Robert E. Lee: The Civil War in Four Minutes 

That's what real men do. Give up everything they know and love to go to war against one's own brother in the single country in which had been around since 1776.

The fact that general Lee had the courage to make such a hard decision proves his value as an officer and a commander in my vieuw.

He was a traitor to his country who owned other humans. Great dude.

I thought he was a rich slaver.

Absolutely !!

Maybe. Honestly might have been better if the south was totally crushed. Wouldn’t have the lost cause myth BS we have still to this day.

@@Flowerz__ That's an interesting thought. I can see its merit, but the problems of the failed reconstruction, the lost cause myth, the KKK, the denial the freed slaves civil rights were caused by the Democrat party. The evil that that had rooted with the Democrats in defense of slavery and that caused the civil war was not cured by their defeat.

we're okay with talking about and learning about these people. we're not okay with glorifying these people. this video is completely fine. please don't misunderstand our point.

@@revui834 That’s what I, as an non-American, without an extensive knowledge of American civil war history, am trying to understand about Lee, why was he so despised? From what I’ve seen about him the dislike of Lee wasn’t based on himself as a person or a general per se, but for what he represented, what he fought on behalf of, Would that be fair? He represented the side who supported the slave trade, deep and brutal racism, those kinds of elements, so he’s the face, so to speak, of that bigotry and racism of the south?

@@daveoshaughnessy i mean, pretty much. he valued having slavery and was willing to lead a war effort just to keep it. he is, in no uncertain terms, an awful person who should not be glorified. we should learn about these people. in fact, we WANT people to learn about lee. but we don't want people to treat him like a hero. he's not a hero.

@@revui834 and this is where I saw contrasting information. There was a number of videos that claimed Robert E Lee was not a supporter of the slave trade and that he himself had released his slaves and his wife’s slaves before he engaged in the Civil War, so what to believe? This is certainly easy to understand the negative issue of glorifying his image. I believe there is one of his statues in New Orleans (?) at a roundabout was on a very high plinth, in effect glorifying his legacy which is understandable to remove. It’s fascinating watching the US having to come to terms with its racist, bigoted past in an uncomfortable way, a cathartic experience for the Nation that is making many people VERY uncomfortable.

Don't worry. It's an educational video based on facts. No danger of BLM seeing it.

No he didn’t

+Collin Glover We don't really know for certain. Some recordings of soldiers show that they didn't have much different speech than we do today.

+Collin Glover No Lee would not have had an accent, He was Upper crust and moved and went to west point at 18. The Army was largely Northern in it's make up. 74% of its officer corps was Northern and most of its enlisted men where from the North, His accent, Upper crust to begin with would have just gotten less distinct.

+Top Gallant But the way you speak is pretty much sealed by age by surely no later than at 7 years old, unless you purposely train out of it. Its actually debated allot, it seems nobody has 100% proof of how allot of people from older times spoke.

Collin Glover We can only judge by where he lived and who he lived with. Upper Crust Non twangy Virginians before 18 and mostly Northerners after.

+Top Gallant I agree it wouldn't have been twangy, which is a good thing lol. but the original southern accent was highly based off of the British accent, like dropping R's and such, but also having a sharp I(ah). That's what I believe he would most likely have. Like I said, just how Robert Duvall spoke when portraying him.

Lee did the right thing by staying loyal to the founding principles that founded our Nation. His contemporary Virginians are Traitors to the name of Liberty, and pawns for the sacred and untouchable Federal Government.

@@bubby8825 No Lee was the traitor, not them. Deep down, Lee knew this himself. He openly admitted secession was treason: _"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861. Lee knew what he was doing was wrong, but still did it anyway, whereas the other Virginians I mentioned were able to summon up the courage to do the right thing by staying loyal to their country.

@@TheStapleGunKid "do the right thing by staying loyal" to an all-powerful centralized federal government that trampled on the rights of the individual - and continues to do so. There, fixed it for you.

@@bubby8825 "Trampled on the rights of the individual?" That would be the CSA, not the Union. The CSA was the faction that was founded for the sole purpose of preserving slavery. _"The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them."_ --Virginian Union General George H Thomas.

@@TheStapleGunKid "This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of Statism and Tyranny might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism"** There, fixed a portion of it for you. You cannot provide substantiating "evidence" from a general of the opposing side's military - especially one as politically radical as George Thomas. That's like arguing that Allied troops were barbaric during ww2, and citing Joachim Peiper. The ineptitude is immense in this comment thread.

He Was British

Just curious, how would anyone know what Lee's accent would have sounded like? Unless you lived between 1807 and 1870, I doubt that you would have knowledge of that. I'm fairly certain that audio recording technology was not around during his life. Plus, being that Lee was constantly moving between military bases, his accent, if any, would have deteriorated over time due to his interaction with non-southern military personnel, and for having lived at Arlington house for over 30 years of his life.

