Talk:Robert E. Lee/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Veracruz is misspelled but can't edit

Please correct the misspelling of Vera Cruz to Veracruz as the former only applies to New Spain and the latter to Mexico. I can't do that as the page is protected for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.177.191.154 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Norris Case

Article- "the five extant descriptions of the episode"

Five? I know of three and only one of those has a name attached to it. What/where are the other two? -BorderRuffian —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

continuing- "...as well as the existence of an account book that indicates the constable received compensation from Lee on the date that this event occurred." (my emphasis)

Neither the anonymous letters nor the Norris account give a specific date of the alleged whipping - so the account book and the incident cannot be correlated by date. Furthermore, the account book says nothing about "whipping slaves." -BorderRuffian

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert E. Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.has.vcu.edu/mac/cns/on-the-lege-2000/holiday.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Radical "Republican"?

The correct is "Radical Democratic" Jota Dias (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You got a source for that? In 1866 (and before) Democrats were largely a conservative party. Many Northern Dems didn't want the war at all and most southern Dems were those who urged rebellion/independence. On the other hand, most Republicans were pretty much liberal (many urged uncompensated emancipation, taking "property" away from the wealthy slave owners on human rights grounds). As far as I have read, there was not a "Radical Democratic" segment of the party during the time period this article describes. BusterD (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Frivolous tagging and deletion

User BorderRuffian has taken issue with a paragraph under the Norris case that is properly attributed to two reliable sources. While BR may favor a different interpretation, in fact the 4th paragraph makes it clear that this controversial issue has been treated differently by different biographers. It says, "Biographers of Lee have differed over the credibility of the account of the punishment as described in the letters in the Tribune and in Norris's personal account. Five different historians are then cited with their different takes.

It defeats the purpose of offering different explanations if it is appropriate to tag one paragraph three times with "dubious". Elizabeth Brown Pryor is a legitimate historian and has received positive reviews for her work. If hers was the only position offered, there MIGHT be justification for his tagging. However this is not the case and singling this out for a POV attack is unwarranted.

No reliable sources have been cited to support that Pryor was wrong (see BR's earlier comments above). He only offers his opinion on Pryor's analysis. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tom's above analysis. BusterD (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Levin C. Handy - General Robert E. Lee in May 1869.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Levin C. Handy - General Robert E. Lee in May 1869.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 20, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Robert E. Lee (1807–1870) was an American general known for commanding the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the American Civil War from 1862 until his surrender in 1865. Lee was a top graduate of the United States Military Academy and an exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. When Virginia seceded from the Union in April 1861, Lee followed his home state. After a year as senior military adviser to President Jefferson Davis, Lee took command of the main field army in 1862 and soon emerged as a shrewd tactician and battlefield commander. After the war, Lee supported President Andrew Johnson's program of Reconstruction and intersectional friendship.Photograph: Levin Corbin Handy; restoration: Adam Cuerden

"U.S." not "U. S."

There are two instances in this article where a space is present between . and U in "U.S." while all 13 other instances omit the space. They are:

The caption of the early military portrait of Lee, which reads: >Lee at age 31 in 1838, as a Lieutenant of Engineers in the U. S. Army

In the second paragraph under heading "Texas": >Twiggs immediately resigned from the U. S. Army and was made a Confederate general.

These may ought to be addressed for the sake of consistency.

Uniqueeunuch (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Solved, thanks. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Southern" hero of the war?

Lee was a great "Southern" hero of the civil war?

I don't doubt he was a hero to those who support(ed) the confederacy. The evidence for that is indeed substantial.

However, the term 'southerners' may be too broad here. Surely black southerners or southerners opposed to the confederacy (and there were lots of them) may not consider Lee a hero or any kind of icon. On the contrary, they may regard him as a pro-slavery traitor. It is not POV-pushing to point this out or to qualify the statement somehow. My suggestion is to insert the word 'white' into the sentence, but other words may work as well. Substitute 'Confederate' for 'Southern' - that works as well. 'Southern' and 'Confederate' are not synonymous.

Thoughts?

DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing the words "among Southerners" with simply, "in the south", this way we are still factually correct without having to use a qualifier not contained in the source. Huberthoff (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

But it may not be factually accurate. Either term ignores millions of black citizens who probably don't have this view, not to mention the many southerners who supported the union during the war. Why not "Confederate hero" ? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not a universal rule, nor does it have to be. Many Americans supported the British during the American Revolution but we would never have a debate about whether George Washington was hero in the United States after the revolution, even though he wasn't to some. Huberthoff (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the word 'some' could be inserted, or, my suggestion above, use the term 'confederate hero' rather than 'southern hero'. That's much clearer and just as efficient. The analogy to Washington is flawed, since there is no large population of tories still being treated as second class citizens in the USA. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Tories we're tarred and feathered, and their houses we're burned down in the United States and many we're forced to flee to the British colonies in Canada after the revolution in fear of persecution. Not the same as slavery, however there we're a large number of loyalists and opposed Washington. Still do this day Robert E. Lee is a hero to many in the south. As someones who has lived in Louisiana, I know first hand that Lee and Beauragard are not the least bit controversial there. Maybe "hero to many in the south" is the most accurate. Huberthoff (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's not sugarcoat this please. No tory has been persecuted in the US in a couple of centuries.

I've made the edit I suggested earlier, to 'confederate hero' rather than 'southern'. Up to half the population of the south never supported the confederacy (those enslaved and those living in Union states that were nevertheless southern, e.g. Kentucky). Why use a vague and inaccurate term when a specific and completely accurate one is available? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

pls no guess work....what do sources say --Moxy (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of flags and insignias from multiple info boxes

User Huberthof has been getting around these past couple of days with his newly created account, and seems to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles, mostly those of American military people. This users cites a guideline about flags in infoboxes (which btw says nothing about insignia), but ignores the fact that every guideline stipulates "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Famous military people are such exceptions. Other editors have taken exception to this apparent mission to remove flags and insignia, mostly from the articles of prominent Americans, as evidenced on Huberthoff's Talk page. Imo, we should return these items to the infoboxes. Some of these articles, like George Washington Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant have had these items when they were approved for GA and FA status, with no issues all of this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

but what will acknowledge

From 1856 letter to wife

there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.

Have any reliable sources rephrased this in modern English? I am having trouble understanding the part between the commas. Is this like "I believe there are few who will acknowledge slavery is evil" or something different? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No. This means "except for a few, people would acknowledge that slavery is evil." 172.56.34.2 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

please change: Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was an American general known for commanding the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the American Civil War from 1862 until his surrender in 1865.

to: Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was an American colonel known for commanding the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the American Civil War from 1862 until his surrender in 1865.

Comment: there is north America, central American, and south American and they all have general. In this context saying a Confederate General as an American would be like saying a Canada general is an American General. This would be technically correct but misleading in this context. Pickfoll (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Virginians are/were Americans regardless of whether they happened to be in the Confederacy or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

I'm requesting that the following sentence[: "When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his desire for the country to remain intact and an offer of a senior Union command"] be amended by changing the clause "despite his desire" to "despite his initial desire".

This change will more accurately reflect Lee's role as a Confederate General. I have seen people use the current wording to wrongfully state that Lee was, throughout his life, opposed to secession. TEEdits (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

information in following article needs to be incorporated in this entry https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ please let me know how i can assist, thank you

Dnpagano (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

removal or verification needed

I'm requesting either removal of or additional citation be provided for the sentence "But his popularity grew even in the North, especially after his death in 1870." The current source is, according to it's own description, a personal website. This subjective statement should be backed at least by a peer-reviewed academic source if not primary source material.

Description of the source material: http://thomaslegion.net/intro.html

Ricbecker (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

References from this article should be present on this page - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

This page glosses over one view of Robert E. Lee without putting forth the anti-Confederacy view. If this page is going to display Robert E. Lee on the revisionist history side, there should also be a place (above the revisionist history) for the truth. This page should not have one interpretation. The main quote in question that I would edit, is the "evidence" that Lee was anti-slavery. Where Lee says that it is a moral and political evil, he directly contradicts this with believing that it is a blessing for black Americans to be enslaved so that they may be "enlightened" by white culture and Christianity. This should be included before the pro-Lost Cause interpretation. 65.196.66.136 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (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. nihlus kryik (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

I have a factual addition I feel would be helpful to Wiki users (especially younger ones) regarding Robert E. Lee's Wiki page under the "In popular culture" section.

Suggested addition: The song “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”, written by Robbie Robertson in 1969, (Joan Baez also recorded a cover of the song that became a top-five chart hit in late 1971), includes the lyric, "Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee!"

Thank you! Spartan head (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) It should be pointed out that despite whatever unreliable, google-searched lyrics may say, the proper lyrics as composed by Robbie Robertson (and verifiable by the copyrighted lyrics on the music sheet) are "their goes THE Robert E. Lee" and refers not to the man, but to the well-known Riverboat Robert E. Lee, named in the mans honor. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_(steamboat) which addresses the matter. I suspect Spartan head may not be aware of this in making this request. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Undone by Moxy. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Was removed as part of trivia cleanup Wikipedia:Trivial.--Moxy (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

defining "President" Jefferson Davis

I'm requesting that the following sentence in the second paragraph of the article that reads, "During the first year of the Civil War, Lee served as a senior military adviser to President Jefferson Davis." be amended to read, "During the first year of the Civil War, Lee served as a senior military adviser to Confederate President Jefferson Davis." Slynnny7 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I agree a few non-US readers might be otherwise confused. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

African American Registry

This is regarding this revert. The source added is a biography from the African American Registry, which I am not familiar with. The problem I have is that content from the last paragraph is almost verbatim with this Wikipedia article. This content is in the Archive.org copy from April 5, 2016, which is the oldest one there. This doesn't necessarily mean that much, since they could've rearranged their site, but it's not a good sign. This exact phrasing has been in this Wikipedia article for substantially longer, going back (arbitrarily) to at least to April 2015. The only source listed at that site is a Biography.com page, which currently mentions almost nothing about his post-war life, making this an unlikely shared source. Since it's extremely plausible this was taken from Wikipedia, instead of the other way around, this is a WP:CIRCULAR risk and should not be used. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell I very much appreciate the detailed rationale above which is almost certain to be correct. I was searching Google books for a considerable time last night (i'm in London) and I just could not find a specific statement in a published biographical/polical/historical work that specifically confirmed this. Then I found the AAR article. WP:CIRCULAR just didn't strike me, though it did seem a little too good to be true. Duhh. Regards, Irondome (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A "citation issue has still not ben resolved" apparently

