WOULD ROBERT E. LEE HAVE APPROVED?

First of all, did the Unite The Right Group (White Separatists such as KKK and antisemites_and others who want to Take Our Country Back Again) have a permit for the demonstration at Emancipation Park where the statue of Robert E. Lee has stood only since the 1920s?  Actually they did not.  Their permit was only for the demonstration to be held at McIntyre Park.  They wanted it at Emancipation Park because of the "symbolism of the Robert E. Lee statue."

The organizers have a profound misunderstanding of Robert E. Lee.  He actually was against secession.  He only agreed to side with the South if Virginia was attacked.  Obviously Lee was conflicted.  I find it interesting that though Lee was loyal to the Union and didn't want to see it broken up, he was more loyal to Virginia.

So far as I can tell, Lee never owned slaves himself.  His wife Mary Anna Randolph Custis, who came from a very wealthy family, is said to have had 2 or 3 house slaves.  When his wife's father died (George Washington Parke Custis), Lee took over the job of executing the will that included freeing Custis's many slaves after five years.  This he did in a conflicted manner (please see the reference for details.*).

When Texas seceded from the Union in February 1861, ... Lee went back to Washington and was appointed Colonel of the First Regiment of Cavalry in March 1861. Lee's colonelcy was signed by the new President, Abraham Lincoln. Three weeks after his promotion, Colonel Lee was offered a senior command (with the rank of Major General) in the expanding Army to fight the Southern States that had left the Union.*
.......................................................................

A key source cited by defenders and critics is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife:^[68]

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856*

Would Robert E. Lee have approved of what happened in Charlottesville, at the University of Virginia?  A resounding NO.  After the war, Lee became the president of Washington University (later renamed Washington and Lee University)
In his public statements and private correspondence, Lee argued that a tone of reconciliation and patience would further the interests of white Southerners better than hotheaded antagonism to federal authority or the use of violence. Lee repeatedly expelled white students from Washington College for violent attacks on local black men, and publicly urged obedience to the authorities and respect for law and order.^[131] In 1869–70 he was a leader in successful efforts to establish state-funded schools for blacks.^[132] He privately chastised fellow ex-Confederates such as Jefferson Davis and Jubal Early for their frequent, angry responses to perceived Northern insults, writing in private to them as he had written to a magazine editor in 1865, that "It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, give full scope to reason and to every kindly feeling. By doing this and encouraging our citizens to engage in the duties of life with all their heart and mind, with a determination not to be turned aside by thoughts of the past and fears of the future, our country will not only be restored in material prosperity, but will be advanced in science, in virtue and in religion."^[133]*

The question might be raised whether it was right for anti-demonstrators  to block the way  of the Unite The Right Group?  Since the location the Unite The Right Group chose to congregate was not approved , perhaps one can respond yes.  We do have free speech in this country, no matter how disagreeable, but there are limits such as the case of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Many, many of the Unite The Right Group came fully prepared for battle with helmets, military uniforms, shields, and arms (Virginia is a Right to Carry State).  One group also wore body amour.  Many of the anti-demonstration group were also dressed for a battle with helmets and what looked like bullet proof vests.

It was a very scary situation from the get go including the torchlight gathering the night before.  So far as I can tell, there was no gun fire, but there was the incident of the car ramming people and killing one.

On Sunday, the demonstrators had left, but Jason Kessler (the organizer of the Unite the Right Group) tried to speak, he was physically assaulted.  This sort of action certainly was unjustified, but is common in this age when anything judged to be politically incorrect can be physically assaulted.

From my readings on Robert E. Lee, I think he would have agreed to removal of his stature from the park as he tried very hard after the War not to be a focus of attention (see the quote above).

Note added (August 15, 2017): On Sunday there was a protest march in Seattle, WA.  In this case, the police kept the counter protesters separated from the demonstration so there was violence.  As a result, there was little coverage by the news media, and the only clips I saw were of the police restraining the anti-protesters..  This brings to mind a thought.  If there is a demonstration and there is no news coverage, is the demonstration worthwhile?**

Note added (August 30, 2017)  On several occasions before he died, former Confederate General Robert E. Lee expressed opposition to proposals to erect Civil War monuments and memorials, including some devoted specifically to the Confederacy.    A letter was quoted in a 21 November 1957 article in the Chicago Tribune:
“My engagements will not permit me to be present, and I believe if there I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject,” Lee wrote to David McConaughy. “I think it well, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”***
Also
Rather than raising battlefield memorials, he favored erasing battlefields from the landscape altogether…. Lee feared that these reminders of the past would preserve fierce passions for the future. Such emotions threatened his vision for speedy reconciliation. As he saw it, bridging a divided country justified abridging history in places.***



* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
**  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/far-right-rally-goes-ahead-seattle-despite-violence-virginia-n792271
http://q13fox.com/2017/08/13/police-arrest-3-confiscate-weapons-as-hundreds-protest-peacefully-in-seattle/
*** http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/
http://www.snopes.com/robert-e-lee-confederate-monuments/?utm_source=bme&bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiAiZGI1YjBlM2MtNDY3Ny00ZjEzLWJlMTYtYTkxM2MyYWJlNjg4In0%3D&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=wednesday_update