Talk:Robert E. Lee/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Robert E Lee statue removed from US Capital today 12/21/2020 https://thehill.com/homenews/531103-robert-e-lee-statue-removed-from-us-capitol 71.181.116.212 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Removal inserted in List of memorials to Robert E. Lee instead. – robertsky (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (2)

He was also the husband of Mary Anna Custis Lee, great-granddaughter of Martha Washington. 146.168.100.244 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

George Washington had no children. She was a descendant of Martha Washington, not George Washington 146.168.100.244 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Add Cultural Depiction Request

Please add that Lee is depicted in the artwork Our Nation's 200th Birthday, The Telephone's 100th Birthday (1976) by Stanley Meltzoff for Bell System https://www.jklmuseum.com/tag/stanley-meltzoff/ 47.152.71.253 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"GeneralLee (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GeneralLee (disambiguation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26#GeneralLee (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

I just wanted to add that sometimes they called him “Old Man Lee” in addition to his many other nicknames. 2601:401:C600:8B30:B1C1:E4FC:85CF:6E65 (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Shelby Foote in his The Civil War A Narrative mentions that Lee’s other nicknames included “The Old Fox” and “Old Man Lee” also “Old Bobby Lee”, but that is a derivative if Bobby Lee and therefore may not need inclusion. 2601:401:C600:8B30:9029:44F2:306D:6818 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Lee's Colonel Insignia

I would like to change the picture in his dates of rank box to show a Confederate colonel insignia where the General insignia is now, accompanied by a note about this was Lee's special insignia. He only wore the actual General insignia something like two or three times and the rest of the war he had this insignia. The way it is now, people might think this was his insignia. -KTcup82 (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Lee's letter on slavery

Looking for clarification -- on Robert E. Lee's wikipedia page, it contains an excerpt of a letter that this page states was addressed to his wife. On the wikipedia page 'Slavery in the United States', the same excerpt is included, however that page states that his letter was addressed to President Franklin Pierce.

I am ignorant as to the source of the letter and its addressee, so I am looking to clarify so that the two pages have the facts straight and do not contradict one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.228.181 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States#"A necessary evil" also says it was a letter to his wife "in reaction to a message from President Franklin Pierce" (my emphasis added). –CWenger (^ • @) 16:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Lee was not a renowned or skilled tactician. This is a myth built up by the Daughters of the Confederacy and is propaganda. Not based in any historical facts or accounts. And certainly not by his actual record of battles. 2A04:4E41:18:FC:0:0:599:A926 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

The "Also in Virginia" paragraph under "Monuments, memorials and commemorations" should be updated to reflect the fact that Charlottesville's monument to Robert E. Lee was permanently removed on July 10, 2021. A link to Wikipedia's own text about the removal would work fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(Charlottesville,_Virginia)#Removal

Proposed text for the paragraph, something like:

Also in Virginia, the Robert Edward Lee (sculpture) at Charlottesville was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997. Since there is no historical link between Lee and the city of Charlottesville, the City Council of Charlottesville voted in February 2017 to remove it, along with a statue of Stonewall Jackson. This was temporarily stayed by court action, though the city did rename Lee Park: first to Emancipation Park, then later to Market Street Park. The prospect of the statues being removed and the parks being renamed brought many out-of-towners, described as white supremacist and alt-right, to Charlottesville in the Unite the Right rally of August 2017, in which 3 people died. As of July 2021, the statue has been permanently removed.

References

 Done. Thanks for your contribution! –CWenger (^ • @) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee was an American colonel, not an American general

Please see this revision. I should have posted to talk page first, apologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_E._Lee&oldid=1045712071

Because the Confederacy was an unrecognized state (settled in U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v. White, 1869), the titles it granted are also unrecognized, and thus Robert E. Lee is not a general, and certainly not an American one, American linking to the page on the United States. This is standard practice for unrecognized governments. E.g. we continued to refer to Gaddafi as colonel even after he usurped the government of Libya, because colonel was his last rank in a recognized government.

