Unearthing the Deep Fascist Roots of the Unite the Right Rally

On August 11, 2017, hundreds of white supremacists carrying tiki torches mobbed the University of Virginia's campus, shouting racist and antisemitic slogans and violently attacking the students who stood up to them. The next day, the same hateful crowd rallied in a Charlottesville park that held a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The city of Charlottesville had recently engaged in a public debate over whether to get rid of the statue, and supposedly the white supremacists were there—summoned by a number of neo-Nazis, chief among them Richard Spencer, and a local racist troll named Jason Kessler—to defend it. Really, they had come to court attention and cause harm. They succeeded on both fronts. Their event, called Unite the Right, became national news when they swarmed the UVA campus, chanting, 'Jews will not replace us.' (This had what to do with Robert E. Lee?) It became a national tragedy when, on August 12, James Alex Fields Jr., who kept a framed photo of Hitler by his bed, rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, injuring several and killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer.
The biographer and essayist Deborah Baker's Charlottesville: An American Story is both an account of those two horrifying days and an intellectual history of the far right in the United States. It mixes investigative rigor—Baker must have listened to hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of archived Charlottesville City Council meetings, as well as far-right podcasts and YouTube videos—with emotional intensity and wide-ranging cultural critique. Baker reaches from Virginia's slaveholding history to the poet Ezra Pound's deluded post–World War II fascism to the misogynistic trolls of Gamergate in her quest to understand Unite the Right. The result is not merely smart but shattering. It joins the ranks of some of the best American nonfiction in recent years—Patrick Radden Keefe's Say Nothing; Sarah Schulman's Let the Record Show—as testimony to events we'd be unwise to forget.
Baker's approach to her material is distinct in two ways. One is that, like Schulman but unlike many authors of researched nonfiction, she's not a reporter, and shows no deference to the norm of representing both sides. She did not interview any of the white supremacists that came to—or came from—Charlottesville. Baker saw them as tricking 'conscientious journalists into following them down rabbit holes,' or taking advantage of those who 'couldn't imagine they believed what they said they believed. [The media] thought it was a game, not a calculated strategy to spread their message.' Nor does she show a journalist's inclination to suppress her judgment. Baker writes damningly about the intellectual cowardice and inconsistency that set the stage for the city of Charlottesville's and University of Virginia's mismanagement of Unite the Right: At both the march and the rally, police not only failed to defend the counterprotesters, who were left to protect themselves against heavily armed, malevolent throngs, but, in some instances, attacked them.
The author knows some of that inconsistency personally, which is the other distinctive piece of her approach. She grew up partly in Albemarle County, Virginia, where Charlottesville sits. Her father, though he came from a family of New England abolitionists, was also raised there, and he lends the book a telling moment. In 1968, when Baker was in elementary school, he published a 'thin volume' called Strike the Tent: In the Steps of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. In its preface, he wrote that, although his account might seem 'a bit sentimental and slanted' toward its Confederate subjects, he wanted not to glorify or redeem them, but to comprehend why it is that, as he wrote, '[w]hat men may sincerely believe they are fighting for is often unrelated to the consequences of their doing so.' Any Confederate who thought he was defending 'individual liberty and freedom' was risking his life for its opposite.
Baker isn't caught in this rhetorical (or maybe emotional) trap, but she's intimately acquainted with its distinct Virginian manifestation. All over the country, Americans tell themselves romantic stories about the Confederacy, narratives in which Southern troops were scrappy underdogs who didn't care about saving slavery. Of course, this narrative has its own moral bankruptcy: Not caring about slavery is differently, not less, rotten than championing it. But Virginia's white elite, squinting backward from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to George Washington, James Madison, and Charlottesville's own Thomas Jefferson, have their own set of 'fairy tales. That the South stood for something fine and brave. That Virginia was exceptional in the same way that America, above all other nations, was [and] Virginians were a breed apart from the regular run of Americans. Finally, to be a Virginian was to live in accordance with the most exacting code of chivalry, 'for here the ideals of the nation were born.'' Because Baker knows this vision of Virginia, she can—and does—write against it. She suggests that for white Charlottesvillians, a real reckoning with history would involve not only removing Confederate statues, which the city did in 2021, but confronting the toxic effects of Virginian exceptionalism: state, city, and university authorities' refusal to admit the presence of hate; white Charlottesvillians' unwillingness to listen to Black ones; an overriding inability to react to new information.
Of course, the whole country suffers from these issues. We always have. One of Charlottesville's central arguments is that the nation's refusal to reckon with history is connected to its most violent, authoritarian elements. Donald Trump, of course, is radically anti-historical. During his first term, he created a commission for 'patriotic education' in reaction to The New York Times' 1619 Project, which described the centrality of slavery to America's founding, and this March, he issued an executive order banning 'anti-American ideology,' which seems to mean any discussion of race, from exhibits at the Smithsonian museums. It is as if he believes that, by erasing racism from the historical record, he can also erase its effect on our present, though the effect he and his supporters have in mind isn't structural inequality but what they call 'wokeness'; as if, by forbidding talk of racism, he can prevent protest of it, too. Charlottesville is full of this absurd way of thinking, and Baker makes no bones about its link to fascism. Fascist movements, from Benito Mussolini's to Richard Spencer's, claim they will turn back time to an illusory past in which the dominant social order went unquestioned. Trump wants to do the same.