So with this revert[1], a badly written and unsourced lede section was restored, and a thoroughly sourced and rewritten lede was reverted under the cryptic edit summary "the citation issue has still not been resolved". Could the editor who reverted me please explain why? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Its called WP:CONSENSUS. You claim it to be an improved lede. I would suggest we allow other colleagues to decide that point. Irondome (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I am confused as to what exactly is being objected to here. Irondome, it would help if you were clear about what exactly you object to. For a final paragraph of the lead, I might suggest something along these lines (sourcing can be upgraded, I am sure):

In 1865, after the war, Lee was paroled and signed an oath of allegiance, asking to have his citizenship of the United States restored. Lee's application was misplaced; as a result, he did not receive a pardon and his citizenship was not restored. In 1865, Lee became president of Washington College (later Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, Virginia; in that position, he supported reconciliation between North and South. Lee accepted "the extinction of slavery" provided for by the Thirteenth Amendment, but publicly opposed racial equality and granting African Americans the right to vote and other political rights. Lee died in 1870. In 1975, the U.S. Congress posthumously restored Lee's citizenship effective June 13, 1865. Lee opposed the construction of public memorials to Confederate rebellion on the grounds that they would prevent the healing of wounds inflicted during the war. Nevertheless, after his death, Lee became an icon used by promoters of "Lost Cause" mythology, who sought to romanticize the Confederate cause and strengthen white supremacy in the South. Historian Eric Foner writes that at the end of his life, "Lee had become the embodiment of the Southern cause. A generation later, he was a national hero. The 1890s and early 20th century witnessed the consolidation of white supremacy in the post-Reconstruction South and widespread acceptance in the North of Southern racial attitudes." Later in the 20th century, particularly following the civil rights movement, historians reassessed Lee; his reputation fell based on his failure to support rights for freedmen after the war, and even his strategic choices as a military leader fell in scrutiny.

References

--Neutrality^talk 04:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to Neutrality's well-written and sourced proposal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, first, is the content that I added inaccurate? Poorly sourced? Does it focus more on certain issues than WP:LEDE recommends? What precisely is your concern with it? What is the basis for this discussion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Second, the old lede is unacceptable. The lede that you preferred is a lede full of unsourced claims and poorly sourced claims. You even admit as much above where you claim to have searched for reliable sources to support the text, finding none. Yet, this is the text that you want to restore? The lede that you prefer also confusingly implies that Lee opposed enfranchisement for blacks if it meant the explicit disenfranchisement of ex-confederates. You prefer this misleading text over a -reliably and authoritatively sourced- assessment of Lee's views on race and slavery? The lede that you prefer also refers to something called "intersectional friendship", a vague and undefined term which means nothing but sounds kind of nice. It has no business in the article, and especially not in the lede. That some barracks are named after Lee is not notable enough for the lede nor is it covered extensively enough in the article to be sufficient for the lede (the lede is supposed to summarize the main body of the article, per WP:LEDE). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, do you intend to participate in this discussion that you started? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your detailed reasoning and criticism of the old wording is convinving. The sources you bring to the table are an improvement. Good. Irondome (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, do you want add your text? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many quotes

@Moxy: Yes, my deletion of the tag was a bit hasty. I had thought that most of the quotes were from Lee and that they did not run a length and were not from copyrighted sources, so I'm doing some rewriting, using Wikipedia's voice, while keeping the existing sources. Apologies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed a lot of redundant quoting. 1856 letter to Lee's wife was mentioned twice, Confederate soldiers capturing and reselling slaves mentioned twice, many ideas repeated, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline is sources quality

Noticed lots of non academic sources from news papers has been added as of late. I will try to find real sources for this stuff. There really is no need for sources of this nature when we have lots of scholarly publications out there.-Moxy (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

When you are talking about "non-academic sources from news papers", are you talking about assessments by history professors, such as Eric Foner? Yes, what would he know about the Civil War? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on Lee's views on slavery seems to be taken from just a few, recent, non-academic sources. These statements could be viewed as controversial and may contradict other sources more authoritative sources (widely cited books, academic papers etc). This seems like a great time to use attributed statements vs wikivoice in the article. As is this section may have a NPOV issue unless it can be shown that these views/claims are widely accepted. Springee (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Foner is a top scholar and should stay in my opinion. the LA Times article is an interview with a scholar (Barton Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington and Lee University) and I think it should stay; Adam Serwer is a former reporter at Mother Jones in Atlantic he claims no scholarly credentials or interviews with scholars--I would drop him. I would also drop NY Times story by Jacey Fortin (she is "Freelance reporter based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with a focus on business and politics. Work has been featured in outlets including Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, Inter Press Services and International Business Times.") Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not read the Serwer piece but the Fortin NYT piece should stay because it quotes Foner who gives a sweet and concise summary that gives us a great opening line to the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, to be clear. NYT and the like are RS. As someone who edits frequently on academic topics, I have never felt that news outlets ought to be removed as sources while only focusing on peer-reviewed research. In my experience, RS news outlets generally do a good job summarizing existing research and scholarly views (for the social sciences and history - I can't comment on other disciplines). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fortin is not well qualified to evaluate historians--this is very new territory for her. We can and do quote Foner directly and in context that he set. A good newspaper publishes good reporting wirth the reporter on the scene. that's what we should use as a RS. It also publishes feature articles by people who are not NY Times reporters. eg like the popular essay by Fortin who does nolt specialize in anything close to the US Civil War. That calls for a more careful wiki judgment about expertise of the essayist. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If users are interested in improving this article, I strongly recommend that they look at other sections. Before I wrote the section on Lee's views on slavery a couple of weeks ago, it was in horrible shape (same for the lede which 'Neutrality' wrote). I suspect that other sections of the article are as poorly sourced and misrepresentative of sources as the slavery section used to be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline is sources quality

Noticed lots of non academic sources from news papers has been added as of late. I will try to find real sources for this stuff. There really is no need for sources of this nature when we have lots of scholarly publications out there.-Moxy (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

When you are talking about "non-academic sources from news papers", are you talking about assessments by history professors, such as Eric Foner? Yes, what would he know about the Civil War? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on Lee's views on slavery seems to be taken from just a few, recent, non-academic sources. These statements could be viewed as controversial and may contradict other sources more authoritative sources (widely cited books, academic papers etc). This seems like a great time to use attributed statements vs wikivoice in the article. As is this section may have a NPOV issue unless it can be shown that these views/claims are widely accepted. Springee (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Foner is a top scholar and should stay in my opinion. the LA Times article is an interview with a scholar (Barton Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington and Lee University) and I think it should stay; Adam Serwer is a former reporter at Mother Jones in Atlantic he claims no scholarly credentials or interviews with scholars--I would drop him. I would also drop NY Times story by Jacey Fortin (she is "Freelance reporter based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with a focus on business and politics. Work has been featured in outlets including Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, Inter Press Services and International Business Times.") Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not read the Serwer piece but the Fortin NYT piece should stay because it quotes Foner who gives a sweet and concise summary that gives us a great opening line to the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, to be clear. NYT and the like are RS. As someone who edits frequently on academic topics, I have never felt that news outlets ought to be removed as sources while only focusing on peer-reviewed research. In my experience, RS news outlets generally do a good job summarizing existing research and scholarly views (for the social sciences and history - I can't comment on other disciplines). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fortin is not well qualified to evaluate historians--this is very new territory for her. We can and do quote Foner directly and in context that he set. A good newspaper publishes good reporting wirth the reporter on the scene. that's what we should use as a RS. It also publishes feature articles by people who are not NY Times reporters. eg like the popular essay by Fortin who does nolt specialize in anything close to the US Civil War. That calls for a more careful wiki judgment about expertise of the essayist. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If users are interested in improving this article, I strongly recommend that they look at other sections. Before I wrote the section on Lee's views on slavery a couple of weeks ago, it was in horrible shape (same for the lede which 'Neutrality' wrote). I suspect that other sections of the article are as poorly sourced and misrepresentative of sources as the slavery section used to be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ROBERT E. LEE PARK, Baltimore

This has now been renamed "Lake Roland Park" as of 2015. See the article about Lake Roland (park) to verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.96.96 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of gettysburg wording

The wording at the section 'Battle of Gettysburg' seems like it uses slang, especially in the first paragraph: "The critical decisions came in May–June 1863, after Lee's smashing victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville." This says that he had a smashing victory, but other words could be used to describe this. Should we change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.161.117 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline is sources quality

Noticed lots of non academic sources from news papers has been added as of late. I will try to find real sources for this stuff. There really is no need for sources of this nature when we have lots of scholarly publications out there.-Moxy (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

When you are talking about "non-academic sources from news papers", are you talking about assessments by history professors, such as Eric Foner? Yes, what would he know about the Civil War? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on Lee's views on slavery seems to be taken from just a few, recent, non-academic sources. These statements could be viewed as controversial and may contradict other sources more authoritative sources (widely cited books, academic papers etc). This seems like a great time to use attributed statements vs wikivoice in the article. As is this section may have a NPOV issue unless it can be shown that these views/claims are widely accepted. Springee (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Foner is a top scholar and should stay in my opinion. the LA Times article is an interview with a scholar (Barton Myers, an associate professor of history at Washington and Lee University) and I think it should stay; Adam Serwer is a former reporter at Mother Jones in Atlantic he claims no scholarly credentials or interviews with scholars--I would drop him. I would also drop NY Times story by Jacey Fortin (she is "Freelance reporter based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with a focus on business and politics. Work has been featured in outlets including Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, Inter Press Services and International Business Times.") Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not read the Serwer piece but the Fortin NYT piece should stay because it quotes Foner who gives a sweet and concise summary that gives us a great opening line to the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, to be clear. NYT and the like are RS. As someone who edits frequently on academic topics, I have never felt that news outlets ought to be removed as sources while only focusing on peer-reviewed research. In my experience, RS news outlets generally do a good job summarizing existing research and scholarly views (for the social sciences and history - I can't comment on other disciplines). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fortin is not well qualified to evaluate historians--this is very new territory for her. We can and do quote Foner directly and in context that he set. A good newspaper publishes good reporting wirth the reporter on the scene. that's what we should use as a RS. It also publishes feature articles by people who are not NY Times reporters. eg like the popular essay by Fortin who does nolt specialize in anything close to the US Civil War. That calls for a more careful wiki judgment about expertise of the essayist. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If users are interested in improving this article, I strongly recommend that they look at other sections. Before I wrote the section on Lee's views on slavery a couple of weeks ago, it was in horrible shape (same for the lede which 'Neutrality' wrote). I suspect that other sections of the article are as poorly sourced and misrepresentative of sources as the slavery section used to be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Snooganssnoogans reverting edits

I wish to add context to extensive quotes featuring Eric Foner, but User:Snooganssnoogans chose to revert without discussion. Here is an opportunity to discuss collegially.