@Commonsense1776: The problem with this argument is virtually all reliable sources call him a general, making what you're doing synthesis. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@CWenger: He was a Confederate general, not an American one. Reliable sources say his last American rank was colonel. Commonsense1776 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Commonsense1776: He was an American though, and he was a general. I would not be opposed to removing the specific phrase "American general", because it could be misleading. But I would be opposed to finding every instance of "General Lee" and making sure to specify "Confederate General Lee" or remove his rank because it's pointless and conflicts with reliable sources. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@CWenger: It is indeed misleading, American denoting US, which was not Lee's allegiance at the time he was a Confederate general. Removal of the phrase "American general" would be satisfactory and restore consistency with the allegiances in the info bar on the right. Borrowing "unrecognized breakaway state" from the page about CSA, recommend rewording the first sentence: Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was best known for his service to the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War, during which the unrecognized breakaway state appointed him the overall commander of the Confederate States Army and styled him a general. Commonsense1776 (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree .....bold edit to link Confederate General as we have an article and vast amount of sources for this title. No point in linking United States overview article over one discussion with structure and origin of the Confederate army.Moxy- 03:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Commonsense1776: I like Moxy's edit because otherwise it just says what he was best known for rather than what he was. I don't think the "unrecognized breakaway state" phrase is necessary because people can click on the wikilinks to learn more about the Civil War and the Confederacy. And the "styled him a general" part seems a little informal; appointed or something like that would be better but probably not necessary with Moxy's edit anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@CWenger: @Moxy: Works for me. Commonsense1776 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty simple to deduce he was an American...it's in the infobox as place of birth.... what's important in his life was his allegiance... which is something people unfamiliar with the topic may not be aware of..... but we can be rested assured the vast majority of people know he's an American. I do like the confederate general link but if others think nationality is important we could say .... "an American who was a general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War" Moxy- 03:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This would be my recommendation:

Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was an American military officer best known for his service to the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War, during which he served as a general and eventually the overall commander of the Confederate States Army.

But I am ok with how it is now too. Just seems unusual to not mention nationality in the lead (and unusual to just as "an American" too). –CWenger (^ • @) 03:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@CWenger:"American military officer" would be misleading for the same reason "American general" was misleading -- he was not a military officer of the US during his service to the CSA. The article itself states that he resigned his commissions in the US Army prior to assuming command of Confederate forces. And, ascribing American nationality to Confederates during the Civil War would be a synthesis of the kind you rejected earlier -- applying Texas v. White to lay the premise that the Confederacy was illegitimate, and then deducing that Lee was an American all along. But if we are apparently obliged here to indulge Confederate titles, why would that not apply to the Confederates' notions of nationality during the Civil War? They clearly wanted no part of the Union. Lee considered himself a Virginian first. Commonsense1776 (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Commonsense1776: As you pointed out, he was a colonel in the U.S. Army. So "American military officer" is correct whether you ignore his Confederate service or not. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@CWenger:Lee was not an American military officer when he was fighting for the Confederacy, so in the context of your 03:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC) recommendation, it would be misleading -- his role as an American military officer did not encompass his service to the Confederacy. Alternate use of "American" to denote nationality is addressed before. Commonsense1776 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Commonsense1776: Ok I see your point now. You are interpreting it as "Lee was an American military officer while serving the CSA". I was trying to keep it vague. Again, I can live with the current wording, so I'll leave it for now. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy:If Lee's nationality during his time as a Confederate general is important to this article, I will let others make the case for its importance, as a separate issue. Calling him a Confederate general instead of an American general is sufficient to address the current issue. Marking as answered. Commonsense1776 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"CSA" stands for Confederate States of America

@CWegner and Commonsense1776: Regarding the reasoning provided, I think the description of Lee as a "Confederate general" is the correct one, or at least the most correct one. American nationality is assumed in this context. It's not like Clausewitz where his nationality at birth was strikingly different from the country he fought for as a general. However, this issue is tougher to decisively answer than one might think, without synthesis, because it involves subtle points in law as it existed at that time. While some of these points, such as the Confederates forfeiting their citizenship and needing to reapply, have been resolved, other points never have been. For example, Lee was "offered" the rank of general in the Union Army, and since most sources describe that in tone as merely being an offer, I think we should keep his rank listed as Colonel in the US Army. However, given that the "offer" may have had force of law in and of itself, and given that military promotions did not necessarily have to be accepted to be effective always, I regard the issue as somewhat unclear. When there were calls to try Lee for treason, people did argue that Lincoln's offer to make him a general was immediately effective. However, for most practical purposes, I think we're right to just say his highest rank in the US Army was Colonel. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Were Lee's views on race paradoxical?

