wife Mary Lee were disgusted with slavery, but they also defended it against Abolitionists" — That does not imply Lee was an Abolitionist, it explicitly says he was “against Abolitionists”. Snooganssnoogans is not to be trusted on this subject, as her misrepresentation of the edit demonstrates.

2. The passage also relates Richard B. McClaslin’s observation on page 58 of “Lee in the Shadow of Washington” that “While Lee had qualms about slavery, he was never an ardent abolitionist.” — SEARCH on "ardent abolitionist" to find the passage -- assisting his father-in-law supporting the American Colonization Society to gradually abolish slavery (turn the page, read the next paragraph - article narrative should not be made up of Snooganssnoogans cut-and-paste search snippets alone). — The very existence of advocates for gradual abolition as supported by Custis and Lee is the kind of historical context related to the Upper South which Snooganssnoogans wishes to suppress based on a POV without scholarly support.

Here Snooganssnogans again demonstrates a willful misreading of text and she relies on omission to depict Lee in the worst possible light on this issue — insisting that the Virginian Lee must be like the worst of Deep South profit-seeking cotton growers — regardless of his belief or practice as related in reliable modern scholarship. --- Then she absurdly accuses me of what she is doing. Why not work together rather than tilting at made up bogey men? Surely the well established scholarly distinctions made between the elites of the Upper and Lower Antebellum South can be understood and applied in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to respond here and would prefer someone else take this on. However, I'll give it a shot. I think the issue is especially glaring in the first two paragraphs in your edit (especially the first sentences of each). You are proposing that these paragraphs be the first paragraphs in the subsection. While the section is preceded by a discussion of Lee's relationship with some of his slaves, it is possible that readers will see this subsection more as a stand alone section, and I think attention should be paid to the tone set at the beginning of the subsection.

With that in mind, you first paragraph begins by saying that Lee was disgusted with slavery, citing Fellman 2003. That is a useful source for this, as it includes an entire chapter called, "Race and Slavery". That chapter begins with a discussion of Lee's ambivalence, and that secession and the war "politicized Lee" (p54-55). The chapter then discusses Lee's view of immigrants, Mexicans, and Indians, returning to blacks around page 61. At that point, it again discusses his ambivalence. It goes on to discuss Lee anxiety about the activities of abolitionists and whether he would be able to keep his slaves (p63). It also discusses Lee's reaction to an attempted escape - jailing slaves to be whipped (p65). Page 66 discusses more about Lee's racism and 67 concludes that Lee likely personally beat Mary Norris. 68-71 largely discusses Lee's family's views. Your proposal then quotes Fellman pretty closely on page 72-74. Page 75 is the last of this chapter, and the last paragraph is extremely damning towards Lee, starting, "And yet such empathy [with slaves] ranked lower than Lee's identification with white slaveholders." and draws parallels between Lees views and those of other slaveholders, emphasizing: white supremacy, avoiding confronting evils of slavery, and turning a blind eye to the dehumanization and corruption of slavery.

One concern you may have is that my reading of Fellman is not authoritative. Fellman has been reviewed at least twice in top academic journals, once by Russell Weigley in the Journal of American History in March 2002 (you referred to this review above). The other is in Civil War History in December 2001 by George Rable. I don't see Weigley discuss Fellman on Lee's views on slavery and racism. Grable does, noting that Fellman paints a "dark picture ... Fellman uses rather slender evidence to argue that the Virginian was not only blind to various social evils but, despite a qualified unionism, was also passively pro-slavery. According to Fellman, Lee was so 'profoundly conservative' (76) that he could never adjust to the onrushing events of sectional conflict or later the Civil War itself, a flaw typical of an entire class that had become 'social anachronisms' (77) in a democratic age. This world view made Lee a much less reluctant Confederate than many historians have described." Referring to a later chapter, Grable writes of Fellman, "By Fellman's lights, Lee contributed greatly to the 'Southern white nationalism' that defined the 'Lost Cause' after the war (192-93)."