Because of the isolation of the various dialects during that time. Despite America's homogenization, this is still evident in many places in the South - Tangier Island for example. Same here in many parts of the Shenandoah Valley. A more mobile society, popular media and culture, all this and more have contributed to a diluting of dialects in America. Lee's moving around military still would not have exposed him to more than the average 21st century American hears in a month's worth of television. Arlington was a very "Southern" community in Lee's time.

That would be a fair characterization, yes.

Is there something specific you'd like to know?

***** Go ahead.

What good did he do for the United States of America?

@@Flowerz__ I support General Lee and loved him as a person and throughout all the history I’ve read but yeah this comment doesn’t make any sense lol

@@bomb1243 the comment makes sense to me. Lee lead the army that divided United States. He was (during the war) a traitor to the nation.

And blew the war at Gettysburg.

@@MrRp25 "blew the war" He's the only reason they were close in the first place.

+antares4s Actually I like that aspect of it...makes him seem more human and real...than a vintage backdrop would.

The building in the background is "Lee's Headquarters" at Gettysburg.

antares4s shut up

Njpdjsnsgsksh shsisqlrrovcksdi

sara charles please explain to us how!!!

*****​ you are so misinformed. Lincoln and the federalists actually violated the Constitution. How many times was the north invaded? Once. While the south was invaded for 4 long years. they were fighting to keep the succeeding states from leaving the Union. They were not fighting to end slavery.

***** Yes it was invaded. Lincoln sent 75,000 troops to occupy the South, including Ft. Sumter. It wasn't an insurrection, because the South wanted freedom and independence- to govern itself. An insurrection would be the attack on the Federal Government. This was not an attack on the Government. This was for States Rights. The Federalists invaded the South- burned, pillaged, and raped and destroyed its civilization and its economy. Lincoln- a racist and a tyrant, was interested in the economical complications if the South left the Union. Frederick Douglas persuaded Lincoln to make it a war about "slavery". This was a mask of defense. The ultimate goal was to destroy the South's economy and drag it back into the Union. The South had many causes to get rid of slavery long before the War started. And actually they would have ended slavery, but didn't want to do so by force. The pro slavery leaders were not speaking on behalf of the entire Confederacy. But a few had an interest in the expansion. This is the confusion where people blame the South for starting the war. When it was really Lincoln who waged a war against the South. #llearnhistroy

+Meade Skelton You are saying the FEDERALIST wanted to secure a HUGE TOTALITARIAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and force the Southern states back into the Union?

+Top Gallant no

joey8062 You may not like it but facts are facts and they cant be changed

I really don't think any of the civil war general's tried to win at all. That's why the war took so long. They wouldn't pursue retreating enemies half the time. All the Confederate army had to do was march north one day to the capital after the very first battle. My $.02, no refunds. Lol

@@williegreyabsher4429 Grant certainly tried to win it all. He was the only General on either side to completely wipe out an enemy army, a feat he accomplished three times.

They did so because he refused yo surrender. Army First Lieutenant Stuart approached under a white flag and told the raiders their lives would be spared if they surrendered. Brown refused, saying, "No, I prefer to die here." Stuart then gave a signal for the troops to march in.

More like a man than can't turn his back on his family and neighbors and fellow statesman, a trait that can't be comprehended today by this brain washed group of sheeple, More like a genuine Hero that he was

ACE Champion Remember when Lees army rounded up free black folk in Pennsylvania and he did nothing. or when he had his own slaves jailed for running away.

100% agree! Lee was an American Hero.

Top Gallant no I don't, but I do know general shermans view on them as well as Abraham Lincolns,I do know that in areas occupied by the union army slavery was protected and it didn't end after the war in 1865 but continued until 1868 in states that remained neutral during the war. ...this I do know

ACE Champion No, In all area's of rebellion slavery was ended, even in occupied areas. Lincoln legally could only end slavery in states that were in rebellion. and while no one denies Sherman was racist, He did not force slaves to return to plantations and also issued special Field Order 15 that displaced Plantation Owners and allowed former slaves to take over the land. Lets not forget that lee owned slaves and had at least 3 of them whipped when they ran for it. one of them a woman.

Though he was fervently opposed to slavery and might have accepted Lincoln's offer to command the United States army had his home state of Virginia not joined the South.

He was also my high-school principal (the actor, not the general;)!!

That is well spoken! Although i think of him as a great general as wel. Even though he fought for the Confederate States one can still appreciate his leadership.

being under his command you had a solid 1/5 chance in dying a 1/3 chance of owing someone and a 100% chance of losing the war