Another wonderful conversation with Dr Guelzo. I eagerly anticipated not only my copy of his Lee bio, but the interviews and discussions that I hoped/ expected would follow closely upon its release. Thanks so much for posting this! I’m only sorry I missed the chance to watch live.
An informative conversation about an important book. The analysis of July 3, 1863 is probably the weakest link in the chain as it flies in the face of most Gettysburg scholarship, even recent examples. His thoughts on the monument crisis are absolutely correct.
Gettysburg was not a winner take all battle that would have ended the fighting had Lee won that engagement.. General Grant, for example, beat back the south at Vicksburg on the same days that Gettysburg was fought, and cut the Confederacy into two parts. The North gained control of the Mississippi River system as a result That was a stupendous achievement, and knocked Texas and Louisiana out of the war for all intents and purposes. The Union armies in the West under Grant, Sherman and Thomas et. al. were far more successful than the back and forth skirmishes that took place in Virginia over a period of three years. Had Meade failed at Gettysburg, it's likely that those armies in the West would have been called East to shore up the situation and they were more than capable of dealing with Lee's dwindling forces had they decided to move on Washington. That's not to say, I don't disagree with the speaker. Professor Guelzo is a brilliant historian, who brings deep insights to his profession, and I am looking forward to reading his biography of Lee.
A few Facts Fact... Virginia, as well as NY and RI ....ratified the Constitution with the proviso "right to resume powers" delegated to the federal experiment if they felt harmed by the arrangement. Fact... When Lee took his oath at West Point it was to the United States, and to protect and defend THEM.....plural..ie to the States United. When that was no longer the case, when the States were no longer "united" where exactly was his allegiance as applied by his oath? Was not his allegiance equally to the Southern States who left as well as to the Northern States? This point is driven home as the oath was rewritten in 1861 by West Point authorities. Fact... VA did not secede until "harmed", ie they were forced to provide troops to make war on the Deep South (which had previously seceded), partake in an embargo of the Deep South, and to allow federal troops to traverse and use VA ports to make war on the Deep South. Not until then did they secede. Fact.. Lee attached himself to the defense ....the DEFENSE ....of Virginia even before Virginia became part of the Confederate States. Fact... Virginia had been an entity for more than a Century prior to the Federal Government's existence. Nearly half the Presidents to date had come from VA, and the land for part of the District of Columbia was provided by Virginia.
Agree! Guelzo’s hard line on Lee going back on his oath to the USA does not resonate with me. It lacks a degree of context he has when talking about other aspects.
Yeah, well, I think you guys had better read Lincoln’s Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861. Lee has been lionized for far to long by those mislead by “lost cause” mythology. A great field commander, strategist, etc., but ultimately parochial & myopic as a political or constitutional thinker…🎩🇱🇷