I hope you can see how different the tone Fellman gives to Lee's views on slavery are to how you quoted Fellman in your talk section entitled, "Fellman on Lee, race and slavery" as well as how different Fellman's chapter is to your proposal. I am not sure if you would like me to look at Korda or McCaslin. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure I would like you to look at Korda and McCaslin -- especially as McCaslin acknowledges that there were gradual abolitionists as opposed to the immediate Abolitionists, which Snooganssnoogans apoplectically found incomprehensible.

I find your critique of Fellman very useful describing Lee's racism, which I think should have its own paragraphs. The racism was endemic in 19th century America, some suppose it is still alive and well (example: Trump's "good people on both sides" of the white nationalism question). But Lee's racism should be enlarged upon in paragraphs separate from this edit's discussion of his views on slavery. Perhaps the section could mark out two distinct subsections - one on slavery and one on race.

Felllman's critique of Lee "avoiding confronting evils of slavery, and turning a blind eye to the dehumanization and corruption of slavery" (1) ignores his confronting slavery evil by a Mexican War will manumitting all the slaves he owned, and (2) it ignores Lee's acknowledging the dehumanization of slavery by assisting Custis slaves to be freed for a life in Liberia without white racial prejudice, and (3) it ignores Lee's acknowledgement of the corruption of slavery in noting that the enslaving white race suffered greater moral harm than the victimized blacks held in slavery (Christianization of slaves did not mitigate the moral harm done to whites as slave holders -- I think Cox may give us some help in this area).

Fellman's "he could never adjust to the onrushing events of sectional conflict" just meant Lee was a steadfast Unionist before the Civil War (though conditioned in the event by an insistence on non-coersion). --- There is no historical imperative that all slaveholders be Secessionists and all Unionists be immediate Abolitionists. Slaveholding Unionists existed before and during the Civil War in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, DC and Delaware. Fellman's holding that Lee "despite a qualified unionism, was also passively pro-slavery" seems to be anachronistically supposing only immediate Abolitionists were Unionists, which is of course unhinged from the facts, especially before Lincoln made emancipation of slaves a war aim, second to preserving the Union.

Again there seems to be an anachronistic POV to purge any memory of the gradual abolitionists who were given voice in the American Colonization Society. Its presidents included John Randolph, James Madison, Henry Clay, Richard Bland Lee and Bushrod Washington --- hmmm, all born Virginian elites as were supporters Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Lincoln supported gradual emancipation before the Civil War, and his Administration pressed for federally compensated emancipation and resettlement to Liberia for Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and DC, with only partial success in DC. That in turn led to the Emancipation Proclamation.

Black Abolitionists of the time were especially severe in their condemning critiques of the American Colonization Society. All men are after all, born free, so slavery is of course an unnatural condition that can only be sustained by institutionalized coercion and individual acts of brutality (indeed, so was the color line: the only time my grandmother ever hit me in the face was when I unthinkingly drank out of the "colored" water fountain at Kresge's in Key West). But it does not necessarily follow that Wikipedia should adopt an editorial voice that suppresses any consideration of the ACS or its adherents who were in fact historically present at the time in some significant numbers, especially in Robert E. Lee's world of Virginia elites. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will reply here paragraph by paragraph, so this paragraph is an attempt to reply to your first one, and so on. I'll try to look at McCaslin and Korda, but I'm not sure when I will get to it, nor if I have access to those books. I am still very curious about the difference between on one hand the reading of Fellman you presented above and in your amendment and on the other hand my reading and the reading from Rable. In my opinion, that difference is quite vast and a bit upsetting. I have not found as large of a gap between Snooganssnoogans edits and the sources they use and do not find their edits incomprehensible.

I don't have an encyclopedic opinion on the connections between Lee's racism and Trumps. I'm not sure that there are reliable sources that cover it and I don't think it would be useful to add to this article. While I think it is possible to write separate sections on slavery and on racism, I think the two concepts are often considered very strongly related and not separated in reliable sources.