The article describes Lee's views on race as paradoxical, but I don't see the paradox. Lee wasn't like Thomas Jefferson, who was philosophically expounding inherent rights and equality for all people on one hand and owning slaves with the other. Robert E. Lee was flatly a believer in human inequality, who was also somewhat sympathetic to slaves and Black people. There's nothing paradoxical about that. Overall, the evidence and the article suggests that Lee, like many Confederates and slave-owners, viewed slaves the way they viewed horses. Just because someone views a horse as his property doesn't mean that they want horses to be abused. Why should we describe this as paradoxical? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, amen. Carlstak (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In terms of cultural experience, a twenty-first century person has the benefit of knowing what direction society chose to take, and a person of the nineteenth century did not. If this was a forum where wikipedians could decide how to tell history ourselves, this would indeed be arguable. Instead, the article wisely does not use Wikipedia's voice but instead repeats what several varied historians produce and gives citation so the reader can find out what reliable sources say. The subject was a person of his time with education and experiences in the context of his time. Wikipedians do well to allow the experts to make judgement calls. BusterD (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I take your point, but regardless of its propriety, and reliable sources or not, it doesn't have to be in the article. If I had more time now, I could assemble a set of academic sources that would counter that arguable claim, perhaps not using the particular word "paradoxical" (a rather nebulous term after all), but demonstrating that Lee's practices and ideals were not inconsistent with one another. The given sources are not the only ones that address the subject; besides, editors can and do handpick sources to support their own points of view, and that is clearly what happened in this article. Carlstak (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Now I see that TheVirginiaHistorian wrote the paragraph beginning "Several historians have noted the paradoxical nature of Lee's beliefs and actions concerning race and slavery" on 10 February 2018 1:17 AM. He is an editor I respect, and no disrespect is intended, but I stand by my point. Carlstak (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: I believe MOS:INSTRUCT applies: "Do not tell readers that something is ironic, surprising, unexpected, amusing, coincidental, etc. Simply state the sourced facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstak (talk • contribs) 15:37, November 19, 2021 (UTC)

Monuments, memorials and commemorations

In the second paragraph under Monuments, memorials and commemorations I would like to remove the last half of the sentence.

"The United States designated the mansion as a National Memorial to Lee in 1955, a mark of widespread respect for him in both the North and South."

to

"The United States designated the mansion as a National Memorial to Lee in 1955".

The second half of the sentence is pure conjecture and is not backed up by the source provided. Spencer707201 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

Changing “While both Robert and his wife Mary Lee were disgusted with slavery” to “While both Lee and his wife were disgusted with slavery” This is in order to matcha Wikipedia Tone. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion.  Done--MattMauler (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Changing infobox to officeholder

Lee held a substantial position as General-in-chief of the Confederate army and later became President of Washington and Lee University. I think it would be better to reorganize his infobox as an officeholder rather than as it currently is now. GuardianH (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Surely he is most notable for his military service, no? What would be the effects of changing his infobox to officeholder? –CWenger (^ • @) 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The officeholder infobox is designed for someone who holds political office. Neither of these is a political office. Not a good idea. Display name 99 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Historical Consensus and POV of Lead?

I am no Civil War buff. But the tone of the Wikipedia:LEAD feels oddly glowing. It's 3 full paragraphs before we get to Lee's views on slavery. We are treated, however, to praise of his "service", his "powerful army", his "solid reputation", and being "respected and feared" just in the first paragraph.

We then get a play-by-play of his military career before the first mention of slavery. Is this really the historical consensus? Or is the lead reflecting some Lost Cause ideology (mentioned later in the article). Is Lee really better known in modern times and modern, reliable, non-Lost Cause sources as someone who "succeeded in driving the Union Army of the Potomac under George B. McClellan away from the Confederate capital of Richmond during the Seven Days Battles" (paragraph 2), or someone who literally defended slavery with a literal army?

