wcaleb’s avatarwcaleb’s Twitter Archive—№ 16,568

    1. 1. In addition to all the great points in this thread, there is another huge misunderstanding of history in Kelly’s comments on Lee. @tanehisicoates/925289478943633408
  1. …in reply to @wcaleb
    2. Kelly says Lee "gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. …"
    1. …in reply to @wcaleb
      3. Kelly on Lee, cont.: "It was always loyalty to state first back in those days.” Many believe this, & Ken Burns’ Civil War didn’t help.
      1. …in reply to @wcaleb
        4. What it erases is how powerful nationalism was in antebellum U.S., & how the nation served the interests of slaveholders … until 1860.
        1. …in reply to @wcaleb
          5. R. E. Lee had no problem with loyalty to nation while fighting for United States in the Mexican American War.
          1. …in reply to @wcaleb
            6. It was Lee who, as a U.S. Colonel, & on the President’s orders, captured John Brown at Harper’s Ferry in 1859. catalog.archives.gov/id/300373
            1. …in reply to @wcaleb
              7. The nation usually worked for slaveholders, & they were powerfully committed to the Union … until Lincoln took charge & secession began.
              1. …in reply to @wcaleb
                8. After that, the notion that “my state comes first” became a convenient rationalization for treason made by Lee and many others ...
                1. …in reply to @wcaleb
                  9. But what really happened was that Lee & other slaveholders turned against the nation when they perceived it no longer worked for them.
                  1. …in reply to @wcaleb
                    10. The idea that this desertion of the democratic experiment was “honorable” or explained by cultural state identity is special pleading.
                    1. …in reply to @wcaleb
                      11. And “in those days, state > nation” is belied by the tens of 1,000s who gave their lives for the Union. Honoring Lee dishonors them.