CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - Secession and Politics

Civil War History - Secession and Politics Was it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-08-2006, 06:52 PM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I am puzzled as to why you insist on a single letter to show the entire feelings of Robert E. Lee on the abstract theory of secession?

Lee's words and deeds showed that he felt secession to be the lessor of two evils -- so when forced to choose -- he chose the lessor one -- to fight for right of secession.
As noted, I do not. In early 1861, he spoke to several people and consistently said the same thing: he would do what Virginia would do. If Virginia stayed in the Union, Lee would stay in and fight for her. If she left, he would go with Virginia and fight for her.

He was also quite clear that he felt secession was nothing but treason. He was simply of the belief that his loyalty to the US was over-ridden by his loyalty to Virginia. As he said to Charles Anderson, that was simply the way he was.

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-09-2006, 09:26 AM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I am puzzled as to why you insist on a single letter to show the entire feelings of Robert E. Lee on the abstract theory of secession?

Lee's words and deeds showed that he felt secession to be the lessor of two evils -- so when forced to choose -- he chose the lessor one -- to fight for right of secession.
To begin with, as I have shown you, it is not just one letter. It is a continuous position of Robert E. Lee that secession is nothing but revolution, treason, and that no such "right of secession" exists. There is more than one letter where he says it, and there are several private conversations recorded in which he stated it.

Now you have consistently shown you do not wish to acknowledge all of what he said and would like to make it disappear. When you quoted from his letter, you distorted and hid his meaning by omitting what you did not like and replacing those parts with "..." You continue to try to make believe he felt something else than what he said so consistently. That is falsification, and requires that your deliberate act be met with the truth.

However, Lee repeatedly expressed the same sentiment about what he would do to *many* people. He had no doubt that secession was revolution and treason to the United States -- that is why he said that. However, he regarded himself as a Virginian first and an American second. He would do whatever Virginia would do. To him, the lessor of two evils was to break his allegiance to the United States. Faced with this crisis, that is how he chose.

There is not the slightest doubt about this. From December through April, people asked him and he always responded in the same way. Scott sent Anderson to talk to him in Texas, and he spoke with him and Dr. Edwards in December. He was asked as he left his command in Texas by an officer, and on the journey by Captain Cosby, and again when he arrived in San Antonio. While he was there, the Texas Commissioners tried to pressure him into declaring for the Confederacy and were met with Lee's wrath. He spoke with his good friend Charles Anderson before he left and expressed his guiding principle in no uncertain terms (see my earlier quote of the conversation). He arrived in Washington, was offered a command, and refused it in the same terms: he would go with Virginia, whichever way Virginia went.

This is all well known, commonplace stuff. It has been for ages. Your continued denial of it simply flies in the face of Lee himself and all his biographers.

That said, you also miss a point I mentioned to you earlier. Lee, in common with many other Americans in early 1861, felt that there was no "right of secession" under the Constitution -- and also that the rest of the states had no right to compel the other states to remain by force if they wanted to go. This is often cited as the largest attitude in the non-seceding states at that time, so it is not too surprising to see Lee hold it; Winfield Scott felt much the same way. This is, in effect, the attitude that caused VA, TN, NC, and AR to finally move for secession amid the hysteria of war in the Spring of 1861. While Lee agreed with Lincoln on what secession was, this is where he disagreed with Lincoln on the issue.

Lee's belief on this is also clear, and it is known that he modified the text of one author's 1866 work on exactly this point when he read it for approval before publication.

Like many, Lee was forced to choose a course he did not like, to say "Yes" or "No" when he wanted to say "Neither". But he always knew that he would follow Virginia, no matter what. He knew it long before he left Texas. That is what decided him.

If that is still not clear to you, read again the words of Robert E. Lee to his friend Charles Anderson, spoken after the Texas Commisioners tried to force him to declare for the Confederacy in February of 1861: "I think it but due to myself to say that I cannot be moved by the conduct of those people from my sense of duty. I still think, as I then told you and Doctor Edwards, that my loyalty to Virginia ought to take precedence over that which is due the Federal Government. And I shall so report myself at Washington. If any stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life. I know you think and feel very differently, but I can't help it. These are my principles, and I must follow them."