For comparison, Jefferson Davis also doesn't say much about slavery in the lead. But Adolf Hitler mentions his role in The Holocaust in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous-232 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's some valuable information for you which you seem to be forgetting. As a military man and non-politician, Lee's influence on policies concerning slavery was nonexistent before the war and small during it. By contrast, as the Confederacy's leading general, his influence on the outcome of the military conflict brought about by slavery was second to none. It is therefore his military career, not his attitudes towards slavery, which are the most important. The discussion of both aspects of Lee-his military career and his position on slavery-is balanced and consistent with scholarly consensus. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @User:Anonymous-232 and think @User:Display name 99's viewpoint is too simplistic. Lee's attitudes on slavery were the reason he was a Confederate. And his influence wasn't second-to-none, as it was on par with Lincoln's and Grant's. As the Confederate leader, his opposition to slavery is the most important information, and the lead is full of WP:PEACOCKy words. It doesn't even say his leadership was considered to be that good (i.e. something like "Lee's leadership was considered to be an effective motivator for boosting the morale of his army, and cited as the reason for multiple victories" (I'm not saying that's the case). It just says his leadership was that good (calling his army "powerful") which is not neutral. As the leader of the Confederate, him being pro-slavery is critical historical context, and should be mentioned at the beginning. It should mention he was pro-slavery, before saying "he was considered to have a solid reputation (etc.)" and that he used these characteristics to fight the Union. His opposition to slavery is also crucial for the sentence structure because, even if him being a slave owner wasn't more important - which it is - that fact contextualises the rest of the lead. Stephanie921 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Lee supported the legality of slavery, but my understanding is that he supported the Confederacy due almost at least as much to a sense of duty to his home state than to the larger Confederate cause. After all, he had strongly criticized secession, even after the election of Lincoln placed slavery's expansion in jeopardy, and though he was against abolition and did have slaves on his farm, he was opposed to slavery from a philosophical perspective.

The lead says that Lee commanded "the Confederacy's most powerful army." There is nothing about that statement that is not totally factual. There were two main Confederate armies: the Army of Northern Virginia, commanded for most of its history by Lee, and the Army of Tennessee, mostly commanded by Braxton Bragg. Between the two of them, Lee's army was vastly superior in both numbers and success. The lead doesn't call Lee's army powerful, but says that it was the most powerful army in the Confederacy. Basically, that means Lee commanded the South's most effective and successful fighting force. That's not promotional. It's just the truth. If you think that there's a better way to word it while keeping the same general meaning, I encourage you to alter the language. Likewise, other parts of the lead do not directly call his leadership good, but rather say that he is widely regarded as a good general and that he played an important part in Confederate victories on the battlefield. I am not sure how this would violate NPOV.

I agree that slavery should be mentioned in the lead. I actually added it in once, but someone reverted it because my version referred to Lee's plantation was profitable, which apparently it wasn't. Anyway, I added a mention of Lee's views on slavery and his use of slaves here. I don't think that anything else is necessary. You are correct that there should have been mention of slavery in the lead. However, the suggestion that this should be the crux of the article rather than his military career, or that it should be mentioned first, is erroneous. Lee impacted history not as a slaveowner or a pro-slavery agitator but as a general. Whatever his views on slavery were, they had no effect on anything leading up to the Civil War, simply because Lee was a soldier and had no public standing on which to have a view of the issue. He had no influence in bringing the war about, but his leadership as a general decisively impacted the war's direction and helped shape its outcome. He isn't important because he owned slaves or wrote in letters that he supported slavery. He is important because pf his military leadership. Display name 99 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Let's focus on specific proposals. At the very least, I think that for which he was revered by his officers and men as well as respected and feared by his adversaries is too non-neutral in WP:TONE for the first paragraph of the lead and should be removed; simply saying During the war, Lee earned a solid reputation as a skilled tactician is sufficient for a lead summary. I do also think we should have at least one sentence in the first paragraph summarizing how he is viewed by modern historians - it is weird to only talk about how he was viewed at the time. --Aquillion (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with you removing that. What kind of sentence would you propose adding about how he is viewed by modern historians? Lee has always been seen as a skilled tactician, even though evaluations of him are not as overwhelmingly favorable as they were in the past. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Aquillion completely agreed Stephanie921 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Good discussions and edits so far. "Lee opposed slavery from a philosophical perspective. However, he supported its legality and used slave labor on his plantation." feels a little suspect - if you eat meat but feel bad about it, you aren't suddenly a vegetarian. Maybe something like "Lee had complex views on slavery but nonetheless held slaves on his personal property"? The section on race implies that Lee defies a quick summary in the lead, which is fine.