1) add historical context:

"He never spoke out against slavery.” requires the qualifier, "as a professional soldier subordinate to civilian rule sustaining slavery in the United States."

Snooganssnoogans asserted that the source does not support the context of Lee's U.S. Army career, but Foner does observe that Lee was a career Army officer, a professional U.S. soldier, which means he was subordinate to the civilian rule establishing and sustaining slavery in the United States. Professional officers of the U.S. military were then as now, dismissed for actively participating in political troubles of the day. This is commonly known information which can be added to the Foner quote to provide context. Some disagree with the principle so much they may assert that even the account of this practice makes no sense to them, but military subordination to civilian rule is a keystone of republican rule in successful nation-states. Military who wish to be political need to resign and then participate as civilians. As the president of Washington College, Lee explained that he was a Virginian before the Civil War, and afterwards became an American, supporting the regime that emancipated slaves.

2) add historical context:

"Lee’s former slave Wesley Norris about the brutal treatment to which he had been subjected.” requires context, "...for running away two years before his promised emancipation. He was not sold South, but gained his freedom along with the other slaves held by Lee prior to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.” -- from the same source.

The punishment was not arbitrary or capricious. What does Foner say the comparative practice for punishing runaways was in the South Carolina low country, the Louisiana bayous and for sailors at sea? Perhaps he is silent, a sin of scholarly omission which the WP narrative can partially correct by adding context to the Norris complaint. Lee did not actively seek out slave ownership, and he was not happy with its effects on owners. Good historical method requires avoiding anachronisms judging the past by the present alone. We now see the whipping post, abolished for whites in the U.S. on land by the 1850s, as cruel and unusual punishment. And we are of course correct in that judgement, as were the 19th century legislators who abolished it on land and at sea. The historian still asks the question, What was the context? We are correct to suppress slavery in our own time as an evil oppression of human nature, and legislators abolishing it in the 19th century were correct to do so. The historian still asks, What was the context? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this removal: diff. The addition reads as in: The uppity slave got what was coming to him. He should have just patiently waited for his benevolent master to free him. His punishment was just and fair – how dares he to have run away!

Yes, imagine not willing to live in bondage for ‘just’ two more years. This may not be the intention, but that’s how it’s coming across, i.e. blaming the victim and / or apologia for Lee. The current version is short and to the point; I don’t see a need for elaboration. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What TheVirginiaHistorian wants to add does not seem to exist in the source. If there is even another source, I think that the reason Lee punished Norris is already presented in other parts of the article. No need for repetition.

But if you can provide other works which argue that Lee was not unusually cruel etc in comparison with his contemporaries etc, I think it would be an OK addition. Say, a 12th century man killed his wife after discovering her extramarital affair. On one hand, did her mistake/crime "deserve" that? Just no. But if their patriarchal society considered that legal or even encouraged such a reaction, it should also be noted. Ancient executioners killed many people who would be considered innocent by modern standards. On one hand the victims should be given sympathy. On the other hand, "The executioner Marcus killed Benedictus for being a Christian, after receiving an order from the Emperor" and "The robber Marcus killed the merchant Benedictus because he desired Benedictus's gold" should not be presented similarly (i.e."Marcus killed the Christian merchant Benedictus who harmed no one", for the sake of "being concise") even though Benedictus was clearly innocent in both cases.

Deamonpen (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposal (1) to qualify Lee’s silence on slavery seems unopposed. It is common knowledge that Lee was a career U.S. Army officer prior to the Civil War, the source referencing his conduct before the Civil War does not require a citation to include this contextual information. Alternatively, we may say that Eric Foner could find no public statements by Lee in the NYT about slavery in the United States while he was on Texas frontier duty Indian fighting.

Relative to proposal (2) User:Deamonpen and User:K.e.coffman It is not necessary to determine whether Lee was relatively benign in his administration of punishments if we forthrightly say what offense brought on which punishment. It now reads as though Lee used cruel and unusual punishment capriciously, that is, for the hell of it. I believe that Norris should have been freed on Lee’s father-in-law’s death because no one should be held in servitude against their will. The Virginia law then required immediate removal of freed slaves out of state, and Lee hesitated to manumit in a way I disagree, but then I do not know his rationale, and my personal preference in the 21st century is not the historical context.

Norris ran away and he was punished with a whipping administered by an officer of the county court. And Lee observed after not seeking out slave ownership --- but having it accrue to his wife’s estate --- that slave ownership brutalized the slave master as well as the slave. He then freed his wife's inherited slaves before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which did not extend to Alexandria (Arlington) County, Virginia, in the midst of the Civil War. While the Confederacy was certainly trying to establish a slavery-based republic, Lee's personal actions subverted Confederate policy in Virginia where he could personally effect the outcome of the futures of over one-hundred slaves. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

On (1): do not add. Unless we have a reliable source stating there is some link to his silence and his position, we cannot link them, per WP:SYNTH. No more than we could add "...while his hair was gray".

On (2): do not add. Same. Putting them together implies a link; somehow, the slave's behavior explains Lee's? Not only SYNTH, but POV, and even highly politically incorrect to boot. No to the no power. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) It is common knowledge that career military officers in the U.S. Army are not permitted to speak out on controversial political questions before the U.S. Government. Slavery was such an issue in the 1850s, per WP:Common knowledge. Alternatively, we see that Foner could find no record of an NYT reporter going to the Texas frontier to interview Major or Colonel Lee, and that is all we know from Foner on the subject. Since that is the case, the sentence under discussion in the article might be shelved until further evidence comes to light. I prefer keeping the sentence with a context qualifier.

(2) There is no indication in the evidence presented that Lee punished any slave except for a violation of law; to assert or imply otherwise is unsourced POV fabrication. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) Adding the statement implies some cause and effect. Lee would have spoken if his position was different? We have zero evidence for that. It's SYNTH to link them.

(2) Adding the statement implies some cause and effect. Lee's action was forced, against his will, because of outward social norms' pressure? We have zero evidence for that. It's SYNTH to link them.

Was Lee subject to influences? Almost certainly, but which influences? Maybe he was driven by some dark inner need to dominate others, and was only barely restrained by his devious desire to outwardly present a "superior virtue". It would be SYNTH for me to find some circumstantial but true info about that and add it to those statements. SYNTH is a two-edged sword, which is why we can't allow it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) No Lee would not have spoken his position in any case, because he held so strictly to the officer's code as Foner posits. There is of course ample evidence of an apolitical American officer corps in the 19th century. For instance, for sourced context on item (1), we have William B. Skelton, “An American Profession of Arms: the Army Officer Corps, 1784-1861” (1992), p. 285, “Officers developed a conception of the army as an apolitical instrument of public policy. As servants of the nation, they should stand aloof from party and sectional strife" and avoid taking public positions on controversial issues such as slavery.

(2) We have evidence of a crime and punishment from the same source, running away and whipping, which should be reported without wp:cherry picking. There is no evidence for unsourced psychological speculation about "some dark inner need to dominate others". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) That other officers acted (or supposed to act) this way is irrelevant. Many did not. Again, we have no source for linking this to Lee's silence. We can't make up that link, per SYNTH. Seriously, there's no wriggling around SYNTH, since SYNTH specifically prohibits that wriggling. No.

(2) I can agree on some crime/punishment link, but definitely not as proposed, which includes others factors that are not relevant to the crime/punishment connection -- everything after "for running away".

My extreme point about "dark inner need" was an example of why we cannot allow additions like this. Let me try again: let's say I find an RS that states the slave in question, Wesley Norris, had gray hair. Then say I add "Wesley Norris, who had gray hair," to the statement about his punishment. Adding that makes it important to the statement, which implies that having gray hair either somehow caused the punishment (Lee hates gray hair), or made that punishment more cruel (poor harmless old man), or who knows what. I've created a link between the two that is not in any source. That's not allowed, per SYNTH. If we allow favorable SYNTH, we would also have to allow unfavorable SYNTH. None of us want that.

There's nothing in this discussion that avoids the inherent SYNTH in these additions. Consensus is against this. Please let the horse die in peace. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Synthesizing information from a single source is no different than synthesis of more than one source. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) User:A D Monroe III, The expectation for serving U.S. Army officers was and is that they will have no public political participation in policy making. Lee made no such public statement on slavery. That is not synthesis, that is reliably sourced, logically connected narrative that belongs in the same sentence. User:Joefromrandb, WP:Synthesis requires a conclusion unrelated to the evidence, -- but there is no prohibition for a sequence of evidentiary statements reliably sourced. The WP narrative in an article is not confined to mirroring single sources.

The asserted fabrication that “many [serving officers] did not” remain silent on abolishing slavery is merely anachronistic nonsense. User:A D Monroe III cannot name three such officers during Lee’s U.S. Army career. There is no source for a claim of public statements on slavery for regular U.S. Army officers serving under the "dough faced" pro-slavery northern Democratic presidents of Lee’s career prior to 1861. In Michael Fellman’s “The Making of Robert E. Lee” (2000) p.137, he observes a change in Lee’s rule of abstaining from public pronouncements on policy. In 1863, even before Chancellorsville, Lee began to advance, “for the first time, a political understanding of the war, quite unlike his previous apolitical belief in duty.” p. 137

(2) User:A D Monroe III, the reductio ad absurdum that Norris’ hair color was equivalent to his freedom is ridiculous. Lee granted freedom as promised in spite of Norris' runaway crime. That reflects on Lee's character — it is not “irrelevant” to the relationship which included insubordination and running away, punishment and manumission. --- In my view, Lee had no right to keep the slaves five years to work off estate indebtedness; he was remiss for considering slaves as property, subordinate to the financial claims of indebtedness of his father-in-law, because the rights of personal labor supersedes those of inanimate property, and the slaves had been promised freedom on the death of their master the father-in-law. I just cannot find a source to extend my contemporary judgement retroactively to the period under discussion.

