,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I appreciate the (renewed, once again) Twitter discussion of Robert E. Lee: how good a general he was, how he came to command the Confederate armies, and so forth. Everybody knows his name being invoked by the President is just part of a cover story, right? [Thread]
I mean, Donald Trump has no serious interest in Robert E. Lee (or indeed in anyone not named Donald Trump). He was just speaking up for white-right supporters of his, who two years ago used the pretext of Confederate statues being removed in Charlottesville to hold a rally.
At this “Unite the Right” rally, these Trump admirers chanted, inveighed and otherwise raged against racial minorities, Jews, and women, giving voice to prejudices and resentments Trump himself shares, or is at least prepared to indulge in people willing to praise him.
The cover story is that these “very fine people” were in Charlottesville to protest removing a statue of Lee. It is Trump’s cover story only. The white-right types rallying in Charlottesville put on no such pretense at the time.
Some of them, indeed, loudly espoused political ideologies Robert E. Lee not only did not share but could not have shared, as they originated in Europe years after his death in 1870.
I think it’s a healthy thing for Americans to discuss our history in public. I’m all for some Americans taking such discussion as inspiration to read the best histories of the period, by people like McPherson, Foner and (for Lee himself) Emory Thomas and Alan Nolan.
But this is not why Trump invoked Lee’s name, right after Charlottesville or again last week. He instead sought to start controversy about something other than the enthusiasm he generates among racists and admirers of Nazis, an enthusiasm that appears entirely mutual. [end]