Your next paragraph seems to be your opinions about Fellman's conclusions. I think that is interesting, but, while our editorial prerogative as editors gives us a lot of leeway in what we include and omit from a biography, I think it would be a challenge to justify presenting counter-examples to a conclusion in a reliable source which are not, in turn, given as counter-examples by another reliable source - especially for someone who has been written about as much as Lee.

Your next paragraph draws parallels between Lee and other figures from his and previous generations of Virginians, as well as with Lincoln. I'm not sure what to make of it. I think most scholars agree that Lee was not an original thinker when it comes to political and moral philosophy. I'd love more discussion of this in the article because I am particularly interested in the genesis of the personal philosophies of historic figures, but I don't know how useful it is to a general audience. The rest of the paragraph, like the previous one, gives interesting counters to Fellman's conclusions, but would need to be shown to be counters to similar conclusions if they were to be a part of the article.

Your final chapter is about the ACS, I don't think Lee was a member. Are there sources that discuss Lee's thoughts about or relationship with the ACS? If not, I'm not sure how useful it would be to include a discussion of it in the article.

As a final point, I want to point out that Fellman was the source you chose to use and was the first one you cited and the first one you presented notes discussing in this talk page since the RFC. As I said, I'll do my best to look over Korda and McCaslin, but I may not get to it soon. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Fellman is first because collegiality is important at Wikipedia, Fellman is a reliable source, and several editors seem to favor revisionists on Lee. It is McCaslin who notes that Lee personally assisted some of the Custis slaves to immigrate to Liberia and freedom from white prejudice. Rather than use McCaslin's phrase that Lee was "never an ardent abolitionist" a better formulation might be that Lee was a "gradual emancipationist" in light of his Mexican War will to emancipate the slaves he owned upon his death, and his assisting slaves to freedom in Liberia. That might meet Snooganssnoogans concern that sourced reference to McCaslin's gradual abolition must mean immediate Abolitionist to the general reader, which of course would be a very misguided conclusion completely divorced from Lee's actual historical character. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I've taken a look at McCaslin. It doesn't really look like he discusses Lee's view on slavery in any depth. In the section you cite, it says that Lee had "qualms" about slavery, a bit different from "disgusted" as Fellman puts it. Otherwise, it looks to me that you've leaned heavily on two pages of a book which doesn't focus on the issue and ignored all but two pages of an entire chapter of Fellman focusing on the issue. Korda's book seems heavily narrative and doesn't reflect on Lee's views in any depth. Flipping through, I see a few mentions of his interactions with African Americans here and there, but nothing particularly insightful. Unfortunately, I don't feel either provides enough material to summarize their views on Lee and slavery in the way I tried to with Fellman. Rereading our discussion to this point, I am struck by your assertion that Lee's expressed distaste for slavery should be a prominent part of this section, in spite of very little emphasis placed on it by the references you cite or by the references others have given. Are you working on rewriting your amendment, or do you stand behind it? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I earlier recast the description of Lee using uncapitalized not extreme abolitionist (as linked to the source above) since it really meant Lee was a gradual emancipationist in the mold of the ACS --- to avoid any confusion on the part of the general reader, and noted Lee's opposition to capital "A" immediate Abolitionists.

It seems to me based on our discussion that my edit needs to be further revised to avoid wp:undue. But it does not follow that the editorial voice of Wikipedia in this article need be purely revisionist mirroring 19th century partisan Abolitionist pamphleteers in their deprecating tone, --- rather it should be wp:neutral.

Again, I am not satisfied with the edit as it stands yet. --- Am I unfair in taking you to mean that you would like to weight the paragraphs based on each editor's word count in each applicable passage, rather than look a the balance of a variety of editor viewpoints? They seem to be two distinctly different objectives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Revisionist is your word, I don't think many call Fellman revisionist, nor do I think many would think citing Fellman is a nod to cordiality as you suggested in your previous comment. Taylor uses "revisionist" in passing to criticize those who he thinks see Lee in a negative light. I think "Gradual emancipationist" is ill-defined as well. Elijah Lovejoy claimed he was before he was lynched, do you think Lee had the same views as Lovejoy? I don't think any of the sources we are discussing use the term. Looking at google books, I find it rarely used by contemporary historians, although in a book on Emerson, Patrick Keane in 2005 says Lee was a "gradual emancipationist at best." I don't know what you mean by differentiating between an Abolitionist and an abolitionist in this case, and I am sure that Lee was neither.