The Norris manumission by Lee in 1862 was within Union lines while the later Emancipation Proclamation would not have applied to Norris in Alexandria (Arlington) County. And Norris gained freedom after acquiring skills as a railroad maintenance worker, which one may presume he used to work on the Union Army's railroads for pay to overthrow the Confederacy. The context alternative, in the tens of thousands from Virginia, would have been selling Norris into permanent slavery as a field hand in the cotton belt Gulf states. For Norris, neither alternative was equivalent to his hair color as proposed by A D Monroe III to illustrate "irrelevance". Discussion of freedom or slavery for the runaway slave is relevant. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A good indication of SYNTH is the amount of verbiage it takes to defend it. Consensus is no. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is drawing a conclusion apart from the evidence; you misunderstand SYNTH, it is not presenting two related elements of sourced evidence in the same sentence that contradict an editor’s unsourced POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

From SYNTH: Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If the conclusions implied here are explicitly stated in the source, present them, and we're done. If not, then we've been flogging a dead horse. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me in wp:good faith. Since the factual elements are now explicitly stated in the three sources -- without -- any conclusion, in part because of your good guidance, I will begin crafting the entries, first on the apolitical U.S. Army officer corps and Lee's conforming to it -- without concluding whether a civilian run republic is superior to Napoleon's French Republic, and then the Lee-Norris relationship involving insubordination, running away, a cruel whipping, maintaining Norris' Virginia residence and manumission, without concluding whether all swearing allegiance to the slave-permitting U.S. Constitution among all antebellum federal and state office-holding officials were morally justified in their attempt at a federal republic in the first place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Avoid out-of-context misrepresentation by including reliable sources

I propose: Replace the sentence of “he never spoke out against slavery” in the lead paragraph of “Lee’s views on race and slavery” with the following passage using citations from Skelton, Fellman and Foner as linked above in the discussion on “Snooganssnoogans reverting edits":

By the time of Lee's career in the U.S. Army, officers of West Point stood aloof from party and sectional strife on such issues as slavery as a matter of principle. (Skelton) Lee himself considered it his patriotic duty to be apolitical while in active Army service until two years into the Civil War, and then as a Confederate calling for universal sacrifice on the part of the public.(Fellman) Prior to the Civil War, Lee seems never to have spoken out publicly on the subject of slavery.(Foner)

sources:

• Skelton, William B., An American Profession of Arms: the Army Officer Corps, 1784-1861, (1992) p. 285, “Officers developed a conception of the army as an apolitical instrument of public policy. As servants of the nation, they should stand aloof from party and sectional strife" and avoid taking public positions on controversial issues such as slavery.

• Fellman, Michel. The Making of Robert E. Lee, (2000), p. 137, A change in Lee’s rule of abstaining from public pronouncements on policy began in 1863. Even before Chancellorsville, Lee began to advance, “for the first time, a political understanding of the war, quite unlike his previous apolitical belief in duty.”

• Fortin, Jacey. “What Robert E. Lee Wrote to the Times About Slavery in 1858”, in the New York Times, August 18, 2017, viewed November 12, 2017. “He was not a pro-slavery ideologue,” Eric Foner said of Lee. “But I think equally important is that, unlike some white southerners, he never spoke out against slavery.”

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add exact quotes from the sources that you're using that connect to Lee's views on race and slavery. The only quoted parts above are either general beliefs that officers ought to be apolitical (nothing about Lee, in particular) and Lee's willingness to hold speeches in 1863 to boost the war effort. This has a strong whiff of WP:SYNTH about it, especially given the failure to understand WP:SYNTH in discussions above, and given that there is no quote that makes a reference to race or slavery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources referenced directly show that the regular U.S. Army Corps graduated from West Point in the antebellum period did not involve themselves in political questions (Skelton), and that Lee adhered to the principle of apolitical behavior (Fellman) with silence on the subject of slavery (Foner). There is no WP:SYNTH conclusion in the draft language you have removed, only sourced information allowed by WP policy. There seems to be a misunderstanding that wp:synth can be used to exclude reliably sourced information in WP articles.

There is no requirement to mirror sources with direct quotes in WP articles, rather it is deprecated as a matter of policy. Editors are enjoined to write in an encyclopedic style incorporating more than one reliable source in their narrative to avoid bias. It is common knowledge that slavery and race were politically controversial in Antebellum America, especially in the run up to the Civil War. Foner stipulates that Lee "never spoke out against slavery", and rather than advocate for slavery, and Lee was not a "pro-slavery" publishing ideologue -- certainly Foner meant that except as Lee's behavior related to protecting and defending the Constitution as then written in accordance with the oath required in the Constitution, since it is common knowledge that Lee commanded the Marines capturing John Brown at his attempted slave insurrection.

I am afraid to be successful in reverting the edit including Skelton, Fellman and Foner, you will have to provide a source that claims slavery and race were not politically controversial in the run up to the Civil War, and Lee made public pronouncements on the subject. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Sooganssnoogans mainpage editing without discussion

Dear User:Snooganssnoogans Out of chronological manipulation of narrative sequence to promote Foner instead of relating the life of Lee as it unfolded is bad style and suggests some intent other than clarity of expression because it is so unconventional and strained.

The Foner quoted reference should not be the lead of the section in any event. Foner holding forth with his anachronistic personal preferences for the U.S. Army officer corps in the antebellum era is not germane to an unbiased accounting of Lee's professional silence on political matters. Other "white Southerners" who spoke out for abolition in the 1850s were not West Point regular officers. Lee's silence connotes only s resolve to support and defend the Constitution as written, which did at the time did include the institution of slavery,--- a crime against humanity then and now in my contemporary judgement. The sourced context of Lee's silence has been discussed above relative to an editorial correction, and all reservations brought up in discussion are met: that is, references in the proposal now specifically address the practice of the U.S. Army officer corps of the time, and Lee's personal adherence to them before the Civil War is noted in a reliable source.

The custom of the time among enterprising slave holders was in fact to rent surplus field hand and artisan slaves among nearby plantations so as to separate families except on Sunday when they would reunite by way of passes issued to the slave away from home. The source does not address the issue, and in any case, it does not state the counter-factual “not the custom of the time” which has been inexplicably inserted offhandedly by an editor without reference to the cited source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH concerns have been expressed above and your text does not belong until you can actually demonstrate with quotes that your sources have anything to do with Lee's views on race and slavery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic piece cites a historian who said that by separating slave families "Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families". Saying it was "not custom at the time" is perfectly in line with the source and gives crucial context to readers: Lee conducted slavery in ways that at least some of his slaver contemporaries and predecessors did not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"In line with the source" does not justify editors making stuff up. Many if not most of Lee's Virginia slaver contemporaries sold insubordinate slaves and runaways into Gulf Coast cotton fields for a lifetime of servitude (which Lee did not). This resulted in a coerced net out-migration of tens of thousands of slaves from Virginia in the decade prior to the Civil War.

Your "Not the custom at the time" is a generalization extrapolated from the Custis family that did not hold for most held under the condition of slavery. It is well documented that breaking up slave families was one of the more socially destructive characteristics of slavery as practiced in the American South. To assert that keeping slave families in tact was the "customary" norm at the time is just more made up stuff. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The text does not say it was "customary" to keep slave families intact. It only says it was not the custom to separate them. This is crucial context to understanding whether Lee was just doing what everybody was doing or not. I'm not an expert on the Civil War, slavery or Lee, so I'm not going to debate these issues with you. I'm here to discuss whether text abides by sources or not. On issues I know well and on those I don't know well, I only add text that strictly abides by sources. I ask the same of other editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The source says that it was not the Custis family practice to separate families -- for any time whatsoever? Lee separated families to rent out slaves for a limited time to cover the Custis estate indebtedness, then reunited them at manumission. In the meantime, it was the custom to allow family visitations each week among nearby plantations, but the sources immediately before us are silent on that practice applying to Lee's slave management. You cannot make stuff up about the general practice of slave owners in Virginia never separating slave family members under any conditions based on a sourced characterization of Custis family practice, and then apply your made up generalization to Lee in a conclusion not addressed in the source. That is wp:synthesis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"You cannot make stuff up about the general practice of slave owners in Virginia never separating slave family members under any conditions". This is not what the text said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The text now misrepresent the Altantic Monthly source by asserting, "One historian noted that Lee separated slave families, which was not the custom at the time.” — But Adam Server wrote in the article, “ The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery” — that is, the separation of slave families by their masters WAS the custom of the time, one of the most devastating aspects of slavery as practiced in the American South.

Your unfounded generalization that separating families “was not the custom of the time” among slave holders in Virginia is a wild extrapolation from Server's passage, "Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families, by hiring them off to other plantations…” You just make up the generalization regardless of what sources say by wp:synthesis, then you accuse an editor who disinterestedly read and incorporated the same sources you cite as using wp:synthesis. That is curious, but I am not sure the maneuver will stand scrutiny given that the sources are linked for verification by others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem confused as to what "not custom at the time" means. "Not custom at the time" does not mean that nobody did it at the time. If you want to rephrase the sentence, you can say "One historian noted Lee separated slave families, something that prominent slave-holding families in Virginia such as Washington and Custiss did not do". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans, You have made up your own definition of “custom” unlike any other in American English usage. The onslaught of half-truths is curious. While Virginia slave-owners of reputation kept slaves to their economic disadvantage rather than suffer the humiliation of “selling away” their slaves to the Deep South, many did separate families by renting out their field hands and artisans rather than face bankruptcy.

Lee was adhering to the “custom” of his aristocratic peers; his actions were not "not the custom". The manumission of entire slave estates on the death of the owner by Washington and Custis were not the "custom" of Virginia slaveholders, however enlightened you may suppose they may have been to set up a straw man with which to condemn Lee on this count. You have no source for your half-truth assertion.

A Merriam-Webster definition of custom is, "A usage or practice common to many or to a particular place or class"; or "long-established practice considered as unwritten law". As your source points out which you must read in its entirety instead of wp:cherry picking, the practice common to many in the slave holding class of the American antebellum South was to separate families. Certainly the forceable export of 10,000s of Virginia’s slaves after 1820 into the cotton belt Gulf states meant that keeping slave families together was not the “unwritten law” in Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is extremely tiring. The source literally says that separating slave families was not in the Washington and Custiss tradition. In other words, it was not the custom to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

More half-truth nonsense. Two outlier individuals within slaveholding families who freed slaves at their death does not make a Virginia "custom" of slaveholder families freeing their entire slave estates.

