Guelzo’s Robert E. Lee

Brion McClanahan makes a good point here.

The Confederacy never had its own Declaration of Independence. There wasn’t any need for one for two reasons.

First, the original version only acknowledged the fact that the American colonies were already effectively independent states. Virginia’s royal governor Lord Dunmore had fled the state on June 8, 1775 over a year before the Declaration of Independence. British rule in Virginia had been collapsing for two years before the Declaration of Independence. Virginians seized their own independence.

Second, the assumption was that we were already free and independent states as this had been established by the American Revolution. This is what we had fought for in the Revolution. It was acknowledged by Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The power to join the Union is the power to leave it. We left the Articles of Confederation and each state had to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

Note: The establishment court historian Allen Guelzo has a new book out on Robert E. Lee.

About Hunter Wallace 11767 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

17 Comments

  1. Guelzo is indeed oily. I met him way back, when I was in the Reformed Episcopal Cabal, and he was there always attacking the faithful, and pushing the liberal line.

    • You were in the REC? I’d like to know why you are no longer… I thought they were (of all the ‘continuing Anglicans’ out there) pretty decent, if irrationally low-church.

      • Allen Carl Guelzo
        Born February 2, 1953, in Yokohama, Japan; son of Carl Martin Jr. and Leila (Kerrigan) Guelzo; married Debra K. Hotchkiss, June 27, 1981. Education: University of Pennsylvania, M.A., Ph.D., 1986; Philadelphia Theological Seminary, M.Div.

        The rare odd surname is Anglicized from Prussian German Gülzow > Guelzow > Guelzo

        • @ Jacobite, , He sucks, so does his name, Hyphenate white Americans, have taken way too much liberty, with their nasty critiques of founding stock america , they should be ignored, their opinions are of little value, they would do well too remember, founding stock america did all the necessary dirty work, too make it safe for bitches like miss guelzo, too bring their sorry ass’es over here.

  2. I had a history teacher during my middle school years, and he taught us all about the War Between the States. We were taught it wasn’t fought over slavery.

  3. That uniformed piece of race traitor shit Ty Seidule was appointed by Cultural Marxist coon Lloyd Austin to the panel charged with removing the names of Confederates from jewS military installations – and note well that he made that soggy bag of anti-Southern poison for (((Prager))) jewniversity.

  4. I was hoping you would notice Guelzo’s Lee, Hunter – thanks for this. A few points:

    1. Elizabeth Pryor was the first modern historian to go after Robert E. Lee, hammer & tongs, in 2008 with her book about Lee’s personal letters. She slyly insinuated (based on the post-war testimony of one angry freedman talking to Radical Republican newspapers), that Lee – personally – beat his slaves, and may even have relished doing so. In the politically correct (now woke) era, this was the signal to other academic historians that “hunting season was open” on Lee. But Pryor herself had no knowledge or interest in Lee’s record as a U.S. Army officer or Confederate general, so a more thorough going indictment was needed, by a bigger name historian, to deliver the kill-shot.

    2. Enter Allen Guelzo, whom Brion McClanahan sums up nicely in the video. Guelzo’s considered a heavyweight military historian. While I’ve not yet (& may never) read his Lee biography, I have read Guelzo’s account of the Gettysburg campaign, for the most part competently written, but flawed in several places by the author’s sanctimonious posturing, as when he wants us to draw deep meaning from the fact the field over which Pickett’s Charge was made was owned by a black farmer. (Serves dem bad ole rebels right, don’t it?)

    3. Indeed, sanctimony and righteous anger appear to be part of Guelzo’s tool-kit, as well as that of most other academic historians employed today in major universities. A flagrant recent example of this is Guelzo’s statement (either in the Lee book or talking about it, quoted by a reviewer) that “If [traitor] Lee came within my gunsights, I’d open fire.”

    Modern scholarship, you know.

  5. Here is reality: anything you cannot leave voluntarily is either a toxic relationship, a criminal enterprise, a psychotic cult, or a tyrannical government.

Leave a Reply