Here are some other major historical figures who enabled some atrocities, along with the first mention on Wikipedia of an atrocity in-text (i.e. merely linking to a war or campaign isn't enough; it must be clear from the text that an atrocity occurred).

• Mao Zedong - First mention after 2.5 long paragraphs: "in 1957 he launched the Anti-Rightist Campaign, in which at least 550,000 people, mostly intellectuals and dissidents, were persecuted." - To be fair, Mao lived a long and busy life; this first in-text mention happens chronologically.
• Joseph Stalin - p1: "he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s." p2.5: "Severe disruptions to food production contributed to the famine of 1930–33 that killed millions."
• Pol Pot - p1: "Under his administration, Cambodia was converted into a one-party communist state and perpetrated the Cambodian genocide."
• Hirohito - p2: "After Japan's surrender, he was not prosecuted for war crimes, ... His role during the war remains controversial.
• Leopold II of Belgium - p1: "the self-made autocratic ruler of the Congo Free State ..." p3: "He extracted a fortune from the territory, ... by forced labour from the native population to harvest and process rubber."

Army figures:

• Hideki Tojo (general of Imperial Japanese Army) - p1: "Hideki Tojo ... was a Japanese politician, ... and convicted war criminal"
• Walther von Brauchitsch (head of German army during WW2) - after 3 short paragraphs: "After the war, Brauchitsch was arrested on charges of war crimes,"

Anonymous-232 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Anonymous-232 I am absolutely, completely, definitely, vehemently not fine with Lee being implied to have views on slavery too complex for the lead. He was the leader of the army which was trying to keep slaves. I don't see how the lead can be of sufficient quality without it mentioning slavery more. Stephanie921 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie921, I think you misunderstood the comment. Anyonymous-232 was saying that he was fine with the implication that Lee's views on slavery were too complex to be summarized in the lead. That's how I read it. I am not fine with removing the statement that Lee was philosophically opposed to slavery. He was, however much it contradicted with his actions. His views on slavery were indeed complex, but saying that he held slavery to be wrong but supported maintaining its existence is an adequate brief summary of those views. The reason why slavery isn't mentioned more in the lead is because Lee-unlike the figures cited above and their respective atrocities-had little to nothing to do with crafting policy on slavery, either by the United States government or by the Confederate government. The lead should focus on the impact that Lee had on history, not what particular editors find to be most significant about his character. Lee's support for the preservation of slavery was, no doubt, one of the causes of him joining the Confederacy. But when assessing a person who did important things, we don't give more attention to the personal motivations that led them to do those things than we do to the things themselves and the impact that they had. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Display name 99 I will look into this more later and make up my mind. I don't know what to say right now. Ty for the constructive convo. Stephanie921 (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023 - correction of misinformation

Lee was not offered merely, "a senior Union command", but was, in fact, offered command of the Eastern Theater of War (a command that went to McDowell, then immediately to McClellan, after First Battle of Bull Run) by then Commanding General of the United States Army, Major General Winfield Scott, with the approval of President Lincoln. Scott also recommended to Lincoln that Lee be his successor should the need arise. This is the esteem Lee was held in by Scott and Lincoln. Scott understood Lee's choice, but Lincoln was embittered by it. 2600:1700:9B90:C6B0:8DF2:2B61:307:118E (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Self-published sources?

The article cites a biography of Lee, "The Perfect Gentlemen," a self-published work by one Bernice-Marie Yates, a retired middle school teacher from New Jersey. I don't believe this is suitable as a scholarly source for an encyclopedia article, as the author is not an acknowledged expert on the topic. 2603:8000:D500:A355:C56:1296:4297:AA13 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Self-published sources?

