.

Lee in the Furnace

“He who thinks of Lee Must think of Washington. . .”
—Herman Melville

So Oleh, Chief, my other grandfather,
Mine on the distaff, on the losing side.
The furnace burnishes your graven face.
You smell destruction, like a gathered tide.
As all your features soften, start to run,
I watch a great man, unafraid to weep,
Dissolve when it is right. Before you’re gone,
Say something, as strong heat stirs your long sleep,
Apprising you of clear and present threat.
Your mouth is moving: “Do not be afraid.
You must not be afraid,” your lips repeat.
Then all is blurred. You enter well-content
Those fires that are manhood’s final test
And taste in trust a meed beyond defeat.

.

.

Monika Cooper is an American family woman.

NOTE TO READERS: If you enjoyed this poem or other content, please consider making a donation to the Society of Classical Poets.

The Society of Classical Poets does not endorse any views expressed in individual poems or commentary.


Trending now:

28 Responses

  1. Roy Eugene Peterson

    Lee was a great man and a great general. The Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, as so many are prone to believe, but it was fought over the right of states to make decisions affecting the welfare or fate of their inhabitants and not the federal government, hence, the “Confederacy.” The erasure of southern memories that Biden and others have championed, such as desecration of graves and statues and changing the name of Fort Bragge to Fort Liberty are anathema to me and should be to all Americans.

    Reply
  2. Brian A. Yapko

    Great poem, Monika. You could not have chosen a better metaphor for the death that is cancel culture. Lee was a great man on the wrong side of the Civil War (now that I am a newly-minted Southerner I’m tempted to call it the War of Northern Aggression.) Destroying statues simply satisfies the murderous impulse of small minds. Lee could have and should have been placed in a museum.

    Reply
    • Monika Cooper

      Thank you, Brian. I have seen monuments around here that call it “The War of Rebellion.”

      Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      I think there’s some truth to the notion that the Civil War was a war of aggression by the North.

      From when I first learned about it in school, I asked why it was okay for the American colonies to break away from the British crown but not for the South to break away from the Union, all I got in response was the red herring of the issue of slavery… but that wasn’t what I asked.

      For the record, I’m not defending slavery, but the facts, even those that are agreed upon by all sides, raise some serious questions about that war.

      The North fought to keep the South in the Union, and then destroyed quite a bit of it in the process—why did they want it after? And if they were as racist as people claim, why did they care about slavery and want so many blacks in their country? Didn’t slavery keep Southern crops cheaper anyway? And why did they want Southern culture holding them back from the modernizing direction they wanted to go?

      People talk about the Civil War as if the North were a superhero and the South were a mustache-twirling supervillain, but it seems to me that the whole point of the Civil War was to destroy Southern culture, for no reason other than that Southern culture kept the traditions the mainstream part of the North had lost; otherwise, wouldn’t they have just decided they were done with the South and let it secede?

      I’ve read about the Civil War from both perspectives, and I can’t trust the mainstream narrative on the matter… just as I can’t trust the mainstream narrative on anything else.

      Reply
  3. Drilon Bajrami

    ‘In May 1858, Lee wrote to his son Rooney, “I have had some trouble with some of the people [slaves]. Reuben, Parks & Edward, in the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority—refused to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, etc., etc.—I succeeded in capturing them & lodging them in jail. They resisted till overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them.”‘

    While people may try to distance Lee from slavery and divide the two topics, personally, I cannot get behind a man who treated his inherited slaves worse than the previous owner, so much so they almost revolted. Their severe malnourishment at his hands may have helped prevent a revolt. Former slaves and even his own employees have come out against his treatment of slaves, his overseer disagreed over the whipping of a female slave, so Lee took it in his own hands and whipped her himself. I cannot call someone like that a great man. I have many terms for him but I want to keep things as civil as possible.

    I hope we can have a constructive discussion and I’m open to all replies.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      The problem with your comment, Drilon, is that it completely ignores the substance and rhetorical structure of Monika Cooper’s poem. This isn’t about Lee the person, who may have had as many faults and sins on his soul as all the rest of us. It is about the FORCED DESTRUCTION OF A WORK OF ART, for political reasons, with THE DELIBERATE MOTIVE OF HUMILIATING AND INSULTING THE HERITAGE of white southerners.

