The Tragedy of Robert E. Lee

As explained by Aristotle among the defining factors in tragedy is the character (ethos) of the hero. The hero must be a great and good man whose downfall (hamartia) comes through an error produced by what has been called a “tragic flaw”, usually pride (hubris).

If any individual in American history cries out to have his story portrayed in art as a tragedy, it must be Robert E. Lee. That he was a great and a good man can hardly be doubted. Kinsman of George Washington, at the top of his class at West Point, brilliant general and scholar. He was by all accounts a gentleman in every sense of the word. His downfall also rose from a tragic flaw, placing his state above his country.

Bourgeois country that we are we do not produce great tragedies. Our art is more predisposed to comedy, e.g. Huckleberry Finn, the greatest of American novels, or melodrama, e.g. Gone With the Wind, the Civil War epic that laid the groundwork for so many that have followed. There have been some gallant attempts at producing a genuine tragedy that is legitimately American. The closest is probably Arthur Miller’s play Death of a Salesman but Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby also clearly have aspirations in that direction. They’re all melodramas.

In terms of artistry and returning to the American Civil War, I would commend to your attention Stephen Vincent Benet’s novel length narrative poem, John Brown’s Body. Here’s a snippet:

There were three stout pillars that held up all
The weight and tradition of Wingate Hall.
One was Cudjo and one was you
And the third was the mistress, Mary Lou.
Mary Lou Wingate, as slightly made
And as hard to break as a rapier-blade.
Bristol’s daughter and Wingate’s bride,
Never well since the last child died
But staring at pain with courteous eyes.
When the pain outwits it, the body dies,
Meanwhile the body bears the pain.
She loved her hands and they made her vain,
The tiny hands of her generation
That gathered the reins of the whole plantation;
The velvet sheathing the steel demurely
In the trained, light grip that holds so surely.

[…]

Let us look at her now, let us see her plain,
She will never be quite like this again.
Her house is rocking under the blast
And she hears it tremble, and still stands fast,
But this is the last, this is the last.
The last of the wine and the white corn meal,
The last high fiddle singing the reel,
The last of the silk with the Paris label,
The last blood-thoroughbred safe in the stable
—Yellow corn meal and a jackass colt,
A door that swings on a broken bolt,
Brittle old letters spotted with tears
And a wound that rankles for fifty years—
This is the last of Wingate Hall,
The last bright August before the Fall,
Death has been near, and Death has passed,
But this is the last, this is the last.

I think it’s a beautiful, evocative work and I have substantial chunks of it committed to memory (including the passage above) but it, too, is a melodrama.

Yesterday Pat Lang leapt to the defense of Gen. Lee, his fellow Virginian:

I just heard Eleanor Clift the “liberal” journalist call Lee a traitor on MSNBC. IMO that description only applies to him and the rest of them if the notion prevails that the right of secession did not exist.

That was decided in blood 150 years ago. There is no right of secession.

In one of the most cold-blooded of acts of vengeance that I can recall in American history the victors in the American Civil War took Lee’s beautiful family estate, Arlington, and turned it into a cemetery for Union dead.

25 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    I don’t believe his facts. Lee abruptly resigned and then was persuaded to enter Virginia’s service? That’s the plausible deniability defense that is hardly plausible.

    I prefer historical judgments to be made by contemporaries. Thus, Lee’s decision to enter Virginia’s service was different than many other Virginians that either took the other side or refused to fight at all. The view that Lee was a tragic figure was one expressed by Grant in his memoirs regarding the surrender, but Grant also believed Lee did not do enough to speak out against events in the South after his surrender.

  • ... Link

    His downfall also rose from a tragic flaw, placing his state above his country.

    No, he placed what HE believed his state to be above what OTHERS told him his state should be.

    That was decided in blood 150 years ago. There is no right of secession.

    Eighty-two years previous, the right of secession had been established by blood.

    That he was a great and a good man can hardly be doubted.

    Ah, I now have more company as one of the bad guys. Lee owned slaves. That is enough to make him evil. (I suspect the Stars & Stripes to be replaced before Obama leaves office by a Black Power Fist emblazoned upon a rainbow field. I don’t expect Obama to have much to do with this, just to be clear, just to be the President in office when it happens.)

    Grant also believed Lee did not do enough to speak out against events in the South after his surrender.

    Expecting the defeated to move mountains to help the victors is bullshit.

  • the right of secession had been established by blood.

    That was from a monarchy not a democratic republic.

  • steve Link

    When we visited Arlington and spoke with the people there, we were lead to believe that taking over Arlington was largely the work of one guy, Meigs, who deeply hated Lee. The place was going to be occupied by Union troops since it represented high ground close to the capital, but it was Meigs who pursued turning it into a cemetery to keep the Lees from coming back. It should also be noted that the Lee family was eventually paid fair market value for the place.

    Steve

  • ... Link

    That was from a monarchy not a democratic republic.

    And? It was from a government that the governed no longer wished to be associated with.