In 2020, a Charlottesville clergyman who counterprotested the rally told Baker, 'We're in the shit. America is Charlottesville now. Everywhere is Charlottesville.' In 2025, he's more right than ever. During the two days of Unite the Right, Charlottesville, Virginia, was the place where the nation's better ideals came to die, and one of the places its dark new ideology, the one now ripping civil society and the civil service to shreds, was born.Charlottesville starts with the statues. In 2015, a Charlottesville high schooler named Zyahna Bryant launched a petition to get the city's sculptures of Lee and Jackson taken down and the parks where they stood renamed. At 15, Bryant wasn't a stranger to activism: Baker, who has a novelist's instinct for detail, writes that, after Trayvon Martin's murder three years earlier, Bryant had organized a 'protest at the federal courthouse: a twelve-year-old girl corralling ten-year-olds with popsicle stains on their shirts.' In high school, she called the city's vice mayor, Wes Bellamy, and asked him to get on board with removing the statues. He did, and Charlottesville created a special commission to examine the issue, but conversation stagnated. Baker writes that, at community forums (which she listened to after the fact), the statues' white defenders 'believed that four generations in Virginia, or a Confederate ancestor who was by Lee's side at Appomattox, or simply their childhood memories should give special weight to their testimony.' Many of the city's longtime Black residents steered clear of the debate, recognizing that in the face of such willed obliviousness, 'Silence was the only power [they] had.' And the obliviousness was intense. One white Virginian wrote to the commission that, although she agreed that the story of slavery needed telling, the statues should remain in place because she appreciated their beauty alongside the parks' blooming trees: She imagined, Baker writes, that 'these two histories might peacefully coexist, one ugly and painful, the other framed by flowers.'
But not all the statues' defenders prevaricated in this way. In fact, as the commission stalled, local white supremacists—whose presence, Baker notes, was widely known, though rarely acknowledged—came out of the woodwork, so that instead of parks without Confederate statues, Charlottesville now had ones full of Confederate flag-wavers 'protecting' the bronze generals. One of Charlottesville's most impressive qualities is Baker's subtle insistence on keeping her eye on guns. She links gun culture to video game culture, to whiteness, to the Civil War. She summons the writer Tony Horwitz's argument that just as 'Americans had once appeased and abetted the Slave Power, they were now appeasing and abetting the spread of guns.' Baker excoriates a dominant culture that accepts mass shootings and armed vigilantism as part of life, that tolerates a gun lobby that bullies and railroads anyone who considers 'the proliferations of guns unsettling' or sees 'freedoms curtailed by the shadow guns cast over our lives.' In Charlottesville, after the statue debate and, of course, on the weekend of Unite the Right, this shadow was overwhelming. Baker describes armed white supremacists telling injured, unarmed counterprotesters that 'this is what you get when you get in the street,' as if their weapons gave them the right to hurt anyone in their way.
Of course, those white supremacists weren't only local. The statue debate got Spencer's attention, too. A University of Virginia graduate and professional hate-monger who coined the term 'alt-right,' he was, in 2017, as Baker writes, 'openly audition[ing] for the role of Trump's brain.' He was also adopting harassment techniques he'd learned from Gamergate, the concerted threatening, stalking, and doxing of the game designer Zoë Quinn in 2014. In writing about Spencer, Baker decodes an aspect of Unite the Right that initially bewildered her. Early in Charlottesville, she writes that after the virulent antisemitism of the torch march, she 'was hard pressed to see the connection between Charlottesville's Confederate statues and Hitler Youth, between Southern white supremacy and European fascism. Which histories—whose histories—were in play?... It felt as though American and European national creeds were being remixed and weaponized in ways I couldn't wrap my mind around.' She wasn't alone in her confusion: She writes that even a Charlottesville rabbi she spoke with struggled to see why neo-Confederates hated Jews.
I can relate. I'm Jewish, and a branch of my family settled in Richmond, Virginia, not long before the Civil War. One of my ancestors was conscripted into the Confederate Army, a shameful bit of family history that is part of a greater legacy of Jewish complicity with slavery: Consider the Lehman brothers, who built their fortune on plantation cotton. In my estimation, the involvement of many Jews in one of America's great sins binds us to the nation; it's proof of Jews' Americanness. We're obligated to do what we can to remediate slavery's harms.
Unite the Right didn't change my mind about that. But it did make me take seriously the alt-right's belief that Jews aren't American at all. Baker takes it seriously, too. In researching the history of fascism in the United States, she came to understand that 'Jews were the glue that held the ideology of white supremacy and white nationalism together.' She traces this idea to the 1930s, when Ezra Pound, who had moved to Europe, became a fascist. Hoping to ground Mussolini's and Hitler's ideas in U.S. history in order to better promote them at home, he turned to Virginia's sage, Thomas Jefferson. He argued that Jefferson's vision was, in fact, the same as Mussolini's, and, in the 1950s, acquired a young protégé, John Kasper, who he hoped could help spread these ideas and 'give fascism an all-American face.' Kasper did so, Baker writes, by going to Charlottesville in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education decision and arguing that Jews had put Black people up to demanding integration. Some 50 years later, Spencer took the Confederate statue debate as an excuse to do precisely the same.