Regarding neutrality, I'm not sure exactly what you mean again. The historians view seems to me to be consistent: Thomas, Davis, Fellman, Pryor, Horn, Connelly, Grady, McWhiney, Jamieson, Keegan, Nolan, Foner, and scores more all seem fairly united in emphasizing A) Lee's failure to speak out against slavery or in favor of civil rights rather than B) his personal disgust for slavery. I'm really not asking you to weigh words. Against this list you claim the views of Taylor, Korda, and McCaslin support some other position. I don't think Korda should be included as among those who think Lee's view that slavery should be slowly phased out should be emphasized or emphasizing B over A, his focus isn't on the issue and he discusses slavery more in how it reflects on Lee's religious fatalism. McCaslin doesn't emphasize B over A, either. Right after McCaslin wrote that Lee had qualms about slavery, but then reported without rebuttal that Lee beat his slaves. It has been a few weeks since we discussed Taylor, but I seem to remember his view having more nuance than your amendment as well.

Your amendment basically reads, some say B, some say A. In reality, nearly all say A and B, but the vast majority say A much more prominently than B., as this article did before your amendment. Although I still think the referencing should be improved, my temptation is to remove your amendment as I don't see it as really improving the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit improves the article by bringing to light B) Lee's personal disgust for slavery as demonstrated by his words and his emancipating actions towards manumission. (Perhaps "gradual emancipationist" needs to be "gradualist anti-slavery man" or "for slave-owner manumission".)--- Based on your analysis, the proper solution would be to find a way to say "Most say A and some say B." Which I am prepared to undertake.

We should not suppress all mention of B. Otherwise, it would be better to simply remove all material sourced to the popular press, --- which by and large says "A only" and implies "not B at all", the tone of the propagandizing Abolitionist pamphleteer that is objectionable at Wikipedia.

We can rebalance my edit, But if not, let's remove the popular press material and we could collegially begin again by reworking the sectbon using our stable of reliable sources from all points of view to achieve a wp:neutral tone. @Smmurphy: I suggest you take a turn at crafting the language rather than removing as contribution reliably sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Great. I'm sorry this is taking so much effort. I'm hesitant to roll up my sleeves here because I prefer to put my effort into pages I find easier and more enjoyable, so the work you are doing is highly appreciated, even if I don't think it gets it right. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Consider: In the American Historical Review article on Emory M. Thomas “Robert E. Lee: A Biography”, where Steven E. Woodworth notes that Thomas uses new (1995) scholarship to construct an image of Lee much different from Freeman’s, a psychological portrait based on his words and particularly his actions. “With all [Lee’s] faults — his depressing racial attitudes, his leading of armies in a war to make the world safe for slavery, and his other inconsistencies — Lee the man comes through . . . as a figure who can still excite intense admiration.”

Consider: In the Journal of American History review of the Thomas biography on Lee, Carol Reardon notes that the Thomas effort lies between the laudatory Douglas Southall Freeman and the disapproving Thomas L. Connelly. “Thomas views Lee first and foremost as a great human being . . . [he] tries first and foremost to understand Lee the man.” She concludes, “One need not accept all elements of Thomas’ psychological profile to gain a greater appreciation of the complexity of the general’s character.”

I suppose the Wikipedia article should reflect both A) some of the scholarly biographical elements of Lee's character that are admirable (manumission), and B) some of the disappointing elements that convey a complexity of character (Divine purpose for black freedom and racism). It may be that your draft ends up emphasizing B with Connelly, Pryor, Fellman and Nolan, supplemented with A found in Thomas, Davis, Cox and McCaslin. My main concern is that the outcome be balanced --- and without a one-sided monotone of disapproval. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not planning on any draft. Davis, Cox, and as I pointed out above, McCaslin, emphasize B over A. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I mean to rework the edit so as to closer match up with your analysis. I am not satisfied with the passage as it now stands in large part due to your critique. I want to include narrative from recent scholarly sources, though without a vitriolic bias of condemning censure of the man in his time -- that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, however fashionable it may have become among some scholars to reject the "otherness" of the past.