I hope you also remember Ralph Quarles, and his mistress, Lucy Jane Langston, whom he purchased and freed in 1806. They bore two sons of some note. John Mercer Langston was free, and his fathers estate provided for his education as a lawyer in Ohio prior to the Civil War. Langston was Virginia’s fist African-American U.S. Representative, elected in a contested election in 1888. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither separating nor keeping intact slave families was a custom. This whole discussion seems to hinge on your understanding of "not the custom". But forget that! I already outlined a different way of phrasing the sentence that avoids this misunderstanding and is 100% consistent with the source: "One historian noted Lee separated slave families, something that prominent slave-holding families in Virginia such as Washington and Custiss did not do". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

More half-truth. "Prominent slave-holding families" in Virginia did often separate families to rent out slave field hands and artisans by contract for limited periods of time. The source says "two" families did not separate families, --- even temporarily? --- that is not all prominent families.

A qualifier is required to avoid half-truth, such as, "One historian noted Lee separated slave families for rental income to retire the Custis estate debt, while two prominent slave-holding Virginia families did not for any reason." Lee was not exceptional in this matter, but the two notable families were.

However the Custis estate was burdened with liens of indebtedness requiring more income than they could provide on the Custis exhausted lands, so Lee rented them out for a limited period of time, instead of settling the estate debts by selling some of the slaves South, and permanently breaking up families. Lee chose a path to provide for the eventual settlement of estate debt and manumission of the estate slaves, even when Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation would not have applied to them. The reader should not come away with the impression that Lee permanently dissolved slave families, when they were temporarily separated for a limited purpose imposed by the estate indebtedness. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:OR for editors to add qualifiers of their own to statements made by experts in RS or to add their own criticisms of RS content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Permanent separation, where family members were taken away, forever, is a bit different than renting these slaves to work elsewhere and have them return. Referring to this practice as "separating families" would be a distortion, and would only perpetuate the stereotypes that plague issues like this. "Custom of the times" should be mentioned for historical context, but at the same time a clear distinction should be made with it and what Lee actually practiced. TheVirginiaHistorian has supplied plenty of good sources to this effect. Seems any pressing issues could have been handled with a simple edit or two. Certainly the full revert was uncalled for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Separating families" is sourced in the article. This the is the relevant text from the RS: "In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.” The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the enslaved—it was, as my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates described it, “a kind of murder.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the "plenty of good sources" that TheVirginiaHistorian, these needs to be demonstrated in a clear and coherent fashion. All I see are extensive essays of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH above me. When sources are used by TheVirginiaHistorian, it's blatant WP:SYNTH. I've asked TheVirginiaHistorian to directly quote these sources in relation to race and slavery but the editor refuses, so it appears as if the sources are cobbled together to show something that they don't do on their own, which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

continued...

If Lee only rented out slaves v sending them away forever, we should be clear on that point. If we are referring to two or more sources with varying accounts we can say, 'Source A says this', however, source B says that', and let the readers decide matters of morality for themselves. Also, is there any source claiming Lee split up slave families permanently in no uncertain terms? Seems if Lee's alleged practice was common knowledge it wouldn't have been difficult for anyone to demonstrate. In any event, if Pryor is using the idea of renting out slaves to hold up her claim that Lee "separated families" then I would recommend looking to other sources to see if Pryor is not 'piling on' Lee's practice with her own conjecture. We should also be careful not to cherry pick and promote one unusual account by ignoring the other average accounts. At any rate, we don't need a direct quote from Lee to make the given statements, so long as they are clearly backed up by a RS. I'm not seeing anything written by TVH that amounts to OR, or any source (i.e.Skelton, Fellman, Fortin, Foner) that is less than reliable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has said that the sources are not RS. The objection is that these RS are cobbled together to demonstrate something that the sources by themselves do not show, or in other words, blatant WP:SYNTH:

• • The Skelton source only says that officers held a general belief that they ought to be apolitical. The source says nothing about Lee, race or slavery. If Lee did not comment on slavery because of his principled belief that officers should be apolitical it needs to be sourced.
  • The Fellmann source only says that Lee did not hold speeches to bolster the war effort until 1863. The source says nothing about Lee's views on race or slavery, or any principled beliefs to stay outside of politics. If Lee did not comment on slavery because of his principled belief that officers should be apolitical it needs to be sourced.
  • The only source that actually relates to slavery and race is the Foner source (which was already in the article - added by me). Note that TVH even opted to distort Foner's quote ("unlike some white southerners, he never spoke out against slavery.") into "Prior to the Civil War, Lee seems never to have spoken out publicly on the subject of slavery". The addition of "seems" is an extremely puzzling case of WP:WEASEL, given that it both expresses skepticism of sourced content (Foner) and contradicts the WP:SYNTH text derived from the Fellmann and Skelton sources.

The US Civil War (and the characters within it) is one of the most studied topics in history. It should be absolutely no problem to find RS for accurate text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of instances where two or more sources are used in one statement, and since TVH hasn't gone beyond the limits of what the sources say, there is no OR here, and your opinion that saying "seems" poses skepticism towards one particular source is moot since TVH didn't come right out and assert anything as absolute fact. Both Skelton and Fellmann establish that Lee was likely not to have spoken about slavery while in the military, even though, as you pointed out, they didn't, as fact, say so. Foner makes the general claim of 'never spoke', but nothing about 'publicly speaking out'. Therefore, TVH is quite correct by saying it 'seems' like Lee never spoke out in public, because neither Skelton or Fellman come right out and say this, while Foner is not specific about speaking in public. His claim of "never" has to be taken in view of all the sources. It's a common practice among historians simply to provide background material and historical context, while not making absolute claims, esp when it involves personal matters that are only supported by a few letters, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Two or more sources can be used to make the same statement, not join two statements into one; that's specifically prohibited in SYNTH. If there's one (or more) sources that explicitly make the same joining, great. Otherwise, we can't allow things be implied, and especially not in WP's voice. There probably are ways to include all the proposed information in the article, but not in any of the simple conjoining I've seen so far. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 04:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lee as nonpolitical

It's a point often made about Lee as aloof from political debates. 1) "He epitomized the nonpolitical tradition in the U.S. military, and his lifelong attempt to remain aloof from the political turmoil about him would be emulated by twentieth-century soldiers..." John Taylor, Duty Faithfully Performed: Robert E. Lee and His Critics (1999) Page 223. 2) " Lee believed in God's time, not man's, and God's disposition, not human politics. So when it came to grappling with the issue of slavery, he could not comprehend why men could not leave well enough alone....on major public conflicts, Lee had no active position." . [Fellman, The Making of Robert E. Lee - Page 76]. 3) " From early manhood Lee held a low opinion of politicians, and believed military men should stay out of politics." William Davis, Crucible of Command: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee (2015). Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this in relations to the discussion above? Yet he testified in front of a congressional testimony where he denigrated black people and said they were too dumb to participate in politics. He voiced support for Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction approach. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct about Lee's beliefs and adds some informative context to the above issues. What Lee may have said about Blacks, or his support of Johnson, has nothing to do with the issue of Lee's alleged splitting up of families, or his position about public speaking. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Congressional testimony was not about slavery, It was about voter qualifications. it came after the war in response to a Congressional demand that he testify, and he of course was no longer in the U.S. Army. Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans insists on repeatedly misrepresenting sources by half-truth. It is truly difficult to keep up. Lets take one of the latest. The Fellman source says two things, not one. One point is that Lee was “apolitical”, publicly silent on political matters “previously”, prior to the Civil War. That means ipso facto that there is nothing on the public record to be related about race or slavery, as confirmed by Foner — except for some reference to private letters, or reasonable reference to Lee’s Congressional testimony after the Civil War (more on that later).

But it is relevant and of interest to the general reader that Lee was silent on political matters as a matter of republican principle of duty to the constituted civilian authority, not as a character flaw “unlike some white southerners” speaking out for abolition in the 1850s. I understand what Foner would have had, given his personal professorial preference a hundred and fifty years later, regardless of the ideal of duty to abide by the required military oath to uphold a Constitution then including slavery. But that is all about Foner, not about Lee.

WP:SYNTH does not say that two or three related ideas cannot be placed in adjacent sourced sentences. WP is to have an encyclopedic style, and not simply mirror direct quotes in disjointed sequence. Use of one source does not require excluding related informational material from another source in the same paragraph.

SYNTHESIS requires a conclusion apart from the sources which is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Foner explicitly says Lee was silent on the subject of slavery as a serving U.S. Army officer before the Civil War. Fellman says Lee’s principled duty as he saw it was to be apolitical prior to the Civil War (as does Taylor and Davis per User:Rjensen). Kelton says U.S. Army officers from West Point had an ethic of duty to be apolitical, “aloof from any party and sectional strife” — which is not UNLIKE Lee’s apolitical silence while a serving U.S. Army officer, rather the citation explains it.

Unlike the User:A D Monroe III assertion above, there is no WP:SYTNTH in the proposed passage because there is no conclusion drawn in the proposed language not included in the sources and consistent with one another. All elements of the three sentences proposed are sourced and all are related to give context to Lee’s silence on the question of slavery and abolition “unlike some white southerners” — as a matter or principle, not implied character flaw that Foner advances in a personalized speculation for a newspaper interview. There is no editorial conclusion drawn. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH does not require a stated conclusion; it states reach or imply a conclusion (my emphasis). I've agreed that it's possible to include all the info above if done properly, so that nothing is implied that wasn't in the source explicitly. I haven't seen a proposal that fits that. Rather than repeatedly re-interpreting SYNTH, can we just step back and get a clear statement of the actual change proposed, and work on that? Y'know, make some progress towards consensus? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with TVH. None of the sources say Lee never spoke out publicly and neither did this editor when he added the passage to the article. Also agree with ADM, that perhaps it's best to reword and/or use more than one statement to let the readers know of Lee's position. From my understanding SYNTH and OR only become issues when someone advances a new idea, as fact, not stated in any of the sources. We seem to be confusing TVH's average estimation of the sources as if he's introduced a new, conflicting or radical idea as fact. Nothing like this has even come close to happening. Bear in mind, any rule or guideline can be belabored and taken to self defeating proportions. e.g.Source A says Smith was kind to his slaves. Source B says this. Source C also says this. Source D says nothing of the matter. However, none of the sources speak of other historians. There's nothing wrong when an editor makes an obvious deduction by saying, historians generally agree that Smith treated slaves kindly, using the four sources for the one statement. Here also we are only offering a historical estimation, not a new idea. I've seen this done before when there is consensus. Since there is no distortion of the picture, no new ideas being introduced, it would appear any argument about SYNTH and OR at this point is only academic. Referring to each source with an individual statement would be sort of a clunky way to present the picture, making the article read like an inventory report. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:A D Monroe III: Neither the source of the Army corps apolitical ethos, nor the source of Lee being apolitical implies a conclusion of Lee speaking out on slavery, — rather they logically support and explain the third source attesting to his public silence on the subject of slavery. There is no WP:SYTH implied conclusion in the proposal NOT explicitly found in the sources among the three sources.