Baker writes that fascists like Pound, Kasper, and Spencer, looking to Hitler, argue that the 'liberal elite driving the conversations in media, business, and culture, were either Jews or in the pay of Jews, and thus hostile to a political order in which Christian white men claimed ascendancy.' This conspiracy theory allows them to reject the idea that Black Americans might achieve something on their own: Really, the Jews are behind them. It also allows them to foment grievance. Baker describes the Nazi Andrew Anglin whipping up his followers' emotions by listing their humiliations—student debt, addiction, trauma and injuries from fighting in meaningless wars—and then, to 'relieve them of their shame, [directing] their attention to the root cause of their tribulations: Jews.' Immediately after, he led them into the streets of Charlottesville.
There, the alt-right mob encountered no resistance from the University of Virginia's authorities—its president, Baker writes, assumed that because Spencer was an alum, he'd abide by the university's honor code—or from Charlottesville and Virginia police. Baker draws a direct line from the city's underwhelming response to the statue debate sparked by Zyahna Bryant to its failure to prepare properly for Unite the Right, although police intelligence analysts and anti-fascist activists had given warning. The city and state governments and police chiefs just didn't want to take seriously the threat that the alt-right posed. And the Unite the Right organizers applied for, and got, a permit for their march. In the city's eyes, this entitled them to do what they liked, even as their rally turned into a violent and then murderous riot. Meanwhile, the unarmed Charlottesvillians who opposed the white supremacists received no police protection. They were accused of unlawful assembly; cops watched blankly as armed men kicked, hit, and maced them. It seems that not one trooper or officer was present when Heather Heyer was killed.
Charlottesville's counterprotesters and the anti-fascists from around the region who helped them are Charlottesville's heroes. One of Baker's central subjects is Emily Gorcenski, a local data scientist who went from monitoring fascist chatter on the internet to confronting Spencer and his cronies face-to-face, bearing a storm of physical violence and anti-trans abuse. Others are members of the Charlottesville Clergy Collective, a group of Christian faith leaders who learned the techniques of nonviolent resistance in order to stand up to Unite the Right. She talks to a local arts administrator who turned into an activist after the statue debate, the founding members of Charlottesville's chapters of Black Lives Matter and Showing Up for Racial Justice, and citizen journalists who captured the riot in real time. Many of these people were both physically and morally wounded that weekend. Andy Stepanian, an activist who helped manage the counterprotesters' crisis communications, told Baker that, when he saw Heyer receiving chest compressions, it was as if his brain 'short-circuited. From that moment he lost the ability to live in the here and now. It has never returned.'
All those decisions—even, or especially, the ones that don't feel like decisions at all—create room for fascism to flourish.
Charlottesville is not a book of the here and now. It's too wide-ranging for that. In all its movement through time, through archives and forums and the intellectual history of America's ugliest movements, it seeks to locate 'the germ of the present in the past'—a mission of which Baker declares herself skeptical; maybe, she writes, it's 'just something writers tell themselves to exert control over events that are effectively beyond their control. But it was what I knew.' It's also a way of looking into the future. By linking Spencer to Pound, Baker demonstrates that American fascism is hardly newer than its Italian and German inspirations; by highlighting Pound's Jeffersonian pretensions, she reminds us of how deeply the crime of slavery affects not just the nation's founding philosophies but their later uses; and by tying the Jefferson-Pound-Spencer lineage to gamer culture, she reminds us how contemporary—how online—these problems are. Unite the Right happened through the internet. So did Trump's electoral victories. He's handed the reins of government, it seems, to alt-right activists who agitate on social media; he's letting Elon Musk, a tech billionaire who promotes far-right parties around the world and celebrated Trump's inauguration with a Nazi salute, dismantle the civil service. Charlottesville tells us how the country got here: by kowtowing to guns, by refusing to accept responsibility for racism close to home, by too many people ignoring what they don't want to see and not taking seriously what they don't want to hear. All those decisions—even, or especially, the ones that don't feel like decisions at all—create room for fascism to flourish, just as Charlottesville's white supremacists took the town's foot-dragging on removing the Lee statue as an opening to wave guns and Confederate flags in public parks.
At the very end of the book, Baker challenges readers to attend closely not only to the hateful currents she investigates in chilling detail, but to the activists who resisted them in Charlottesville and continue to do so to this day. She is clear that these activists are responding to a deeply entrenched hate that preceded them and is more powerful than them—so powerful that its representatives are now in Congress and the White House. Yet these grassroots movements, she thinks, are our only hope. She writes that we must listen to them. 'We must regard them not as radicals … but as ordinary Americans standing up and fighting in a myriad of ways for what is right.' At this point, we've all got to do the same.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