The article cites a biography of Lee, "The Perfect Gentlemen," a self-published work by one Bernice-Marie Yates, a retired middle school teacher from New Jersey. I don't believe this is suitable as a scholarly source for an encyclopedia article, as the author is not an acknowledged expert on the topic. 2603:8000:D500:A355:C56:1296:4297:AA13 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Removed. It does appear to be self-published and doesn't add much to the section anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Change decisive to significant

It states that "Lee won two of his most decisive victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville" in the article. This should read "two of his most significant victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville" because the victories were not decisive. Decisive means they decided the result of the way, but he did not win the war, so the battles cannot have been decisive. Kylehamiltonlecky (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

CHANGE:

"Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was a Confederate general during the American Civil War, towards the end of which he was appointed the overall commander of the Confederate States Army."

TO:

"Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was a slaveholder and former American army Colonel who took up arms in the rebellion against the United States by the so-called Confederacy, towards the end of which he was appointed the overall commander of the so-called Confederate States Army."

COMMENT: The Wikipedia material on the "Confederate States of America" is problematic on numerous accounts, foremost of which is that it historically inaccurate. I can't go through right now and make a line by line revision of every inaccuracy--but I thought I would offer this one as a start. I would suggest reviewing: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/we-legitimize-so-called-confederacy-vocabulary-thats-problem-180964830/

An excerpt: "The language we turn to in describing the war, from speaking of compromise and plantations, to characterizing the struggle as the North versus the South, or referring to Robert E. Lee as a General, can lend legitimacy to the violent, hateful and treasonous southern rebellion that tore the nation apart from 1861 to 1865; and from which we still have not recovered. Why do we often describe the struggle as between two equal entities? Why have we shown acceptance of the military rank given by an illegitimate rebellion and unrecognized political entity? In recent years, historians in academia and in the public sphere have been considering these issues...

"And if the so-called Confederacy wasn’t a country, but rather what political scientists would call a proto-state, because not a single foreign government in the entire world recognized it as a nation-state, then could Jefferson Davis legitimately be a president? Could Robert E. Lee be a General? The highest rank Lee achieved in the United States Army was colonel, so given his role as general in service to a failed revolution by a group of rebels, how should we now refer to him? It would be just as accurate to refer to Lee, who led an armed group against national sovereignty, as an insurgent or a warlord, if not a terrorist. Imagine how different it would be for a school-age child to learn about the War of the Rebellion if we altered the language we use...

"When news reports about the debate over monuments say “Today the City Council met to consider whether to remove a statue commemorating General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army,” what if they instead were written in this way: “Today the City Council debated removing a statue of slaveholder and former American army colonel Robert E. Lee, who took up arms in the rebellion against the United States by the so-called Confederacy?”"

NOTE: The Confederate State of America wiki page makes some attempt to address this in that it refers to the CSA as an "unrecognized breakaway confederate republic.. that existed from x to y" (see excerpt below)

"The Confederate States of America (CSA), commonly referred to as the Confederate States, the Confederacy, or the South, was an unrecognized breakaway[1] confederate republic in the Southern United States that existed from February 8, 1861, to May 9, 1865.[6] The Confederacy comprised eleven U.S. states that declared secession and warred against the United States during the American Civil War.[6][7] "

HOWEVER... this is historically inaccurate. Leaving aside the question of whether an entity that disenfranchises a significant amount of its populate (40%?), the reality is that it was not--ever--an entity. An unrecognized republic is an oxymoron. This "belief" that the CSA actually existed is not just a historical fiction--it is what the entire conflict was fought over.

I apologize if these suggested revisions should go in another forum. If that is the case, please direct me so.

I appreciate your review of these suggested changes. Thank you. Michael McGinnis (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a textbook example of burying the lede. Also, peripheral articles are not where such kinds of qualifications to main topics as "so-called" belong. Acroterion (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point that this is a peripheral article. It is what I stumbled upon first. With apologies in advance for my ignorance, suggestions on how to proceed (given that just about every WIKI entry that references CSA is, on this fundamental point, arguably incorrect)? Take, for example, "the seven slave states seceded from the United States" (from the CSA page). They did not secede. They were "in rebellion against the United States" (Lincoln). This isn't an academic point. The war was fought-over this very proposition. Michael McGinnis (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Changes of a global nature should start at the relevant talkpage, i.e..,Talk:Confederate States of America. However, you appear to be trying to load titles and lead sentences with more freight than a single summary sentance can bear,aking it unweildy. We see a lot of that sort of thing in articles where there are agendas at odds with scholarly consensus, like articles on the Kennedy assassination, with people putting "alleged" assassin in. You will have to show thatwhat you propose is a good summary of scholarship appropriate to an encyclopedia article, not a polemical statement about citizenship or nationality or the validity of the CSA. Acroterion (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