I hope to get to it before the end of this week, generally following the outline: A) disappointing elements in a complex character first, based on the preponderance of the most recent scholarship, and only then B) elements of character that can be admired, --- based on scholarship of the last twenty years to avoid the laudatory earlier works. The passage is to describe Lee in conventional terminology generally in use, with a wp:neutral tone.

Thanks for your patience in this. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In the event, as a matter of style to compare and contrast the paradoxes of Lee's views on race and slavery, I decided to put "B" elements into subordinate clauses to make them lesser than "A" elements. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

editbreak

Sounds fair. Weight should be given an issue based on content, not simply by counting how many books support ideas A or B. In controversial issues it's important that all significant views be fairly represented, and no one seems to be advancing any fringe or weird ideas here. -- Re: Blockquotes: I've faced issues with blockquotes before, esp when the quote tends to undermine popular or uninformed opinion. The idea of "too many" blockquotes is rather subjective (like arguing about at what point a shade of grey becomes "dark"). Quotes in a biography, about the subject, in this case Lee, often make the point more clearly than a given historian may. It doesn't matter if the quote is found in a book written by someone who may love or hate Lee, so long as the quote is in fact a quote. While there are practical limits to anything, I don't see the idea of "too many" as a pressing issue in this rather long article about Lee. If the quote in question is the only place a given point is clearly made, removal of the quote without replacing the idea with other content would invoke POV issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018

207.157.127.96 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC) oof oof oof oof oof oof oof oof ofo owo

No. – Conservatrix (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add category

In light of all the discussion of white supremacy in this article, the absence of Category:White supremacists is striking. Please add the category that is appropriate to reflect his white supremacist views discussed in this article. 71.246.148.7 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede/body consistency

A couple of months ago, there were major changes done to the body, but also a re-write of the lede (see discussions above and in the archives for various content disputes related to this). One editor is now disputing that the final paragraph of the lede adheres to WP:LEDE. More specifically, the concern seems to be that the text in the lede does not summarize anything in the body. User:Neutrality wrote the lede if I recall correctly, so I'm pinging that user. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead section seems fine as it is. The material generally reflects the body. To the extent that some material may not be in the body, the correct remedy is to add that material to the body rather than to remove it from the lead. Neutrality^talk 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Did Lee free his own slaves?

If so, that seems like it would go into the slavery section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.95.192 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As I remember, Lee provided for freeing his slaves in his will on setting out for the Mexican American War, and during the Civil War, he freed his slaves at Arlington prior to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Have the book if you need a citation....but here's an article with a pic from the book.... [ New York Times.--Moxy (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee's List of Battles

It is slightly concerning to me to see how biased Lee's actions are against Grant when referencing the Overland Campaign. The description of the Battle of the Wilderness is fine, but Grant put up mass casualties against Lee at Spotsylvania Courthouse. It was not a tactical loss for Grant; he maneuvered against Lee's flank after exposing it. He did the same at the Wilderness. They do not even mention the Battle of Totopotomoy Creek. Grant decisively beat Lee both tactically and strategically in this battle. Next, is the 3rd battle of Petersburg. They mention nothing about how Grant was able to break the lines against Lee after Lee launched a disastrous offensive at Five Forks. Finally, they do not mention anything about Lee's retreat from Petersburg. They simply say how his army went home. I am glad they call it a defeat (finally), but they need to do a better job within the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3F4E:DC00:E9AE:5E53:76D6:EF12 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

His black hen Nellie

I saw this first on the french wikipedia page and initially tried to post about it on the main page. According to Robert E. Lee's former slave turned lifelong servant, Rev. William Mack Lee - who served the General his meals throughout the war - the General also kept a pet chicken he called Nellie for two years during the war. This chicken was killed by William during the famine before the battle of the Wilderness and made into a meal for the General and others. The edit was removed by a fellow editor who . See -- History of the Life of Rev. Wm. Mack Lee Body Servant of General Robert E. Lee Through the Civil War: Cook from 1861 to 1865: Electronic Edition. Lee, William Mack, b. 1835 https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/leewilliam/lee.html Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

