Customer Reviews

Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee (Leaders in Action)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

"Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith."

Oh really? "United and companionship".

That Robert E. Lee was a great man and general is not in dispute. Suggesting that a whole race of people kept in chains as subhuman, not to mention the next 100+ years of opression after the Civil War, were happy slaves who respected their masters because they shared Christianity is appalling. Simple appalling.

There are many great books on Robert E. Lee that deserve reading. This man's trash does not.

This book is a distorted view of the causes of the Civil War, masked as a biography of one of its greatest generals, Robert E. Lee. According to Wilkins, the South was Christian, the North was not, and the war's purpose was the "subjugation" and destruction of Southern beliefs. The passages regarding slavery are particularly abhorrent, such as:"it was (and is) easily demonstrable, that, taken as a whole, there is no question that blacks in this country, slavery notwithstanding, were 'immeasurably better off' in every way." (p. 299) And this one from the same page: "Time was needed for the sanctifying effects of Christianity to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom."

This book is used in many home schooling curricula, and was recommended for a long time on Michelle Bachman's website as a must read. How a candidate for the highest office in the nation could accept such an ahistorical account of one of the greatest tragedies in our nation is truly frightening.

A quote from this book:

"Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith."

That alone is a reason not to purchase this book, not to read it. It is a denial of one of the great sins of American history. The writer of this work is, morally, the American equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

A nation does not become or remain great by denying its historical sins - it remains great by remembering them, and rooting out their remnants. It remains great by overcoming them. The writer of this work is not a patriot - he is a charlatan, a traitor to American greatness.

He and his supporters deserve neither your money nor your time, only your scorn.

Why are people afraid to call Robert Lee what he really was? He was a traitor to the United States, period, end of story. He was a commissioned officer in the US Army and quit to fight against that same army? Now what would people call an officer today who did that?
And now we have an author who not only celebrates that crime but then tries to call slavery a good Christian institution. My only reason for not recommending anyone actually buying this piece of work is that I don't want to reward the crank who wrote it.....get it from that horrible governmental institution, the library, instead.

This book was deceitful and misleading, like most Confederate propaganda. J. Steven Wilkins was cunning in his choice and presentation of facts. If someone with no knowledge of the Civil War read this book, he would be left with an absolutely incorrect perspective of Robert E. Lee, the institution of slavery, and the Civil War in general.

First, there are inconsistencies between "Call of Duty" and... "Call of Duty"! At one point in the book, Wilkins quotes Lee as saying, "If the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all without a struggle, to avert this war." Later, Wilkins claims that Lee was offended and hurt that anyone thought slavery had anything to do with the war. So answer me this...how could freeing slaves avert a war that had nothing to do with slavery?

Another instance where the book contradicts itself is regarding race relations. Wilkins tries to sell the idea that Southern whites and Southern slaves lived in perfect harmony, respecting each other without the slightest presence of racism. Once again, later in the book this changes...Wilkins tells us of a church in Richmond whose attendees were shocked by a Negro who went up to take Communion! None of the churchgoers, except for Lee, as the story goes, wanted to be the first one to participate with a colored man. How is this possible in a society where racism is absent? Wilkins tries to blame this on Reconstruction, but I doubt a society could go from having no racism whatsoever to this degree of racism in such a short period of time.

The book also contradicts history...notably, regarding Robert Lee and slavery. The book says that Lee never seemed to have owned more than six slaves. This is not true. Wesley Norris, one of Lee's slaves, says in an account that almost 70 slaves were inherited by Lee upon the death of Lee's father-in-law.

Following in the said account, Wesley Norris tells the story of him and his sister Mary, who tried to escape the plantation after Lee inherited it. Upon being caught, Lee took it upon himself to "teach them a lesson they would never forget." He had them stripped to the waist, flogged, and thoroughly washed in brine. We see a little glimpse of Christian chivalry peeking out of Lee as he only had Mary receive twenty lashes, whereas Wesley received fifty. This is far from the compassionate Robert Wilkins would have us know! Wesley Norris's account can be found in "Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies".

The book also implies that Lee opposed slavery. However, the supposed "proof-text" for this actually tells us quite the opposite. In the text of a letter Lee sent to his wife, which is printed in "Call of Duty", Lee actually defends slavery. Lee tries to distort the gross institution of slavery into some kind of mission work. Slavery was Christianizing the Negroes, and preparing them for freedom, and to seek to free Negroes from the clutches of slavery was to shake your fist at God, or so Lee reasons. This is ridiculous, considering how many missionaries of all religions have successfully converted people without enslaving them, and yet it is the rationale used by Lee, Wilkins, and so many other Southern partisans who seek to defend the South by justifying slavery.

"Call of Duty" makes a god of Robert E. Lee, condemns the North, and justifies slavery with no regard for historical, logical, or moral facts. The Southern partisan will love it.

I've read a number of civil war books. Lee is represented in this book and others as a remarkable and brilliant general, good christian, loving husband and father. Some of the anecdotes, however, left me incredulous. While under fire, he allegedly stopped to put a baby sparrow back in it's nest. Lee was no doubt a brave man, but he wasn't foolhardy nor stupid. this anecdote made me question the veracity of the others in this book. I wished the last half of the book had been incorporated into his life story portion in the first half of the book. Because of the way the author told Lee's story, it seemed to go on and on.

Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest traitors in American history. He violated his oath of office to take up arms against the United States of America, and should have been held accountable for his acts as all traitors throughout history.

...If it wasn't for Mrs Bachmann mentioning it on her website as recommended reading...that being said, the real point is to what extent does she endorse the context of the book, which is clearly a work of Neo-confederate civil war revisionism (and not one of the better ones I might add). The historical truth is that Lee was a traitor to his country, and if he was a defender of his fellow man like so many say he was, where was he in defense of the 100's of thousands of slaves that needed defending? Lee took the moral low road if indeed his heart was in a different place and he felt slavery was wrong. I thought great men lived by and died for what they beleived in...

Any accurate portrayal of Robert E. Lee, certainly one of our country's finest leaders, should definitely move anyone with an ounce of common sense to an enormous appreciation for this most outstanding human being. Lee's inspiring faith in God, his leadership by example, and lifelong message is one of love and honor. His own words and letters best exemplify this fact, and this author's liberal use of them brings it all home in this short, succinct work. However, be forewarned that Wilkins adds his own additional preaching far removed from the Gospels, most sadly detracting from an accurate historical perspective on Lee by adding his own self-serving distortions on slavery. The historical record is clear: Lee found slavery objectionable and looked forward to the day when it would end. None-the-less, Wilkins tries very hard to rationalize slavery as something good, as if his sad excuses are necessary in order to make Lee look acceptable.... so far from the truth! Wilkins does our great man, Lee, along with the rest of America, a dis-service by his disgusting blabberings. Let's hear it for Robert E. Lee, and not taint his image with such dribble. Most other Lee biographies will serve us more fairly and honorably.

I found this book to be typical of the literature on Lee since the end of the war. "Lee took responsiblity for everything because it was his duty as commander but it was not his fault" is the age old cry of every "Lost Cause" fanatic. I am not saying Lee was not a great general because he was but even he knew he was only human. I also found the authors personal comments on God and scriptures to be annoying. They caused an interrupton in the flow. The author's thesis that Lee was a good man because he was a Christian is acceptable and plausible but comments like "Providence, in it's wisdom, brings joy with sorrow" is not what I would call good writting. All first year college students are told to keep personal opinions out of their writting unless it is an opinion paper which this was not. I found the book to be aggrevating and it was all I could do to finish it. I do not recommend this book to anybody.