      Your smug moralism is repugnant. And if you want to have a discussion here it will be on our terms, not yours. “Constructive” is a weasel word used by left-liberals to limit debate.

      Reply
      • Drilon Bajrami

        Ms. Cooper’s poem was a very good poem, while the topic might not be the very best to me, I cannot deny the quality, nor did I ever try to. Great job, Ms. Cooper!

        “This isn’t about Lee the person, who may have had as many faults and sins on his soul as all the rest of us” — this is very true. Sometimes I do wrong things, as we all do. However, I have never whipped another human being because they were my property and I could do so, Mr. Lee has and it’s well documented by more than one source. Wrongness is not a black and white thing but a scale and on the scale, Mr. Lee is on the side of moral depravity. What else can you call someone who willingly owned other human beings and physically abused them? He could have freed all of the slaves the second he inherited them from his father-in-law, the will permitted it. I once stole a chocolate bar from a store when I was eleven years old, though, so I guess I’m no better. That sounds ridiculous when I say it like that because it is.

        If “smug moralism” is being against the fact that a human being can own another human being and wantonly physically abuse and scar them then I guess I’m smug.

        I can sense a very authoritarian stance from you, Joseph, and that is not at all “constructive” and inducive to a discussion — I welcome any debate and since this is your guys’ platform, I’ll do it on your terms, too. What are these terms and what did I do that would be considered inappropriate?

        You also assume my political leaning based on my abhorrence of slavery — so to be against slavery you have to a liberal? My loathing of both sides of the political spectrum is well-known among my peers. I don’t like to parttake in any politics, as to me it’s all a farce. All I do is vote in every UK general election every 4 years and beyond that, I give politics no energy.

        The “Humans have 84 genders” crowd with neon-coloured hair, armpit hair and genital hair are abhorrent to me like they probably are to you. I’m centrist if anything and we probably have more in common than not.

        I hope you can see, Joseph, that I’m genuniely interested in having dialogue and not it being adversarial, I’m not against you or anyone but I am against slavery and I won’t be circumspect of my opinion on it.

        Cheers and I’m looking forward to your reply.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Great. You’re against slavery. So am I, though it is a world-wide phenomenon that goes back way beyond recorded time, and getting into a moral snit about it at this stage of the game seems a little immature.

        But you have still missed the point. Monika’s poem is NOT ABOUT the rights or wrongs of slavery! It’s about the politicized vandalism of works of art to satisfy pressure groups. And you have deliberately avoided the other major point, which is that this political vandalism has as its motive a desire to humiliate and insult living white southerners — not one of whom has ever been a slaveholder.

        In other words, you have done something that we dislike here at the SCP: you raised a political objection (disguised as a “moral” judgment) to a work of art (Monika’s poem), and then you invited a “discussion” of this baited trap, which was clearly a preliminary to starting a fight here.

        People who are left-liberal usually make the claim that they are
        “disinterested centrists” when they come here. Well, maybe you can pull off that scam in the U.K., but you can’t do it here in the United States.

      • Drilon Bajrami

        Yeah, you are right on that very point about the “politicized vandalism of works of art”, Joseph, and it was completely wrong of me to avoid what the poem was saying because I felt genuine disgust at the man the poem was about. Because to me, the saddest thing ever, is when people burn books. Nazis, Marxists, religious institutions and anyone that does that is evil. No matter what the book is.

        I want to apologise to you and Monika for that.

        My disgust should not be relevant to the topic on discussion of the poem, at least it being a main point of discussion, though I could never straight up ignore it (it should have been a secondary or tertiary element to my comment if anything).

        Since then, Mike has edified me more on the topic and I’m glad he did, and I’ve held up my hand and admitted I judged Robert E. Lee to impusively, though my overall opinion on him, is still not favourable but I’m allowed to have an opinion on him, as we all are.

        I hope you can see from my discussion with Mike, I have no interest in having a political flaming war with you or anyone else. My comments have been apolitical and you keep insisting I’m trying to have a political debate. I really don’t care about politics, I used to in my teens but as an adult, I am completely disillusioned, but people died for my right to vote and I will vote in my interest as everyone always does, no matter what they claim.

        Cheers and hopefully in the future, we can be less adversarial, Joseph.