An image caption was changed with this edit. The change makes no sense grammatically, and it is unsourced. That portion of the caption should be deleted. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't it read "some of his officers" or something similar? He had many officers under his command who survived the war; this photo only shows 12. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert E Lee and the 1st Calvary (now 4th Calvary Regiment)

This page has some false information. Under 1850s prewar life, it states Lee commanded the 2nd cavalry regiment, but and both point out he commanded the first (now 4th) calvary regiment for a month before resigning. If anyone who has access to this page could change it that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.65.153 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Height

Could an established editor please add the well-documented height (5 ft 10+1⁄2 in (1.79 m)) of Robert E. Lee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.150.36 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2017‎ (UTC)

I don't see why it's relevant. TL The Legend (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Improvements for Robert E. Lee Military Service

It is not correct that Robert E. Lee spent the majority of his time in northern or border states. His first assignment out of the military academy was in Savannah, GA where he helped coordinate the construction of forts for many years. Also he was stationed in LA for long periods of time fighting in the Mexican-American War. This should be changed as you used the fact that he did not live in far southern state so he could not relate the real slavery. Actually Virginia his home state was large in plantation cropping and slavery. His domain of living did not have any outlook on his view on slavery. It was the basic moral of his religion that showed that slavery was not a sustainable attribute as America grew past these futile times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.106.79.10 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2017‎ (UTC

What section is this in? "Military Service" isn't a section. TL The Legend (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

died in october 12 1870 :) 74.105.247.90 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This information is in the article in at least three different places. If you would like something to be changed with the article, please make a specific request in the form "Change X to Y". ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Attitudes toward slavery/Lincoln

"While both Robert and his wife Mary Lee were disgusted with slavery, they also defended it against Abolitionist demands for immediate emancipation for all enslaved."

The same can also be said of Abraham Lincoln and most of the Republican Party before the ACW. Would it be useful to include that in the present article? Creuzbourg (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, insomuch that the article isn't about Lincoln or the Republicans. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Slight disambiguation edit suggestion

"Like Washington, Lee's father-in-law..." should be amended to "Like George Washington", given how removed it is from the previous mention of him in the article. While the mononym isn't the worst in the world, it isn't ideal for the global perspective this encyclopedia should strive for.

And while "George Washington" in itself isn't completely unambiguous, the pool there is significantly smaller, based onGeorge Washington (name) (counting only those born before the US Civil War). --181.115.111.42 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm removing "Like Washington" completely. There's nothing saying that Curtis' will was motivated by Washington's, it's not necessary to state even it it was, and the wording is just confusing as it might be interpreted that Washington was Lee's father-in-law, and that confusion is supported by the fact that Lee was actually related to Washington by marriage. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Article introduction - maintenance tag

(a) In response to the maintenance tag, “Introduction too long”, I repositioned the introduction paragraph beginning “Lee opposed the construction of public memorials to Confederate rebellion” to the subsection, “Monuments, memorials and commemorations”.

(b) several introduction copyedits for style, and applied links to the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861, the Army of Northern Virginia, and the Confederate Congress.

(c) repositioned the introduction paragraph beginning “In 1865, after the war, Lee was paroled . . .” — to become the lead sentence before the paragraph beginning, “ On January 30, 1975, Senate Joint Resolution 23, . . .” below in the “Legacy” subsection”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the lede is not long enough for the scope of this article. While it appropriately contains only general statements about major topics that are covered in the body of the text, it doesn't, however, mention anything about Lee's family, his early life, personal life or his plantation. Also, Gettysburg should be mentioned by name in the lede, instead of the generic referral to two major defeats. The editor who tagged the article didn't give any example of a statement that didn't belong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add to his page ..

