General Lee, America & Christianity

Tooley: Hello this is Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy in Washington DC, with the pleasure of talking to the Reverend Dr. R. David Cox, who wrote a fascinating religious biography of General Robert E. Lee. A very timely topic in that the general remains a hot topic of conversation, especially over the last year in America. And so, perhaps our conversation can add some insights to that ongoing American fascination with General Lee. So, Reverend Dr. Cox, thank you for joining this conversation.

Cox: Thank you, I’m delighted to be with you.

Tooley: It’s been 150 years since Robert E. Lee passed away, and yet America is still talking about him. I should point out that you were the pastor of the Episcopal Church in Lexington, Virginia that had been named for Robert E. Lee. That name has since been removed, which illustrates the ongoing controversy about him. Why are we still discussing Robert E. Lee?

Cox: Well, I think because he was for better or for worse a central figure of the war, which was, of course, such a traumatic and momentous occasion in our country. And that, in many ways, he was used by people after the war to become a poster child for the Lost Cause. I would argue that that was an unjust feat on their part, that he did not, in fact, he was not a very good poster boy for that particular cause. But there we are, as somebody said to me just today, it’s not his fault that that other people decided to make him higher than Christ. So, he does remain a controversy. His decisions were momentous. His leadership in the South was, and still is, a matter of considerable dispute and debate, but he in many ways did personify the South. And then, from my point of view, people forget what happened after that.

Tooley: Now, as your book recalls, he had a religious awakening when early middle aged and joined the Episcopal Church and remained a devout Christian for the rest of his life. why should we care about his religious faith?

Cox: Well, I would first of all argue that he was always a Christian and he was always devout. He was always a practicing Episcopalian from his birth. It took new fervor in his middle age, somewhere in the 1840s, I would say. Although even then he had always been a practicing Episcopalian. Why was it so important? Because I believe that it guided his life in some very profound way, and most of all, after the war, when he had to deal with this traumatic and overwhelming loss that was a loss not only for the South, but to him and his family. And it transformed his life in that he had always relied on his faith, particularly for maybe 20 years before this, but it became even more important for them.

Tooley: Now, modern Americans in the year 2021, many may find it difficult that a devoutly Christian man like Robert E. Lee could also have championed the cause of the Confederacy and been its chief general across four years. How do you explain that?

Cox: Well, I find it very difficult to explain. He, as you know, was offered command by Francis Blair on behalf of President Lincoln, and he declined, even though he thought that secession was absurd and slavery was in fact wrong. He said, “If by freeing the slaves, if I could save the Union, then I would do so.” But he also had a loyalty that is very hard for us to understand. But at that time, there’s a considerable body of evidence from North and South that the primary loyalty was not yet to the United States as a nation, but rather to the state. And so, I think that is what he ended up going with. Not everybody, not all Virginians, did so. George Thomas and even Winfield Scott, who was at that point the commanding general, were both Virginians. And they went clearly with the North. It was an act of conscience on his part. It’s certainly not one that I understand or commend, but there we are. He had, with regard to slavery, that remained a problematic issue for him. And in fact, toward the end of the war, the middle and toward the end of the war, beginning at least as early as 1864, he started advocating for emancipation by the Confederacy. And people, politicians, came up to him and said, “Well, why do you think we’re fighting this war? It’s over slavery.” And he was approaching it, in many ways as Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation, as a war measure. This would help win the war for the South. And in fact, in March of 1865, the Confederate Congress did emancipate slaves. By then, it was too late.

Tooley: Now, certainly today we would regard Lee’s racial views as racist, although by the standards of his time, his views were arguably better than most of the South. Would you agree?

Cox: I would. His views, and Lincoln’s, and even Grant’s, were not that far apart. He did write some things that would make our hair curl, so did Lincoln. I think with both Lincoln and Lee, at least to some degree, we have to judge them by their acts and by which Lincoln would come out better certainly than Lee. But I found instances in which Lee was, as president of Washington College, there were two attempted lynchings that he used his influence to keep from happening. One was against a white horse thief and the other was against a black man. So, he was able to prevent those. He often talked about the long, slow process of freeing the slaves, which was his responsibility at Arlington House, as his father-in-law had given him, he was executor of his father-in-law’s will. And that was part of his job, was to free the slaves. And he writes a son that he has to do that as quickly as he can “out of justice to the Negroes.” So, he was conscious of those issues. At the same time, like frankly most whites, North and South, there was a very definite racial pecking order, and whites were at the top and people of color were to various degrees below that. And so, he shared that, there’s no question. But then again, as I say, most people, most whites did too, including some of the most ardent abolitionists.

Tooley: You mentioned Lincoln, who’s sometimes described as a fatalist and who was mostly a church going Presbyterian, although unlike Lee, he never officially joined the church. And his personal religious views are debatable. But interestingly, they both are described as fatalist, but came to very different conclusions about what their proper roles were in the Civil War. How do you compare the two in that regard?

