William Brock,
In January 1907, on the hundredth anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s birth,
Charles Francis Adams gave a lecture at Washington and Lee University on
Lee’s legacy. Adams, as a scion of one of the oldest Northern political
dynasties in America and a staunch Unionist during the War, was
uniquely positioned to deliver such a speech. He considered Lee to be
the embodiment of the American experience, a true tragic hero trampled
by the might of arms but never destroyed in spirit, a man whose
principled defense of reconciliation proved to be the healing balm for
the wounds of Reconstruction. His gentlemanly example of tolerance and
patience in a time of vengeance was a North Star for both sections still
seething from four years of bloodletting. Just as Adams and Jefferson
forged the bonds of independence in 1776, Massachusetts and Virginia
were once again unified in a time of healing.
In the same month, Virginian Thomas Nelson Page published an article in
the South Atlantic Quarterly defending Lee’s character and reputation.
He thought that in the future, all Americans would come to revere Lee as
the personification of the American character—loyal, virtuous,
honest—and would erect a monument in Washington D.C. to “it’s greatest
soldier and loftiest citizen.” At the time, Page was one of the most
respected writers in America, and his stirring evaluation of Lee’s life
and career, ultimately published as part of a full biography titled
Robert E. Lee: A Southerner in 1909, was widely read and celebrated by
the American public at large. Lee, as much as Lincoln, had become the
glue of the new American nation.
More @ NamSouth
Glue that has been methodically steamed apart.
ReplyDelete