If the CSA didn't exist, then who was the USA fighting? You are getting hung up on supposed legalities and technicalities of what makes something a country. The whole idea that unrecognized countries don't count is silly. What makes a country a country isn't what outsiders think about it, it is what its own people think about it. The people living in the CSA saw it as a country and acted in ways consistent with it being a country. Therefor, we write about it as one. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

The conversation about your desired revisions belong right here on this talkpage. Given the potentially controversial nature of your request, the use of the edit request feature is premature, so I am closing it. Not a big deal. Xan747 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

I noticed that Mary Curtis's birth year is listed on this page as 1808. She was born Oct 1, 1807. Please correct, thank you. Giuseppe T.A. Arenzo (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for catching that. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Correcting the myth

This article in The Atlantic succinctly debunks some of the myth making around Lee. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Your point? Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Display name 99 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that their point is this article passes many judgements on the subject such as him being an “exceptional officer” (the facts within the article seem to show a mixed career arc for much of his service) and continuing the heroic narrative within the introduction: “As commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, he fought most of his battles against armies of significantly larger size, and managed to win many of them.”

We should be careful how divisive figures are portrayed and open dialog on whether the portrayal is consistent with objective facts should be encouraged. The length and detail of this article itself lends perhaps undue gravity to the subject. Why do we care about his letters to his future wife in which he was warned to be discrete due to her mother reading letter from men? Is it to humanize the subject and make him a more sympathetic figure? Equals42 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy The Atlantic? seriously? 173.23.9.133 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

In the "postwar politics" section, a quote is used to suggest Lee himself expressed his "willingness that blacks should be educated...". Checking the source, this quote is misinterpreted: the quote comes from a section in which he is answering a question about the general opinion among former secessionists in Virginia, not his own opinion. This quote is currently being misrepresented as Lee expressing his own opinion on black education, when in fact he was answering a question about the general (white) public desire for education to be available or not available for Black Americans.

The full quote from the congressional testimony: " Question. How do they feel in regard to the education of the blacks? Is there a general willingness or a general unwillingness to have them educated?

Answer. Where I am, and have been, the people have exhibited a willingness that the blacks should be educated, and they express an opinion that that would be better for the blacks and better for the whites. "

Rather, Lee's personal opinion on Black education is probably better represented by the next question in the testimony, displaying a racist devaluation of the intellectual capabilities of Black Americans:

" Question. General, you are very competent to judge of the capacity of black men for acquiring knowledge: I want your opinion on that capacity, as compared with the capacity of white men?

Answer. I do not know that I am particularly qualified to speak on that subject, as you seem to intimate; but I do not think that he is as capable of acquiring knowledge as the white man is. "

This source (the congressional testimony) also includes several other direct quotes in which Lee supports the ethnic cleansing of Black Americans from Virginia. Speaking on the migration of Black Americans from Virginia to Alabama and other states, Lee states "I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get rid of them. That is no new opinion with me."
137.110.39.247 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Shearonink (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

Under the Section 'Civil War' and the subsection 'General in Chief', one can find the following sentence:

"As the South ran out of manpower the issue of arming the slaves became paramount."

I would like to add a comma between "manpower" and "the issue" to make the following sentence:

"As the South ran out of manpower, the issue of arming the slaves became paramount." LASeianus (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing War

Lee also led the Confederacy in the Battle of Mansfield. You can see this in the battle map in the Battle of Mansfield article on Wikipedia. 2600:8807:800:6E00:D53E:3B43:CBA5:CAF1 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That is referring to another Lee, in this case a Union one, Albert L. Lee. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I misunderstanded that. Thanks for correcting. 2600:8807:800:6E00:F516:80BB:A7BF:C0FB (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Statue in Lee Park now Turtle Creek Park Dallas,TX

The statue of Lee which sat in the former Lee Park Dallas Texas was removed after repeated protests and a decision by city council. The park was renamed Turtle Creek Park. ( The park was originally named Oak Lawn Park before being renamed Lee Park when the statue was placed in 1936) Arlington Hall in the park retain the name. 2603:8080:6C01:5DD2:102A:389:91BB:3121 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Extensive edits needed - tone, length, grammar

A Wikipedia article should be concise, as neutral as possible, and understandable to someone with little to no previous knowledge of the subject. As someone with little knowledge of this figure, I found this article very difficult to navigate, poorly written, and overtly opinionated - which in this kind of format reads not only as unnecessary, but also incredibly misleading.