Cox: Well, I must say I haven’t studied Lincoln’s religious views as closely. I would not describe Lee as a fatalist in this regard. Both he, and Lincoln, and Stonewall Jackson, many, many other Protestants and Catholics too, were Providentialists in that they believed that whatever happens in the world, if it’s not a result of human sin, then most likely is because God wills it. And if God wills it, then you might like it or dislike it, but you really need to get with whatever that will may be. So, this is the way he approaches the war. In the early part of the war, he’s very unclear about all of this. He makes a decision and goes with it, but as the war goes off, he talks about this somewhat about what God’s will might be. And at the end of the war, he comes to the conclusion in which he expresses that basically the South lost. It must be God’s will. And therefore, what is his responsibility? It is, he talks about it is for peace, to which all good men must labor. In other words, he has perceived the divine will through the loss of the war, and therefore, he must accommodate himself to that. The word is “resigned,” it’s a good old Anglican term. And it does not mean what we generally think of as, “Oh well, I quit.” But rather it’s a turning over, a getting with the program sort of situation. So, it’s not simply that things happen, but rather they happen according to God’s will, and therefore, we must accommodate ourselves to do that and to share in that work. Which is ultimately of God. And so, it’s for that reason I believe that he chooses to come to Washington College to be an educator. To try to bind up the wounds of war and to prevent it from happening again by raising up a generation that will promote prosperity, and peace, and reconciliation. And that’s the Lee that generally we see here in Lexington. And it’s the Lee that I admire.

Tooley: Now, as mentioned, the formerly known as the Robert E. Lee Memorial Episcopal Church in Lexington changed their name last year, as I recall?

Cox: Several years ago.

Tooley: Several years ago. And obviously, Virginia recently removed its representative statue of Lee from the U.S. Capitol. The grand statue of Lee in Richmond is soon to be removed, pending litigation. So, how do you react to this effort to remove these memorials to Robert E. Lee?

Cox: Well, this is very personal, as I said. I tend to admire the Lee who was the college president, the civilian, the peacemaker. I’m going to go one step further. I believe that Lee was probably the most prominent Southern voice for peace and reconciliation after the war. Therefore, for him to be remembered as a military hero is inappropriate, from my point of view. Remembering him for the warrior that he had been rather than the peacemaker that he became. It also causes him to be seen as this warrior hero of the Lost Cause. He made very clear in a letter to the agents in Gettysburg who wanted to have his advice on putting up monuments to the battle that he wanted nothing to do with that. He said that these would only arouse passions. Interestingly, the statues arouse passions and perpetuate the animosities of war. And we have to move on. So, he didn’t want anything to do with that. I think he would have been appalled that people would have named a church for him. And although I also would argue that people may have named it for him, again, in his role at Washington College, he was a very devout parishioner and, in many ways, not only did he save the school, he saved the parish too. He caused the both to thrive. Nevertheless, I think the less we honor Lee for military and the more we honor him for his work after the war, the better off we will all be.

Tooley: Now, speaking as a Christian clergy man and theologian yourself, how do we approach these historical issues of lamenting and denouncing injustices of the past without ourselves not falling into self-righteousness or ignoring the sins of the present?

Cox: Well, I think that’s a really good point and I’ve thought of it a great deal. And particularly there are the issues of names, statues, and remembering historical figures. I understand, I mean, certainly the Confederate statues. I live in the home of William Nelson Pendleton for whom Camp Pendleton is named. The sooner they get rid of that name, the better off, again, we’ll all be. I have no problem with that. But San Francisco is removing the name of Lincoln and Washington and Jefferson because they were slave owners. That raises the theological problem that nobody is perfect. That all fall short of the glory of God. And so, even the greatest of heroes, we are going to find something wrong with them, something not to admire. I would argue that that makes them human, and therefore, we can aspire to do great things as they did great things, recognizing our own imperfections. Now that we don’t have to be perfect to do really important or great things. And truth be told, we can’t be perfect, but we can aspire to make the world a better place, as they themselves tried to do. And so, in recognizing the flaws of these people, I think that’s a very good warning for ourselves at the same time. And inspiration that if they, for all of their flaws, can create the United States, can free the slaves, can save the Union, can win World War II, whatever it may be, then maybe there’s some hope for us that we might be able to do something comparable on our level.

Tooley: Do you think that Lee found a sort of redemption for himself after the war by devoting those final four or five years to education and into putting the war behind himself?

Cox: That’s a good question, and I don’t really know. The war was such a searing event for everybody, and I’m sure that it weighed on him heavily. Certainly the deaths weighed on him tremendously. But I do think he found value. He had many opportunities to do other things, some of which would have brought even greater glory to him, and certainly more lucrative. But he saw this as a mission. And that’s the key point. He came here believing that it was a mission in the name of God. And he talks this over with a clergy friend of his before he accepts the job. And the friend who is a priest, in the process of becoming an Episcopal Bishop, says that when he talked in that way, his face glowed with animation. So, in that sense, there was a redemptive work that he could engage in. That, in some ways, was truly sacrificial. And it was positive. Now, some historians also pointed out it was also convenient, because Lexington is a long way from everywhere. And he could stay out of the limelight and away from people who might, for example, want to hang him. So, motives are always mixed. But he was pretty clear that that was why he was coming to town, and that was what really engaged him. And I believe he became a remarkable college president. I mean, most people don’t realize that in 1868, only three years after the war, the second largest institution, academic institution, in the South was Washington College. After that school in Charlottesville. And that’s it.

Tooley: Reverend Dr. Professor David Cox, teacher at Southern Virginia University, former rector of the Episcopal Church at Lexington, Virginia, author of a religious biography of Robert E. Lee, thank you for a very enjoyable conversation.

Cox: Thank you so much. I’ve enjoyed being with you.