re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"

quote:

---

I don't understand the need to try and separate support for slavery and state's rights. Both can happen simultaneously, especially as it was a necessity for the financial security of many at the time

---

Right. But this thread is not about that. Try as some might to conflate rationale of Virginia to secede vs Lee's rationale to remain loyal to his Virginia, this thread is about the latter.

In that regard, Lee well understood impact the war would have on his family financially. He also planned to free his own slaves in under two years. He did so early in the war, 2-3yrs before slaves in the North were released.

From a personal stance, Lee stood to benefit infinitely more by standing with the Union. Arlington would have remained his. He very likely would have been compensated for release of his slaves, rather than releasing them as he did in 1862 without compensation. He would have been elected President of the US, had he chosen to run at the end of Lincoln's tenure.