See also

• List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e010:1100:dc1b:15d8:6c3:e7f9 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Birth year

It is mentioned that Lee may have been born 1806

"January 19, 1807, but according to the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor, "Lee's writings indicate he may have been born the previous year.""

which would make him 18 at this point

"Fitzhugh wrote little of Robert's academic prowess, dwelling much on the prominence of his family, and erroneously stated the boy was 18"

Should something to this effect be added to the page? Yoshi161 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fix for "Citation needed"

It says that there is a citation needed for Lee's quotation that he saw slavery as a "moral and political evil." This article from the Encyclopedia Virginia has the fuller letter to his wife where that language is used, and it's full context: https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_18562601:140:8080:310:B481:36B9:D737:DD5 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)AD

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Change:

"Lee attended Eastern View, a school for young gentlemen, in Fauquier County, Virginia, and then at the Alexandria Academy, free for local boys, where he showed an aptitude for mathematics."

Change to:

"Lee attended Eastern View, a school for young white gentlemen, in Fauquier County, Virginia, and then at the Alexandria Academy, free for local white boys, where he showed an aptitude for mathematics. Lfwillard (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Using "White" twice here might be a bit redundant - Do you have a source for the school being segregated? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Appears controversial, hence recommend providing appropriate sourcing and establishing consensus on this talkpage prior to using the template. Jack Frost (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Lee's cruelty on the Arlington plantation nearly led to a slave revolt"?

I'm a bit perplexed by how a paragraph starts off by saying, "Lee's cruelty on the Arlington plantation nearly led to a slave revolt", as the citation does not actually say it that way at all. The citation is simply the account of a slave who ran away, was apprehended, and then was whipped per Lee's orders as punishment for escaping. The citation uses the word "brutality", not "cruelty", and in any case it does not say the brutality or cruelty is what caused the slave to run away, only that the punishment when apprehended was brutal. Thus, there's nothing to support the sentence quoted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7c0:c500:3540:2d1e:1090:aba:fe47 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

67.86.240.195 (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This history of Mr Lee did not discuss in detail how he was a slave master. Two paragraphs need to be add, and give the right history the people about that stage of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.240.195 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. Please make a specific proposal in the format of change x to y. El_C 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

You need to include the whole truth about Robert E. Lee. Include he was a slave owner no one needs to glorify a fucking slave owner 2601:C9:200:B340:59A4:29D2:26EB:2511 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is too positive on Lee

From a April 26, 2019, article in the Washington Post: "The truth about Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee: He wasn’t very good at his job":

In the June 1969 issue of Civil War History — Volume 5, Number 2, pages 116-132 — a renowned Southern historian attacked the legacy of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. “No single war figure stands in greater need of reevaluation than Lee,” wrote Thomas L. Connelly, the late University of South Carolina professor. “One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee.”

I don't have the expertise to get into reediting it, but the article seems to have been edited in such a way as to make him look as good as possible and downplay failures, shortcomings, or racist views. It doesn't seem balanced. But I'm not an expert. deisenbe (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Two weeks and not one comment. deisenbe (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think records bear out that Longstreet was correct. Attacking across such an open expanse of well fortified land was an all or nothing gamble with inevitable failure. Critics have blamed Longstreet, even though Lee clearly shouldered the blame. Long before Gettysburg Lee was vague when approached about the understood plan of getting the enemy to attack a well fortified defensive position. Chancellorsville was a victory but costly. Longstreet was convinced that a flanking offensive would be better than a head-on fight but was over-ruled by Lee even as the battle unfolded. Lee would not even entertain the idea of a flanking attack but wanted a straight charge. The predicted result would not have changed had Longstreet jumped through hoops to ensure every whim of Lee's was observed. A fault could not be directed at Lee so it "must" be either Stuart or Longstreet right? One was absent and the other too slow to take action. The brilliant idea of a full frontal attack was without flaw "if only".

Concerning this article: It has issues that are not actually aligned with a B-classification. The lead is fragmented into six paragraphs, the writing leave much to be desired, and the "External links" section has 13 links including a "Primary sources " and "Monuments and memorials" subsection that are arguable misplaced.