37 minutes ago

• The Hill

Greene: ‘Let's pray that we are not attacked by terrorists'

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called for prayers after President Trump announced strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites late Saturday, adding that she hopes the U.S. is not 'attacked by terrorists.' 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East,' she wrote on social media platform X after Trump's announcement. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in,' she added. 'Let us pray for peace.' Her statement comes after the U.S. targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain in Iran. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. Greene has been a notable critic of U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel, saying that she backed Trump because he would not involve the nation in foreign conflicts. 'Everyone is finding out who are real America First/MAGA and who were fake and just said it (because) it was popular,' Greene wrote in a 355-word post on the social platform X last week. 'Unfortunately the list of fakes are becoming quite long and exposed themselves quickly.' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) quickly shot down Greene's criticism, instead saying that she 'doesn't understand' the nuclear threat that Iran poses. 'If you don't understand that Iran, a religious theocracy, religious Nazis would use a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, you don't listen to what they say,' Graham said. 'They're a threat to us. They're a threat to the State of Israel. It is not in the world's interest to give this religious fanatic a nuclear weapon.' Greene isn't alone in her stance, as the issue is generating a significant split in MAGA-world. Still, many Republicans praised the strikes on Iran, which had become a hot-button debate in Washington, especially among the GOP. They came after Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack.