Foner's implied conclusion — observing “some white Southerners” spoke out for abolition as opposed to Lee’s silence unexplained by Foner — is that there is a shortcoming or flaw in Lee’s character for not conforming to contemporary abolitionist mores — while Lee lived under a Constitutional regime permitting slavery and actively served as a regular Army officer sworn to uphold that Constitution. We should explain Lee's silence at the time in terms of the time if reliable sources allow it.

Let’s incorporate Rjensen, Snooganssnoogans and my earlier sources as follows to replace the lead sentence attributed to Foner in a newspaper article alone:

By the time of Lee's career in the U.S. Army, officers of West Point stood aloof from party and sectional strife on such issues as slavery as a matter of principle and Lee adhered to the principle. (Skelton, 1992, p. 285)(Davis, 2015, p. 46) He considered it his patriotic duty to be apolitical while in active Army service (Fellman, 2000, p. 137)(Taylor, 1999, p. 223), and Lee did not speak out publicly on the subject of slavery prior to the Civil War. (Foner in Fortin NYT Aug 18, 2017)(Fellman, 2000, p. 76, 137)

And also, place the three anachronistic paragraphs of the section "Lee's views on race and slavery" in chronological order, rather than trying to POV push in the WP article by promoting an extended quote from of an historian's newspaper interview not subject to peer review. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to create a sub-section on Lee and his belief in being apolitical, do that. Stop whitewashing his views on slavery and race, and imply something from sources that isn't supported by them. The same man who denigrated blacks in front of Congress, said that they were too stupid to participate in election and defended the Johnson administration's approach to Reconstruction was obviously not a sincere believer that he ought to be apolitical on the matter of race and slavery, yet that's the unsourced cobbled-together text you want to add. I have one simple demand: source the goddamn text. Why is this so hard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(insert) The text is sourced, and please let's maintain a civil tone. -- Lee may have supported Johnson, but still may have not spoke out politically in public overall. Also, let's not confuse having a political opinion, as Lee and all officers did, as to mean he approved of officers speaking out politically. This is what you seem to be suggesting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"let's not confuse having a political opinion, as Lee and all officers did, as to mean he approved of officers speaking out politically. This is what you seem to be suggesting." ??? What's being discussed here is whether Lee chose not to express his opinions on race and slavery because of a belief that officers such as him ought to be apolitical (unsourced). Yet, Lee did express his opinions on race and slavery, and advocated for the Johnson approach to Reconstruction. So what we have are (i) editors cobbling together sources in an attempt to say that Lee chose not to speak out against slavery due to his principles (the sources do not say this) even though (ii) actual reliably sourced text that addresses this specifically notes that Lee did chose to speak on the topic of race and slavery and that he in fact chose to advocate against black suffrage. Again, all I'm asking for is reliably sourced text. Not this cobbled together WP:SYNTH nonsense which appears to have as its only purpose that of whitewashing Lee. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As came up in discussion before, Adam Serwer's article from The Atlantic should be removed. Unlike Foner, he's not an expert on the Civil War, and the article is not a reliable source for facts per "News organizations". With Foner, it would be better to use his academic writings than newspaper editorials. The observation that Lee separated slave families while Jefferson and Washington did not implies unneccessary cruelty, but you need a source that explicitly says that. Note that cost of slaves was far higher for Lee than it had been for the Founding Fathers, hence far more expensive to keep families together. That's why we need reliable sources that are able to provide context. As Serwer rightly notes, veneration of Lee is part of extremism in parts of the U.S. - it has no place in this article. But that does not mean that the article is supposed to debunk those views, it merely has to explain how mainstream historians view him. TFD (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's not assume "mainstream historians" are one unified collective with one myopic POV. If that was the case we would only need one or two sources. There is no need to create a subsection to add the text TVH has proposed, and once again, this editor has not advanced any new or conflicting idea. -- All I see is conjecture that says he has. Also, does Lee actually use the phrase "too dumb" when he testified before Congress? Did he use it as an expression of what he believed, or one of hatred? That's important. Let's not take 2+2 and try to make it look like 100. We need a RS that outlines Lee's actual sentiments towards blacks. Are we also still trying to pass off the idea that by renting out slaves, Lee "separated families"? That would be a gross distortion. Is there a RS that says in no uncertain terms that Lee separated families permanently? In any case, I agree we need the straight facts, and well sourced. If this happens to "venerate" Lee in some cases then this shouldn't come as a disappointment. Extremism is a two way street, and using a distorted picture to incite hatred and resentment between the races is much lower than racism itself, so let's take our pinkys out of the air and give the readers the most accurate picture possible, which I'm sure is what we all want. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans: You may be suffering from WP:OWNER in this section. Despite your swearing as a coverup for careless inattention, the amended proposal is now supported by two reliable sources for each of the three sentences on Lee and his silence on slavery prior to the Civil War. The policy of WP:GOOD FAITH requires you to read the posts of others, and not deny their existence in offensive disrupting posts.

There is no attempt on my part to whitewash Lee in any respect. I have expressed my belief that I personally find whipping with a lash as cruel punishment then and now, and that I find slavery a crime against humanity then and now. And Lee should be judged by those standards, but his behavior should be assessed in the context of the time, which you are refusing to admit — though supported with multiple reliable sources.

Relative to Lee’s views AFTER the Civil War at Congressional Testimony — that you anachronistically attempt to conflate with prior behavior — you would have Lee’s reservation for immediate enfranchisement of unschooled blacks "at the time” meaning that they could never act as intelligent voters in his estimation. — But as Lee said in the same testimony immediately following was, “What the future may prove, how intelligent they may become, [and how they may look upon their resident state politically] . . . I cannot say more than you can.” He also asserted his belief in gradual emancipation and removal as had members of other prominent Virginia families, including James Madison, President of the American Colonization Society in the 1830s for blacks to live productive, self-governing lives as free men and women in Africa. (A mistaken view by my lights, especially considering the successful economic participation of Virginia's 50,000 free black community at the time.)

Surely you are not implying that only whites are so “dumb” as to require twelve years of compulsory education before voting age? Should not children of all races in a democratic republic have equal access to good schooling in literacy, the history of changing political parties, and the principles of democratic participation and the republican process of government --- BEFORE their enfranchisement? I do so for then and now, and I celebrate those who advocated that equal access to a quality educational process then and those who do so now. If you do not, WHY won't you allow for an equal education for black children too, then and now? You seem to be an adherent of WP:FRINGE as it stands, asserting far-reaching implications about Lee, his apolitical silence and his Congressional testimony without adequate sourcing.

Let's try to stick to the subject of the proposal on explaining Lee's silence on slavery prior to the Civil War, without going off into the subject of his Congressional testimony yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposal, continued

The proposal before us as WP editors has two supporting reliable sources for each element of the narrative text proposed documenting Lee’s silence on slavery -- in the section titled "Lee's views on race and slavery", and explaining it, not as an implied character flaw compared to “some Southerners” supporting abolition, but as (1) a principle widely held in the U.S. Army's West Pointer office corps, (2) a belief adhered to by Lee during the time, and (3) observed by him in his behavior as a serving regular officer.

By the time of Lee's career in the U.S. Army, officers of West Point stood aloof from party and sectional strife on such issues as slavery as a matter of principle and Lee adhered to the principle. (Skelton, 1992, p. 285)(Davis, 2015, p. 46) He considered it his patriotic duty to be apolitical while in active Army service (Fellman, 2000, p. 137)(Taylor, 1999, p. 223)(Pryor, 2008, p.284), and Lee did not speak out publicly on the subject of slavery prior to the Civil War. (Foner in Fortin NYT Aug 18, 2017)(Fellman, 2000, p. 76, 137).

And of course, the section requires a chronological ordering to reflect the various phases of Lee's life, since it is common knowledge that people change over the course of their life circumstances, without necessarily holding to the same views from birth or expressing those views in the same way under all circumstances. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Let’s inspect Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s take on the U.S. Army officer corps of Lee’s career, as User:Snooganssnoogans has made reference to Pryor as a reliable source.

In Pryor’s Reading the Man: A Portrait of Roberty E. Lee, on page 284, Pryor notes in describing Lee’s public silence on controversial sectional issues such as slavery, that the regular army “was an apolitical institution, which discouraged displays of partisan sentiment and muted any parochialism in its officers. At the military academy a cadet was ’taught that he belongs no longer to section or party but, in his life and all his faculties, to his country’.”

There is no WP:SYNTHESIS here, only good reliably sourced contribution as proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So now with the addition of the Pryor citation, we have seven reliable sources to meet the User:Snooganssnoogans objection, "If Lee did not comment on slavery because of his principled belief that officers should be apolitical it needs to be sourced." It seems that a week to review the passage explaining Lee's public silence on race and slavery should be sufficient, considering her continuing participation in the article mainspace and at Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposal on Lee’s silence incorporating contributions from User:Snooganssnoogans, User:A D Monroe III. User:Rjensen, User:Gwillhickers, and TVH is as follows, with sources, direct quotes and verifiable links where possible.

By the time of Lee's career in the U.S. Army, officers of West Point stood aloof from party and sectional strife on such issues as slavery as a matter of principle and Lee adhered to the principle.He considered it his patriotic duty to be apolitical while in active Army service., and Lee did not speak out publicly on the subject of slavery prior to the Civil War.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Rework the block quote in "Lee's views" section

At the section "Lee's views on race and slavery", we can remove the extended block quote deprecated for WP style, and write encyclopedically on the subject from his December 27, 1856 letter from Texas, using a more extensive passage from the same letter than is now available in the block quote from Emory M. Thomas to better reflect Lee's views:

Lee acceded to the inevitability of slavery under the U.S. Constitution during his own time, but he believed it to be an institution of “moral and political evil” detrimental to both slave and master. He saw slavery as "a painful discipline", but Lee hoped for better things for the "colored race", 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 any case, 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.

Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history by A. L. Long, p. 82-83, from a letter of Lee's from Texas to his son dated December 27, 1856.

This allows for the replacement of the entire paragraph including the characterization of Lee's "primary" concern in a newspaper interview that is not peer reviewed. Unlike the off-handed remark to a reporter, we can see on inspection of the letter, that Lee's primary concern to his son on the subject of slavery was that they pray for God's doctrine to be effected on earth in a "miracle" ending slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The passage has been duly edited with the comment, that I used encyclopedic style, admitted more comprehensive information per Talk, and I moved the paragraph within the section using chronological order -- placing the 1856 letter before Civil War (1861-1865) and after. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an absurd summary of that letter. Written in the most blatantly whitewashing way. There is a reason why editors aren't allowed to re-interpret and summarize snippets of primary sources, per WP:OR. We already had text that (1) reliably sources a historian's summary of the letter and (2) directly quotes the letter. In your version, you omit that Lee primarily sees slavery as bad for whites, that he sees blacks as better off as slaves than as still living in Africa, that slavery is "necessary for their further instruction as a race". You also imply 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, but someone like Elizabeth Pryor describes that letter (in line with my reading of it) as making the common pro-slavery argument that slavery was the will of god, that no active measures should be taken to end it and that abolitionists are fighting against what god intended[2]. Lee also blames the cruelty of slave masters on the abolitionists who "excite angry feelings" in them. This illustrates really well why WP:OR is a no-no on wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Your absurd critique of a A. L. Long's summary and direct quotes is POV pushing. It replaces the restatement of Lee, who like Lincoln preferred his own race over another, --- as though personages of that time saw some sort of color line to choose between. I mean no "whitewash". We now know "race" is scientifically unfounded as there are more genetic differences inside the fictional "race" constructs than between mean aggregates of those culturally supposed members of each "race". (Lincoln's defense against Stephen Douglas' smear in their Senatorial debates was, Just because I do not want a black woman as my slave does not mean I want her as my wife.)

Praying for a miracle for your country does not imply "that Lee saw the end of slavery as eminent". What straw man nonsense. As you see in the letter, unlike your Elizabeth Pryor misrepresentation, Lee says "God's doctrine" is the end of slavery, not its perpetuation as God's will. POV pushing does not justify fabrications contradicting the presentation of the historical account by A. L. Long. Lee would not propose active measures to end slavery as a serving U.S. Army officer in part because he was sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution which allowed slavery in the states.

It would be well for you to add a sentence or two in the article such as, Lee, like Lincoln, preferred his own race to the "colored", and believed that Abolitionists were the source of slaves becoming angry at their enslavement. --- what is your constructive suggestion here on Talk, where drafts are discussed at Wikipedia rather than edit warring as a form of wp:bully? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let’s look at one of User:Snooganssnoogans misrepresentations of the sources. Rather than look at a book review link which does not support her assertion and POV pushing, let’s look at the book reviewed and the author cited. In Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee through his private letters, Elizabeth Brown Pryor notes that Lee’s private views were "entirely unremarkable”.

On page 151, she says, "No visionary, Lee nearly always tried to conform to accepted opinions. His assessment [of racial matters and slavery] was in keeping with the prevailing views of other moderate slaveholders, and a good many prominent Northerners.”

Let’s leave wp:cherry picking and POV pushing aside, hold off on the edit warring, and come to Talk with sourced contributions for discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let’s inspect Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s take on Lee's views on race and slavery, as User:Snooganssnoogans has made reference to her as a reliable source. When we look at a verifiable linked source, we can see the proposed contribution that was reverted without discussion is not WP:OR, but in line with yet an additional source which was wp:cherry picked.

In Pryor’s Reading the Man: A Portrait of Roberty E. Lee, on page 285, "Lee, shocked at the thought of dismantling the nation, maintained that disunion was “anarchy” and that “secession is nothing but revolution.” Exasperated with extremists both north and south, he decried equally the “aggressions” of the former and “selfish and dictatorial bearing” of the latter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please limit your long rambling incoherent rants to concise comments on what's actually under dispute here? You have summarized the contents of a letter and you have done so badly: that's what's being disputed here. The letter is there for all to see, and I even listed the things that you willfully omitted. Instead of actually discussing the contents of the letter, you start to bring up irrelevant factoids on unrelated issues (such as Lincoln's views on slavery and Pryor's assessment of Lee on other issues than the letter in question). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

edit break

I have accurately reflected the contents of the letter -- not of my own OR --- but by using A.D. Long in an encyclopedic style much better than the POV pushing redacted quote which is now displayed in the article reflecting only part of Lee's views on race and slavery. Of course the two items you would like reinstated can be added to my edit without sacrificing A. D. Long's sourcing in my contribution. And we see that Pryor's scholarship supports A. D. Long in two instances related to Lee decrying extremists both North and South.

And we see that Pryor's summary characterization of Lee's views on race and slavery are more balanced and aligned with the preponderance of sources than are Foner's personal preference for Antebellum slave holding Southerners including Lee, to all publicly advocate Abolitionism as "some white Southerners" did.

Are you now suggesting we NOT use Pryor directly from her book but instead lean on your wp:cherry picking from a book review? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with your two last paragraphs. Are you rehashing discussions from above? As for the first paragraph, you OBVIOUSLY do not accurately summarize the letter. I LITERALLY LISTED THE THINGS THAT YOU WILLFULLY OMITTED FROM THE LETTER and cited a historian who disagrees with YOUR interpretation of the letter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You willfully omitted five elements of the letter, and I say that the two things you would like to include can be included. Why the wp:bully? Just write a proposal with all seven elements from the letter in it; don't edit war on the article page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have zero interest in coming together with editors to concoct an WP:OR interpretation of a letter. It's a violation of Wikipedia policy and a complete waste of time. If you want to dig through primary sources, you are free to create a blog. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that your interest in this article is based 1) on a cursory web search of newspaper articles, wp:cherry picking them to push a POV when they are more balanced than your selective bias, along with 2) a willingness to misrepresent proposed text of editors here.

1) You suppose my encyclopedic summary of the letter using Long as a source does not include reference to Lee believing slavery was bad for white masters as well as enslaved blacks, --- but the passage reads that he "believed it to be an institution of 'moral and political evil' detrimental to both slave and master." That quoted passages meets your expressed concern, without noting Lee's insistence on his personal feelings of compassion for the "colored" race. Which you may add if you like, but that is not grounds for deleting the proposed text.

2) You would like to include inclusion of Lee's understanding that blacks were better off under slavery as practiced in the United States compared to what? slavery in the Spanish or French Caribbean or slavery in Africa? That was not clear but you may add it if you like, however that is not grounds for deleting the proposed text. He certainly said in the letter that he hoped for better things for the "colored" race than slavery, and that is addressed in the passage, "He saw slavery as 'a painful discipline', but Lee hoped for better things for the "colored race", and that ...the 'sure influence of Christianity' would bring about the abolition of human slavery"-- not immediately but as a "miracle" of "God's doctrine".

3) You would like to include Lee's observation that as a non-Christian race, Africans of the 18th century required "further instruction" under slavery to be converted, which is of course of the time but it does conform to his drinking from a common communion cup after a black man in St. John's Church in Richmond immediately after U.S. Army occupation -- when no one else would go to the rail after the black man. Don't forget one element without treating the other.

It seems your cursory scanning of a few newspaper and magazine online offerings for POV pushing is focused on making a one-dimensional charicature of a complex character. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• TVH, all along you have made credible edits and the only thing I see opposing them is conjecture and assumed intentions on your part. Your last edit looks fine.
• Snoogans', you need to lighten up. There's a difference between "white-weashing" an account and keeping it from getting slimed. You have made multiple hostile remarks, even in edit history, on top of misrepresenting TVH's well articulated and sourced position, while never, in spite of all the talk, nailing down what you think has misrepresented Lee. It's sort of difficult to take your stance on following rules seriously when in the same breath you continue to break them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"while never, in spite of all the talk, nailing down what you think has misrepresented Lee." We are discussing TVH's introduction of text based on a letter written by Lee. I literally listed the things that TVH willfully omitted from this letter in an attempt to paint Lee in the most sympathetic light possible. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You've done quite a bit more than list some things. TVH has accused you of same. Without combing through all the talk, what part(s) of the letter are in dispute? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you chipping in on disputes that you can't even be arsed to read through? Your comments on this talk page and on the Mil History project talk page are just so bizarre. To understand what this particular dispute is about, all you need to do is: (1) read TVH's first comment here[3], (2) read my first comment and (3) read the first three pages of the source[4]. You can skip the rest of TVH's ramblings on this talk page which are completely unrelated to the text under dispute (I've never encountered an editor with such a scattered focus). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User: Snooganssnoogans and User: Gwillhickers: Here are SEVEN salient points from Lee’s Texas letter, written in an encyclopedic style from the text of A. L. Long’s “Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history”. It comprehends Snooganssnoogans' THREE favorites in a spirit of collegial wp:good faith:

(1) Lee acceded to the inevitability of slavery under the U.S. Constitution during his own time, but (2) he believed it to be an institution of “moral and political evil” detrimental to both slave and master.

(3) While Lee’s “feelings [were] strongly enlisted in behalf” of the “colored race”, he expressed a greater concern for the damage being done whites under slavery. (4) He saw slavery as "a painful discipline” and associated it with improving the “African race” by Christianization during its time of captivity.

(5) But Lee hoped for better things for the "colored race", 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 hoped for “miracle” at a time of God’s own choosing.

In any case, (6) 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, (7) nor did he believe the institution of slavery should be preserved by secession of Southern states and the destruction of the Union.