From an editing perspective, this article could really do with some professional writers/editors to read over it a couple times. It doesn't flow particularly well, lots of lengthy sentences could be shortened or divided, or even cut completely, which goes onto my next point. There is a lot of unnecessary narrative detail and misguided analysis of historiography. Much of this detail reads more as the author's opinion than fact, and some pretty disturbing ideas are put forth without appropriate acknowledgment of whether they are the author's opinion, a secondary opinion, or from the subject himself. For example: "Robert Lee was tidy and punctual, qualities his wife lacked." Look - no Wikipedia article is truly 'neutral' - but this seems like either an bold assumption or a quote from someone else's work - or simply a personal opinion from the author which really shouldn't appear so blatantly in this format. This becomes a much more harmful issue throughout the article, especially when discussing slavery.

Firstly, there is some very ignorant, outdated use of language, which comes across as racist and insensitive. In particular, the author repeatedly used the term 'blacks' to refer to black people. This might seem like nitpicking but these terms are dehumanising and have a history of being used for exactly that purpose. If the author is simply rephrasing the language of primary sources from the time this NEEDS to be specified.

Next, the author seems conflicted with their own personal opinions about Lee and slavery, (which shouldn't come across in a Wikipedia article in the first place), sometimes defending Lee without critically evaluating why - and these are big, sometimes horrific things to be uncertain about! For example, under the heading 'Arlington plantation and Custis slaves' the author describes Lee's barbaric, horrifyingly oppressive and violent treatment towards enslaved people. The author's tone in this section is inappropriately flippant. After this section, the author goes on to discuss the historical disputes over Lee's position on slavery, which conflicts with what we have just been told about in the previous section. I might be misremembering but I think it said early on the article that Lee owned hundreds of slaves, and later that he only owned a few. Which either way is terrible!? Why do we need to know the specific details of this historical debate anyway, when we've been given information about Lee's treatment of enslaved people, which a reader is capable of evaluating themselves?

One more example of a big historical generalisation - 'There are various historical and newspaper hearsay accounts of Lee's personally whipping a slave, but they are not direct eyewitness accounts.' This reads as a middling-mark high school essay. ‘They are not direct eyewitness accounts’ is not relevant. Very few primary sources are direct eyewitness accounts, this does not make them less valuable. A Wikipedia author does not necessarily need to have extensive knowledge of historical practice, but if you don’t, then don’t write about it extensively as if you do know what you’re talking about.

Overall, this article needs extensive editing, maybe even rewriting completely. It is incredibly long and rambling, full of conflicting information, misinformation and unnecessary opinions and details. The sections of slavery especially need to be reevaluated and read over by an academic, really given the state of this article a black writer/editor should be consulted. If this isn’t possible, this article should really be taken down, it reads as a confused, insensitive, and overly-assuming. I am not an experienced editor myself and even I can see that it’s a mess, please consult a second, third, and even fourth opinion, from someone who at least knows how to edit a Wikipedia article.

And on a personal note to the author of this article - as a history nerd myself, I know how it is having to restrain yourself from dumping out every piece of information and every opinion you have on to whoever asks. But an account of an individual figure on Wikipedia needs to be concise and readable, meaning no rambling anecdotes, no unelaborated generalisations, and no lengthy (and obviously uninformed) explanation of historical debates which the average reader doesn’t want to know about. Then again I struggle to sympathise with you because this article is so full of racism. You should really do something about this!!! Leahbindmancohen (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Leahbindmancohen Many valid points! But please understand that there no "author" of this article ... there are hundreds of contributors, and I invite you to become on of them. You already have 2 edits, and if you make 8 more edits on unprotected articles, you will be auto-confirmed and be able to contribute to this article. I suggest visiting the Introduction page to get started.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)