USA Today

5 hours ago

• USA Today

Are Latin American travelers still coming to the US for vacations?

Even though Karen Aguayo lives in central Mexico – a short flight away from the United States – she has yet to visit, and has no plans to. The 35-year-old Mexican national was hoping to make her first trip to the U.S. this year to visit her uncle, and even has a visa to visit the country. However, given the political climate, it feels like too much of a gamble for her safety. She went to Italy instead. Under President Donald Trump's flurry of executive orders signed in January, the goal was to "strengthen national security," including cracking down on immigration, increasing scrutiny at our borders, and imposing a travel ban on numerous countries. Earlier this year, the president also ignited a trade war between the U.S. and China, Mexico, Europe and Canada when he announced a skyrocket in tariffs – a move that upset nationals. 'Don't know how we should behave': Is the US South LGBTQ friendly? Aguayo said she's worried about being denied entry at the airport, along with how she may be treated while in the U.S., such as possible anti-Mexican sentiment. "It's not only me, I believe that many people think the same. They'd rather feel welcome in other countries," said Aguayo, who posts videos about travel in Mexico on her YouTube channel La Karencita. "Now I'm in Europe because I feel that people are more open to make you feel welcome and safe; nothing happens here." Since Trump's inauguration it feels like conflict and policies within the U.S. have been constantly changing, Aguayo said. "Maybe this is not the time to go." A recent example that deters her from visiting is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that swept through the greater Los Angeles area in response to Trump's vow of 1 million annual deportations of undocumented immigrants. Subsequent days-long protests against ICE escalated into violence between law enforcement and demonstrators, resulting in the president deploying the U.S. National Guard. While some Latin Americans are moving forward with their trips to the U.S., others are holding back due to safety concerns, a potentially hostile atmosphere or disagreement over the volatile political landscape under the Trump administration. A slowdown from this group of travelers could have a lasting impact on the U.S. economy. The U.S. has long been a popular destination for Latin Americans, with Mexico standing out as the second-largest demographic of visitor arrivals after Canada and contributing to an estimated $21 billion toward the American economy in 2018, according to the U.S. Travel Association. These travelers pausing their U.S. visits aren't swearing off the U.S. forever, but their hesitation shows the country's current political actions aren't going unnoticed. Latin American travelers conflicted over US travel Although some Latin American travelers are reconsidering visiting the U.S., many continue with their travel plans, especially Mexican nationals. Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) data between March 2024 and 2025 for Mexican arrivals to the U.S. showed a growth of 14.9% – comprising 26.7% of international visitors to the country, just slightly under Canadians. According to Expedia, many of the top U.S. destinations are still popular with Mexican travelers. For travel between May and June 30, lodging searches by Mexican nationals focused on cities like New York, Las Vegas, San Diego, Anaheim and Orlando. Emerging destinations showing increased interest include Charlotte, San Jose, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale and Fort Worth. For the same travel period, airfare to the U.S. from Mexico is averaging below $575, with fluctuations depending on the arrival state. In some parts of Latin America, travel to the U.S. is on the decline. Although data from the National Travel and Tourism Office's International Visitor Arrivals Program (ADIS) shows U.S. travel demand for 2025 remains strong in countries like Brazil and Argentina, overall visitor numbers from South and Central America have dropped. From this past March to last, South American arrivals decreased by around 6% and over 35% for the Central Americans. 'We are seeing varying trends in demand for US travel across Latin America," the online booking platform Skyscanner said in a statement. "What we do know is that since the pandemic travelers are more engaged with travel warnings and advisories and these will likely influence demand." 'Everything is changing so fast' Alan Estrada, a 44-year-old Mexican travel content creator who shares his journeys under Alan Around the World, frequently travels to the U.S. for work. He recently attended the opening of the new theme park Epic Universe in Orlando and was also in Washington, D.C., earlier this month for the World Pride Music Festival. In July, the Mexico City-based traveler will visit New York for an event with one of his sponsors. Most of Estrada's U.S. visits are for work reasons, and he said he doesn't have any upcoming leisure trips planned. This is not only due to tensions like the ICE riots, but also the potential for other U.S. issues to escalate, like involvement in the war between Israel and Iran. "I'm not saying I won't do it," he said about going to the U.S. for pleasure. It's just that now is not the right time, he said. Although he's never had any issues with immigration, border control or hostility from Americans, the U.S. political landscape is on Estrada's radar. "Everything is changing so fast and can escalate from one day to another really, really quickly," said Estrada. "So, we have to be informed and aware all the time." About half of Estrada's audience is Mexican and most others live throughout Latin America. Lately, he's noticed a majority of comments on his social media channels and website – where people can call or email for travel advice – are about visiting the U.S. "There are some people in the comments saying like, 'is it safe to go to the U.S.' or 'please don't go to the U.S.,' depending on the political views of my followers," he said. "I can feel the people kind of worry a little bit about what's happening right now." Estrada believes the rise in concern comes from a mix of being more "cautious," disagreeing with American politics, and not finding the high price of travel to the U.S. to be worth it. As many situations remain unresolved, these travelers' decision to visit the U.S. is in the air. "The thing that I would need to see is not seeing people protesting because I think that's one sign that everything is getting uncomfortable, and not seeing the president talking about immigrants, about changing the rules," Aguayo, of La Karencita, said. Although Aguayo has never been to the U.S., it's not a priority for her either. In the meantime, she's content traveling the rest of the world.

