Robert E. Lee Isn’t George Washington Or Thomas Jefferson
For the former, his sole claim to notoriety is that he fought for slavery
First it was “many sides,” and then it was a tepid condemnation of white supremacists, and then, after not being lauded for his bravery and decency by the fake news media, Trump came down firmly on the side of the people who do support him, Confederate apologists. He issued the same, tired talking point that people tend to recite, from bad history teachers to your drunk relative at Thanksgiving: “So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I notice that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself — where does it stop?” This is a facile point based on the ever-popular slippery slope fallacy.
But it’s one that the right-wing propaganda machine has latched onto, as they sometimes do. Tucker Carlson — otherwise known as the man who killed bow ties in America — went on his show to give Tucker’s Thoughts on the matter. He laid out some points. First: “Slavery is evil.” Fine, but if you have to make an obvious point like that, there is almost certainly a “but” coming. He went on to note that North American Indians owned slaves — as did luminaries like Plato, Mohammed, and the Aztecs. Essentially: people had slaves back in the day, so what are you going to do? This, too, is a facile point.
What the right obtusely refuses to acknowledge is that no one is denying that slavery was commonplace. (It still is, in fact, too commonplace in the world.) No one is erasing history. Instead, mass culture is finally acknowledging a fuller picture of this country’s past. What the right derides as historical revisionism is actually just the practice of history: challenging and reassessing what we we think we know based on more information and different perspectives. On the other hand, what the Fox News set calls history is more cultural mythology. They aren’t interested in historical figures and critical consideration; they are interested in hagiography and piety. And this plays into why they think of statues as history.
But statues aren’t really history; they’re about memorializing something in some way. And there is no way in which the tone of the Charlottesville Robert E. Lee isn’t one of admiration or celebration. Ditto for the myriad other monuments to Confederates across the country, including states that didn’t even exist during the Civil War. So the culture clash is about the right being mad that their heroes are no longer apotheosized by the public.
The question then is whether or not Lee, Jackson, Jefferson Davis, et al should be celebrated in public spaces and maintained with public money. Trumpians and the right seem to think that they should, and that if you remove Confederates from public places because they owned slaves, you’re opening yourself up to the removal of all public figures who owned slaves, like Jefferson and Washington.
This is stupid.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington did own slaves. But the difference between them and Lee is that they’re famous for a lot of things other than slavery. George Washington drove out the British army during the Revolution and was the first president. His stepping down after two terms set the practice for almost every subsequent multiple-term president. He led the early nation through turbulent years toward stability. These things are fairly noteworthy.
Jefferson’s accomplishments are far too many to list, but he was essentially the intellectual heart of American independence and democracy (in ways good and bad, to be sure). He founded the nation’s still-best public university, even designing its original campus himself, for which Monticello and UVA are designated UNESCO World Heritage sites. Perhaps most important, he popularized macaroni and cheese in America.
Basically, these are all things Jefferson and Washington did other than own slaves and defend the right to own slaves. Granted, it’s valid to say they wouldn’t have been able to accomplish what they did without the aid of free labor, but at the very least what’s memorialized about Jefferson or Washington in a statue or plaque isn’t something they did in the service of slavery.
What did Lee do other than lead the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia during the Civil War? He was a colonel during the Mexican-American War. He was an engineer. Interestingly, none of his statues tend to prioritize the taking of Mexico City or his skills with mapping and reforming land. And Jackson? You don’t see statues praising his teaching experience so much as you do his surprise attack on the Union Army at Chancellorsville.
What do people like about Lee that isn’t also about fighting for the Confederacy? He was an honorable man? Fine, but there are lots of honorable men you can admire who did other things. He was a great tactician? I mean, sure, but again, what were those tactics in service to? He didn’t really fight for slavery; he fought for states’ rights. This is an easily debunked point, as slavery underpinned any argument about the economy or states’ rights, but even granting it, Lee still took up arms against the US for whatever you believe he fought for. There’s no getting around that.
And this is what Trump and Trumpians don’t get. This isn’t the left wanting to erase former slaveholders from the public memory; it’s about putting context to that memory and accepting that some things aren’t worth celebrating in 2017.
Dane A. Wisher is based in Brooklyn.