      • jd

        It quite amazes me how much this discussion relates to the essay you posted today, Mr. Salemi. During the back and forth though, I couldn’t help thinking that Mr. Bajrami might not be so much
        relating his words to the poem itself but to the accolades to General Lee which followed it.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        At least he’s consistent. He wants the statue of Robert Lee destroyed and the poem about it taken down.

  4. Mike Bryant

    “Robert E. Lee was a man who understood the values of a region which he represented. He was never filled with hatred. He never felt a sense of superiority. He led the southern cause with pride, yes, but with a sense of reluctance as well.”
    -Jimmy Carter 1/20/1978

    https://twitter.com/Jeff_Davis1808/status/1614774434358824965?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1614774434358824965%7Ctwgr%5Eac54abf3dfbb2a1fd669e2ea5b748afa284da760%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Ffact-check%2Fjimmy-carter-robert-e-lee-never-hatred%2F

    John F. Kennedy described Robert E. Lee as someone who “after gallant failure, urged those who had followed him in bravery to reunite America in purpose and courage.” – John F. Kennedy September 17, 1960

    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/speech-senator-john-f-kennedy-raleigh-nc-coliseum

    However, our “moral betters” today are not about uniting people but about dividing them through Marxism and revisionism.

    Why do today’s youth believe that they have all the answers? Because they always have been used by the users… I pity the ignorance and I hate the arrogance.

    Reply
  5. Mike Bryant

    As an executor of his father-in-law’s estate, Lee was bound by law to settle the estate. The New York Tribune apparently was publishing fake news without checking with Lee. The more things change… and still there are those that trust New York newspapers. Can you honestly say that you would have done e differently in Lee’s place?
    Don’t believe everything the involved are pushing.

    The Washington Post had this to say:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/09/10/robert-e-lee-slavery/

    Sure they try to take him down, but who will you believe.
    You are no saint yourself. Until you list your sins here, why not understand that no one is an angel.

    Reply
  6. James A. Tweedie

    Here is the larger context of the Melville quote (from “Lee in the Capitol,” Melville’s poetic rendering of Lee’s post-war appearance before the U.S. Congress):

    Yet pride at hand still aidful swelled,
    And up the hard ascent he held.
    The meeting follows. In his mien
    The victor and the vanquished both are seen–
    All that he is, and what he late had been.
    Awhile, with curious eyes they scan
    The Chief who led invasion’s van–
    Allied by family to one,
    Founder of the Arch the Invader warred upon:
    Who looks at Lee must think of Washington;
    In pain must think, and hide the thought,
    So deep with grievous meaning it is fraught.

    Melville’s attitude towards slavery (and its unjust inhumanity) is best expressed in his novella, “Benito Cereno,” written in 1855.

    In defense of his “beloved Virginia,” Lee (though he later repented of it) fought to preserve the institution of slavery in the South, an act which did not create any admiration on the part of Melville.

    Reply
  7. Drilon Bajrami

    I see, Mike. Thank you for edifying me on something that I did not understand fully, I read about Robert E. Lee for a few minutes and made a quick judgement.

    If men that I respect like Carter and JFK (still not a liberal btw, but I also respect Bush Sr. as a former POTUS just to show that), are saying those things about him than I was too quick in judgement. Their validation holds weight for me.

    I tried to read the Washington Post article you linked but it is unfortunately behind a paywall. I’d be happy to read another one that is not, if you’d be kind enough to find one.

    I can admit when I made a mistake and maybe I judged the man too harshly initially.

    On the topic of the voracity of the New York Tribunal articles, one of them was from a “citizen” who lived very close to the Custis estate and had first-hand accounts from slaves about their treatment.
    http://fair-use.org/new-york-tribune/1859/06/24/letter-from-a-citizen

    The other article was by a man who wrote a biography about Lee, Douglas Southall Freeman. “Freeman was approached by New York publisher Charles Scribner’s Sons and invited to write a biography of Robert E. Lee. Freeman accepted but chose to retain his position at The Richmond News Leader and work longer days to work on the biography.” We have no reason to believe him to have bias against Lee. And it states there that the slaves were indeed whipped “when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her. They were then sent to Richmond jail, where they are now lodged.”
    http://fair-use.org/new-york-tribune/1859/06/24/some-facts-that-should-come-to-light

    Thank you for your reply, Mike.