Boston Globe

7 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Trump makes treason great again, one Army base at a time

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But to circumvent Congress's mandate that military facilities no longer evoke Confederate officers who fought against the United States in defense of slavery and the rupture of the Union, the name change came with a twist: The Pentagon now claims Fort Bragg honors a little-known World War II private named Advertisement On June 11, the Army announced it would Advertisement But during his appearance at Fort Bragg, Trump didn't trouble to keep up the pretense. 'For a little breaking news,' he said, 'we are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill, and Fort Robert E. Lee. We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It's no time to change.' Though the Pentagon may have a new namesake for Fort Lee, Trump's loyalty clearly lies with the original Confederate leader. His rhetoric may As a kid in grade school, I was taught that while Lee fought on the wrong side during the Civil War, he was a good and gallant American who personally detested slavery and backed the Confederacy only out of loyalty to his home state. For decades, that was the received wisdom. Even some US presidents echoed it. Advertisement This is a fable — ' As the Lee legend was first being manufactured in the decades following the Civil War, abolitionists and civil rights advocates did their best to debunk it. Frederick Douglass, the foremost Black leader of his age, The historian John Reeves debunked much of this mythology in a 2018 book, ' Lee insisted after the Civil War that 'the best men of the South' — a group in which he obviously included himself — had always 'been anxious to do away with this institution' of slavery. In reality, as Reeves documented, the 'best men of the South' — or at least the South's most prominent politicians — engineered secession for the explicit purpose of upholding slavery. Every state that joined the Confederacy, including Lee's Virginia, Advertisement Lee embraced that attitude. For decades he had been an enslaver. At the start of the war, he held approximately 200 individuals as property and was known for breaking up enslaved families and brutally punishing recaptured runaways. True, he once opined, in '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,' he wrote. 'The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.' Slavery, he added, was '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. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.' In short, while Lee considered slavery undesirable in the long run, he regarded it as 'necessary' for Black people's welfare. And he firmly believed its demise should be left patiently in God's hands, not hastened by abolitionists and their 'fiery Controversy.' Advertisement No less ludicrous than the myth that Lee hated slavery is the insistence that he should not be faulted for having sided with Virginia and the Confederacy instead of fighting for the Union. But Lee understood the moral wrong he was committing by breaching his oath of loyalty to the United States. 'Secession is nothing but revolution,' he wrote in Lee spent the better part of four years 'levying war against' the United States and 'adhering to their enemies.' That made him an American traitor, not an American hero. To have named a US Army base after him was an appalling blunder, one that Congress belatedly corrected. By pledging to undo that correction and to reattach names like 'Fort Robert E. Lee' to American military installations, Trump isn't upholding history. He is defiling it. Lee and other Confederate leaders waged war on their country to keep fellow human beings in chains. No patriot can make America great again by honoring such men. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at