  • TastyBits Link

    For the original States, what was the binding portion of the Constitution? (The land that the US purchased is different.)

    How is Greece exiting the EU different?

  • ... Link

    How is Greece exiting the EU different?

    Because the Germans are pussies?

  • How is Greece exiting the EU different?

    I haven’t heard any discussion of Greece exiting the EU only the euro. In most of the countries that have adopted the euro its adoption was done by fiat. It’s widely believed that adoption would have failed in many places if it had been put to a referendum.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I thought Andrew Jackson resolved there was no right of secession during the Nullification Crisis. He started threatening to hang everybody, and they thought he was serious.

    “Their object is disunion: but be not deceived by names: disunion, by armed force, is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences—on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment—on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims—its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty—the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world.”

  • ... Link

    A union by threat of force does have just a teensy-tiny whiff of tyranny to it. “Leave me, bitch, and you’ll regret it!”

  • PD Shaw Link

    Jackson’s Proclamation distinguished the American Revolution on these grounds:

    “Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms; and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.”

    So session can be justified by oppression like the British oppression of the Colonies, but its not a peaceable right.

  • So session can be justified by oppression like the British oppression of the Colonies, but its not a peaceable right.

    I would go a step farther. Process is crucial. Rebellion against a democratically elected government with the rule of law when you didn’t get your way is never justified. I have the same view of passive resistance against a democratically elected government with the rule of law. Gandhi-style passive resistance was justified in India or the South in pre-Civil Rights Act days but otherwise it is inherently anti-democratic and authoritarian.

  • Andy Link

    PD,

    What does Jackson’s opinion matter? The right of secession was an open question. The Constitution was quiet about it and there was no federal law forbidding it.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I wouldn’t describe it merely as Jackson’s opinion, it was an official proclamation, that explained why secession was not authorized by the Constitution and why as commander in chief he would have no choice but to stop it. People can disagree with it, but it is the most prominent analysis of the subject at the time of the Civil War.

  • Andy Link

    It’s a proclamation, nothing more, which means it’s entirely political.

    Would we take the proclamation of a President from 29 years ago (Ronald Reagan) as some kind of binding agreement? Jackson’s opinion was just that, an opinion.

    Arrayed against the following facts, it’s doesn’t amount to much:
    – The issue was settled by war
    – There was no Constitutional prohibition
    – There was no legal prohibition.
    – There is no indication (that I’ve aware of) that states that joined the Union before 1860 were informed that they were checking into the Hotel California.

  • TastyBits Link

    Eurozone. It is my understanding that there are no provisions for a country leaving. Seemingly, it was not anticipated that any country would want to exit, or the members would want to kick out a country.

    ——————————————————

    I am sure that President Jackson had an eloquent and well reasoned screed for stealing the land from the Native Americans and sending them on a death march. Had they been the victors, “Old Hickory” would have been the “Tennessee Butcher”, but like the Native Americans, the South was never going to win.

    Over time, the borders of powerful empires shift by new regions and people being conquered and old regions and people overthrowing the government. The Civil War was far too early for the US to be able to sustain a successful revolt, but in the next 150 -200 years, there should be a successful revolt.

  • ... Link

    Rebellion against a democratically elected government with the rule of law when you didn’t get your way is never justified.

    Bullshit. A democratically elected government with “rule of law” can still be tyrannical, even violently so. As for the level of oppression involved: The Revolutionary War was about … wait for it … wait for it … TAXES. The Nullification Crisis was about … wait for it … TAXES. The Civil War’s immediate cause was slavery, but there was a deeper philosophical issue involved. Ultimately it came down to this, how much crap does a minority of citizens have to take from a majority of citizens? Southerners decided they’d had enough, and that the time was as good as it was going to get. I don’t have any sympathy for slavery, which is as abhorrent a practice as exists, and therefore have no sympathy for that aspect of The Cause.

    But the deeper issue remains, as we’re seeing right now. There are also limits as to what constitutes a “democratically elected” government. Five people put themselves and their will above, what, one hundred million or so on Friday. That doesn’t exactly reek of democracy. The fact that they pulled the decision from out of their asses the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution makes it all the worse.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now. The operative document for American political life now isn’t the Constitution, which doesn’t even mean anything to the alleged High Priests of the Republic anymore. It’s the Declaration of Independence.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Andy, it was a different time, the three branches of government each independently evaluated the Constitution. Presidents didn’t sign documents that they thought were Unconstitutional; they were expected to veto them and publish a veto message. (If they didn’t make a convincing Constitutional case they would be accused of despotism) The SCOTUS didn’t rule a federal law unconstitutional until Dred Scott.

    The context of the Proclamation though was that it was required by the Militia Act of 1792, which authorized the President to call up the state militia to suppress an insurgency, but first he must give warning and an opportunity to retire peacefully. Washington issued a similar Proclamation w/ regard to the Whiskey Rebellion. South Carolina backed down and to the extent that anything was settled then or later, there is no right to peaceful separation.

Leave a Comment