Interestingly, while my write up is more comprehensive, as seven among Lee’s points are greater than three, --- Snooganssnoogans persists in the complete fabrication that it is my draft which somehow “deliberately omits” material. The POV pushing by Snooganssnoogans misrepresentation literally would have editors believe that three amounts to a number greater than seven. Nonsense. At some level editors must have a command of common sense and good will, contributing to the article together in a collegial manner. Thus this version of the proposed encyclopedic entry is meant to promotes the three elements of Lee's Texas letter that Snooganssnoogans is particularly interested in. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Quote should be removed and his views summarized.......article needs real help....quote spam cleanup, improvement of sources etc.... want to help but waiting for you guys to wrap up your disputes.--Moxy (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

While Snooganssnoogans is handling the complaint of incivility on another article's Talk page, I would be really interested in Moxy's proposed language and sources to replace the block quote and perhaps account for at least seven of Lee's points in his Texas letter. I am hopeful of progress. Moxy has not ruled out any collaboration reflecting some complexity in Lee's character prior to any discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert E. Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722154442/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/leereport.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/johnbrown/leereport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625101840/http://www.sos.ms.gov/education_and_publications_holidays.aspx to http://www.sos.ms.gov/education_and_publications_holidays.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20141021055037/http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_25176180/fort-bliss-rename-robert-e-lee-road-honor to http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_25176180/fort-bliss-rename-robert-e-lee-road-honor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Primary sources" versus "original research" and proposed text

WP:primary sources can be used at Wikipedia unlike WP:Original Research.

1) At wp:primary sources, it explains, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” — So in the following proposal, care will be taken to make straightforward, descriptive statements accessible to anyone with a seventh grade education.

2) WP:PRIMARY SOURCES further explains, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” So the proposal carefully avoids any interpretation of the primary source material. —For instance, Lee instructs his son that their prayers might bring about the eventual end of slavery for the “colored race”, but NO conclusion will be drawn that generally in patriarchal Antebellum Virginia society, fathers presumed to instruct family members in their prayer life.

3) Unlike WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which draws conclusions not found in scholarly peer reviewed or even newspaper accounts cherry picking scholarly snippets, we see at the wp:primary sources POLICY: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.” — So no exceptional claim will be made on any account, only seven descriptive sentiments directly found in the primary sources, Lee’s Texas letter to his son in 1856 and Lee's testimony to Congress in 1868.

Lee believed slavery to be an institution of “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’s “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 African cultures by Christianization during its time of captivity. 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 hoped for “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.

This proposed language encompassing seven of the points in Lee’s letter relating to his views on race and slavery makes the wp:cherry picked sourcing from a newspaper article pushing a POV redundant, so it and the excerpted block quote noting only three of the relevant points made in Lee’s letter is to be replaced with a more complete account of the letter's contents with a carefully worded edit in encyclopedic style for general readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Without any challenge or exception made for a week here at Talk, the edit is made in article mainspace. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't discuss the same topic with you every single day. This is WP:OR and I've explained to you repeatedly why this shouldn't be included. If you want to include this, start a request for comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to add two cents, Lee is a figure about whom a lot has been written, more than enough that we don't need to use period sources on an article. This has been repeatedly pointed out in this talk page, and I don't see how the formulation above is a significant departure from the previous discussion. This is why there hasn't been a challenge even though the material probably doesn't fit. @TheVirginiaHistorian: If you can only find material on this particular aspect of his life in period sources, it seems clearly WP:UNDUE to include it in the article. For a more minor figure, I'm all for using period sources, but that isn't the case here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smmurphy, Thanks for a contribution to the discussion. It may be that I will need to use secondary sources to make the points Lee makes in the letter that are apparent in simple declaratory sentences clearly conveying Lee's meaning --- because as you say, there is "a lot" written on the subject? But that is not what wp:primary sources says. But wp:undue gives another consideration: if no modern scholarly authority considered it important that Lee directed his family prayers to the end of slavery, then the fact of the religious instruction in a letter frequently referred to in modern scholarship is --- to be excluded as inadmissible here at Wikipedia? But isn't this the very "presentism" that User:Gwillhickers objects to?

On another perhaps related matter, it has also be repeatedly pointed out on this page by user:Rjensen and others that cherry picking quotes from scholars in newspaper and magazine articles which are in themselves cherry picking from the quoted scholar's authoritative presentation of their subjects is clearly WP:POV pushing. Much balance to the section "Lee's views on race and slavery" can be restored if these questionable assertions from suspect sources are removed because they are cherry-picked twice over. Agreed?

In any case, thanks for calling out an objection to the use of a primary source rather than misconstruing wp:or in nonsensical bullying, which is unpersuasive -- as mere edit warring is no explanation at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't exactly follow what you wrote above. The discussion before this point has been quite long and their have been a number of opinions presented. I wanted to add mine because you and Snooganssnoogans were reverting each other and I wanted to make it clear that I did not see a consensus for your edits and I felt your edits did not improve the article. Regarding your first paragraph, I don't know exactly which comment you are referring to with regards to Gwillhickers on "presentism". I also don't quite understand what you mean with the word "admissibility".

Regarding your second paragraph, I agree that the section on race and slavery does not use the best sources. The section on Lee and slavery uses references 74-90. Many of these amount to two newspaper articles in the NYT and LAT. They include a 1934 biography and another article in the Atlantic. There is a lot of contemporary scholarly work on Lee's views towards blacks, slavery, abolitionism, racism, etc, and I would broadly prefer those types of sources to those four (and possibly others I didn't notice). I don't think the sources you are suggesting are an improvement. Also, I'd suggest starting with improving sources over removing or adding content. I think Fellman seems like a good source in that section, I don't have that book, but much of the section could be cited to an article by Fellman I do have access to: Fellman, Michael. "Robert E. Lee: Postwar Southern Nationalist." Civil War History 46, no. 3 (2000): 185-204. It is hard to pick out any cherry picking currently there, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some.

Regarding your third paragraph, I think wikipedia policies and guidelines heavily overlap and multiple policies and guidelines are relevant to most disputes. I think most (all?) guidelines can be derived from the three core content policies/five pillars. Many of them are related to all three/five, and UNDUE is one of these. That is, UNDUE is important because ignoring it can fall afoul of V, NPOV, NOR, 5P1, or 5P2 depending on different issues. I think my objection should not be seen as superseding objections based on NPOV and NOR issues. I think NPOV/NOR issues are certainly present in some of your proposed additions, including those reverted today.

On a somewhat related note, my reading of the discussion that has been going on in this comment thread is that it fits into the genre of internet discussions disputing the legacy of Lee. This genre, the dispute over Lee's legacy, is itself the subject of some interesting work. One example is: Carmichael, Peter S. "" Truth is mighty & will eventually prevail": political correctness, neo-confederates, and Robert E. Lee." Southern Cultures 17, no. 3 (2011): 6-27. Smmurphy^(Talk)16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the references leads. I in the last edit in the article, I did not remove any source or content, I only carefully paraphrased the block quote and added Lee's points from the same letter.

I don’t understand your assertion that my including elements of Snooganssnoogans article reference that she wp:cherry picked from the article in the NYT “What Robert E. Lee Wrote…” is somehow my POV.

Justin Fortin explained there, "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.

I take your point about strengthening sources. But the idea of the proposal is to give a more complete picture of Lee’s beliefs on race and slavery by clearly and accurately representing Lee’s views from that famous and widely referenced letter itself as is permitted under wp:primary sources. Most of the elements I narrate are found cherry picked from news sources now cited in the article. I tried adding one of the excluded elements earlier from a Snooganssnoogans source and Snooganssnoogans began her wp:bully campaign reverting all my edits.

If this line of discussion is not persuasive in using Snooganssnoogans own sources to more fully represent Lee's views on race and slavery, I suppose I can count on your support as I find the same restatements of Lee's views in the famous and widely referenced 1856 letter in authoritative scholarly sources? It is important to include more of them to convey the complexity of Lee's views rather than POV pushing a one-dimensional caricature based on selectively misrepresenting bias. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should point to Fortin's article as a basis for your edits. You didn't cite Fortin in your edit, you quote from different parts of the letter, and what you quote and how you organized it seems to draw different conclusions that Fortin did. Fortin's article and Lee's letter to his wife are, I think, fairly summarized and referenced in this page. It could be improved, of course, but I don't think your edits improved it. You asked if you can count on my support; I do not know if I would support or oppose the edits you are suggesting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the basis of allowing Fortin's article to denigrate Lee in a wp:cherry pick and at the same time denying Fortin's article to show a more complete narrative showing some of Lee's complexity on the topic of race and slavery? How is narrating a more complete picture of Lee's views not an ″improvement″ to the caricature as it is now put forward? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a quick answer to this question, I was only commenting on your recent edit. I will think about your points and requests and try to comment at the RFC below. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of RfC

Talk page contributors: @Smmurphy, Dimadick, Snooganssnoogans, TheVirginiaHistorian, Moxy, Daniel Case, Gedcke, IAC-62, Neutrality, Dr.K, Anythingyouwant, Elonka, Princewilliam3, Darthkenobi0, Shadowfax0, Alexandre8, Bilsonius, Johnlumea, Kelvan.f, GenkiNeko, Deisenbe, A D Monroe III, Gwillhickers, Rjensen, and Infrogmation: 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 same 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) 10:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean the RFC above at Talk:Robert_E._Lee#RfC_about_the_use_of_wp:primary_sources_and_the_proposed_passage. I’ve already !voted and commented extensively about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the notice is still not being conveyed as advertised. Here is another try at notification:

Talk page contributors: @Smmurphy, Dimadick, Snooganssnoogans, TheVirginiaHistorian, Moxy, Daniel Case, Gedcke, IAC-62, Neutrality, Dr.K, Anythingyouwant, Elonka, Princewilliam3, Darthkenobi0, Shadowfax0, Alexandre8, Bilsonius, Johnlumea, Kelvan.f, GenkiNeko, Deisenbe, A D Monroe III, Gwillhickers, Rjensen, and Infrogmation: 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 same 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) 09:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The proposed restatement looks fine. Once again, primary sources are allowed so long as we don't embark on Original Research and try to advance a new position. The proposals have never come close to doing that.  Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert E. Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621220704/http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/battles-campaigns/1861/610911-13.html to http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/battles-campaigns/1861/610911-13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018195124/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=683 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=683

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Fellman on Lee, race and slavery

On the subject of Lee, race and slavery, let’s consider what we can take from a revisionist historian first as he speaks in a scholarly work reviewed in the Journal of American History as "well written, persuasive and ... authoritative". I paraphrase:

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. 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) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Korda on Lee, race and slavery

Next, let's look at the insight a mainstream historian might give us on the nature of Lee's religious belief as it pertained to race and slavery. I paraphrase.

Lee did not see slavery as a problem susceptible to a political solution, he saw it as a moral and religious issue, a part of God’s plan just as Lee thought of all events on earth as a demonstration of God’s will. This spiritual submission was a part of Lee’s strong religious belief, even though as Michael Korda notes, it is difficult for moderns to understand how a 19th century figure could view something as immoral and unjust such as slavery to be a part of God’s will on earth.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)