    P.S. “Why do today’s youth believe that they have all the answers?” — deadass, I thought I had them all when I was 16, haha. Oh, youth.

    Reply
  8. jd

    Love the poem, Monika, as I have loved
    every one of your poems that I’ve read here.

    Reply
  9. Margaret Coats

    Monika, your superb poem offers a taste of “meed beyond defeat” to the great man of whom you write. Your melting memorial is not the greater meed that you say he tastes in trust, but it is a noble addition. You and your speaker do not tell clearly why Lee is great, but much is suggested.

    Lee is a courageous man true to his principles. He is an honorable leader capable of encouraging others not to be afraid in the face of clear and present threats, nor even in destruction and defeat. These qualities brought out in the poem correspond to the later acts of Lee’s life. When he was a defeated general with his property confiscated by winners, he could have retired and remained silent. Instead, he took stock of what he still possessed: the trust and admiration of his fellow losers. He made use of this remaining power to accomplish more than anyone else did, for reconciliation in a nation larger than either hostile side. Considering the future, it was a nation larger than both hostile sides put together. Lee was able to see that, and do what he could to bring it into being. He was a founder like Washington.

    The great man is one important aspect of your poem, but the other is the current (repeated) destruction of him with concomitant dire threats to those alive today whom he represents. Lee is the greatest and most necessary icon for today’s cancel culture to defeat. Who else better represents all that cancelers profess to hate? Destroying him in effigy means victory for them over a living culture they accuse of evils, and also over everything good in it, especially art and memory and idealism. You, Monika, have been clear-sighted enough to look forward and back, and offer a graphic description of the issues inherent in the recent act of destruction of Lee’s statue.

    Reply
    • Monika Cooper

      Thank you for these thoughts, Margaret. I’m especially intrigued that you say Lee was a founder like Washington. I will keep thinking about that.

      Reply
  10. Cynthia Erlandson

    I think the phrases you used to describe the melting of the statue are beautiful; they give the reader immediate, strong imagery that ties the poem together. The whole poem holds together so well, especially when you wrap it up with “You enter well-content / Those fires that are manhood’s final test”.

    Reply
    • Monika Cooper

      Thank you, Cynthia. There is the event and then there is the interior event.

      Reply
  11. Yael

    This is a fascinating poem about the tragic fate of a fascinating historical figure’s monument, which really got me thinking. What I admire most about leaders of the Confederacy such as Lee is their unapologetic dedication to the defense of their culture and heritage. I believe they struggled to uphold a lifestyle with a measure of refinement, one which would elevate their lives above brutish tribal savagery. Western civilization in our time has mostly lost this struggle unfortunately.
    A slave is anyone who does not own his or her own time and labor. Anyone who is forced to pay income taxes on their wages is a slave. Anyone forced to be injected with mystery potions against their will is a slave. Anyone who uses goods and services which are produced by slave labor, including child and prison inmate labor, is a supporter of slavery. Remember this next time you make a reservation over your cell phone, or get a new license plate for your car, or look at a street sign, or post a smug critique condemning slavery from your PC, I Phone, tablet or other electronic device. Ask yourself: who are these people, who made these things, and how am I paying for them?

    Reply
    • Monika Cooper

      Thank you, Yael. It’s true, slavery is not gone, it just looks different these days and it’s often completely invisible to us.

      Reply
  12. Monika Cooper

    Thank you to all participants in the discussion here. I’m pondering anew the mystery of how it is we come to know a historical figure, or come to know another human being at all.

    I believe that General Lee is a man worth anyone’s while to know, or to know better.

    Reply
  13. Sally Cook

    It is far more than melting down a statue; it is an attack on a culture. I could go on at length and did, but the server was overloaded and I lost it.
    SO, I’ll just say excellent poem, Monika !

    Reply
    • Monika Cooper

      Thank you, Sally. Sorry we lost the longer form of your comment; would’ve loved to read it.

      Reply
  14. Adam Sedia

    This is a great poem. You had a wide range of potential tones: rage, indignation, mourning, despair. But you chose a dignified, stoic, and manly tone — acknowledging what was being lost and giving a final salute. It is appropriate for the great general.

    Reply
    • Monika Cooper

      Thank you, Adam. I took my cue entirely from my poetic subject. I wanted this poem to be a monument to both, to the man and to the monument – since the circumstances required me to get that “meta.”

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.