wcaleb’s avatarwcaleb’s Twitter Archive—№ 16,573

              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.