The fourth paragraph of the lead is critical of Lee. He fought for the South but had stated "...that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.".

The last two paragraphs of the "The Norris case" subsection certainly are not "positive" nor is the ending of the last paragraph of the "Lee's views on race and slavery". The "Battle of Gettysburg" subsection is critical of Lee and the "Legacy" section shows Lee died never having his citizenship restored.

Some believe that history should be buried. Tear down any statues or monuments dedicated to those that fought for the South. There can be no heroes from the South. Some might even be offended that history would shed any good light on the cause "against humanity". There are some that would also disagree.

I think we could just portray Lee as one of the leaders of a wicked society that tried to ensure the slavery of a race of people. I don't think history would be in agreement but without some indication of what part of the article needs "reevaluation" the comments can be considered too vague. The same goes for the comments the article is "edited in such a way as to make him look as good as possible and downplay failures, shortcomings, or racist views.". The article does need work. I think it falls short of the current classification but neutrality does not seem to be overly slanted to show such a positive light. Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Though my involvement in the Wiki community has been quite limited, as a reader, I've long had the impression that there is a brigade of "Lost Cause"-supporting editors determined to whitewash the deeds and beliefs of those prominent figures involved in the Confederacy and adept at leveraging a rhetoric of editorial neutrality to do so. It would be good to see someone with the time and the expertise to audit such articles. CugeltheClever (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As has been the case with many Confederate-related topics, views have changed ion recent years. That doesn't give you license to cast aspersions against other editors, stick to the sources, and don't let your own views color the discussion. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

We should add a subsection under monuments to describe the efforts and protests round Lee monuments. My edits around the George Floyd protests were flagged as not news. I would call the largest Civil Rights march since 1968 history, not news. You can see "lost cause" all over the glowing descriptions of the monuments. I would suggest adding a heading level under down under monuments to grab all the protests around Robert E Lee monuments that have happened in recent years. There is enough of a pattern to call it history and not simply "not news."Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

reading through the monuments section there was history of removal and prtest in each. Maybe I should just revert to include the acts of civil obedience from 2020-05-30. What do people think? Jgmac1106 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I also find this article incredibly saccharine and unbalanced. I may be one of the weakest articles that I have encountered in Wikipedia. No mention of his continued combat even once he admitted that there was no way to win after Gettysburg. No mention of his very weak and almost absurd reasoning for choosing the confederacy. No mention at all of his often pathetically banal pronouncements between religion and slavery and armed resurrection 71.127.249.100 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020 - Adjust table data for Gettysburg and Cold Harbor to agree with relevant wikipedia pages

The Battle of Gettysburg page lists Union forces as 104,256, so in keeping, the figure here should be changed to 104,000 herein.

The date for the Battle of Cold Harbor battle differs. On the wiki page, lists 31-May to 12-Jun, however the bulk of the fighting was just 3 days. Suggest either the date is updated to agree with the wikipedia article, as battle result for just 01-Jun was a Union tactical defeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMax14 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Norris Affair

Am curious. If Lee had not been able to pay off the Custus debt within the alloted time frame, what would have happened to the more than 100 slaves under Virginia law? Would they all or any portion of them been sold off to repay the debt? Would this have any relationship to the supposed actions of Lee toward the handful of slaves that had escaped? They were, after all, jeopardizing the emancipation of the majority of the others. Or were they? - R.M. Gillespie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.96.249 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Cold Harbor, Confederate Victory?

The description of Cold Harbor shows the battle lasts from May 31 to June 12. The Confederate tactical victory occurred on June 3rd; however, this one day of fighting does not define the entire outcome of the battle. Engagements and skirmishing continued until June 12. Finally, Grant successfully disengaged from Cold Harbor on June 12th without detection from Lee. Lee did not feel it was a Confederate victory in June 12th. The result of the battle should be listed as "inconclusive" on the battle chart for Robert E. Lee. —Grant1865 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Cold Harbor should be listed as a Confederate victory here, to ensure it consistent with the Cold Harbor battle page. Not sure how the earlier posted knew what Lee was feeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.38.56 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)