No quibbling from Lee. He never believed in the "right of secession". He simply believed that he owed his loyalty to Virginia, and so he would follow her. Why is it that you cannot simply accept what he repeatedly said?

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:38 AM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice

On the question of secession, Lee believed secession was revolution and treason. Lincoln believed the same. You have been shown this in Lee's own words. Again, since Lee believed it and declared it, why do you doubt his word and honor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I don't doubt his word or his honor. I think his word and his honor shows his feeling towards secession -- it was the lessor of two evils.
Lee's attitude towards any "right of secession" was expressed clearly time after time. You know it and simply wish to avoid saying you know you are wrong.

As to why he chose to go with the South, that is also well known:

Largely taken from William Southall Freeman's work on Lee:
-----
Letter to his son Custis, December 14, 1860:
"It is, however, my only hope for the preservation of the Union, and I will cling to it to the last. Feeling the aggressions of the North, resenting their denial of the equal rights of our citizens to the common territory of the commonwealth, etc., I am not pleased with the course of the 'Cotton States,' as they term themselves. In addition to their selfish, dictatorial bearing, the threats they throw out against the 'Border States,' as they call them, if they will not join them, argue [sic] little for the benefit While I wish to do what is right, I am unwilling to do what is wrong, either at the bidding of the South or the North. One of their plans seems to be the renewal of the slave trade. That I am opposed to on every ground. . . .
[Note: similar to, but not the same, as the letter you were quoting from and which I posted the full text of a number of messages back, written January 23rd, 1861]
-----
[Note: Winfield Scott had sent Anderson to Texas with a pamphlet showing scott's views, asking him to share it with Twiggs, Lee, and such other officers as Anderson saw fit, and to report their impressions. This is after Lee has read the pamphlet, and after Twiggs in San Antonio had. About mid-December, before Lee left San Antonio for Ft. Mason on the 19th.]

He accordingly sent for Anderson, who called in company with Doctor Willis G. Edwards. Lee returned him the pamphlet. "My friend," said he, "I must make one request of you, and that is, that you will not suffer these Views to get into the newspapers." Anderson promised, though he did not understand why Lee was so solicitous on this point. The conversation then shifted, inevitably, to the crisis. Anderson spoke out vigorously. Lee remarked, "Somebody surely is grievously at fault, probably both factions." Anderson, strongly Federalist in his views, answered that he had previously thought both sides were to blame, but that he had concluded there was a definite conspiracy against the Union, by men who were only alleging abolition as an excuse. Lee made no answer. Then Doctor Edwards raised the question whether a man's allegiance was due his state or the nation. Lee's courteous reticence vanished. Instantly he spoke out, and unequivocally. He had been taught to believe, he said, and he did believe that his first obligations were due Virginia.
-----

Lee to Markie Williams, Jan. 22 1861: "... I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour. If a disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now. I wish for no other flag than the 'Star spangled banner' and no other air than 'Hail Columbia.' I still hope that the wisdom and patriotism of the nation will yet save it. "
-----
Freeman's opinion from the book:

On the convictions expressed in his talk with Anderson, and on those set forth in these letters, which were written nearly three months before he resigned from the army, the whole of Lee's subsequent course was based. He refused to despair until the very last hour, but he believed that the country stood between anarchy, through the dissolution of the Union, and war, through secession. Like Buchanan, he regarded secession as nothing but revolution. Prior to the war, he never believed in secession as a right. In January, 1861, it was not justified in his opinion, even as revolution, but if it came, he would not serve a Union that had to be maintained by force.

The plain inference from the concluding sentence of the second letter quoted above is that if secession destroyed the Union, Lee p423 intended to resign from the army and to fight neither for the South nor for the North, unless he had to act one way or the other in defense of Virginia. In this, he showed that he was no constitutional lawyer. Apparently he did not stop to reason that Virginia could not be neutral in a war between the states, but must either fight with the North against the South or with the South against the North. Perhaps his optimism and his devotion to the Union led him to close his mind to this hard logic of action. But Mrs. Lee correctly stated his position when she said, "From the first commencement of our troubles he had decided that in the event of Virginia's secession, duty . . . would compel him to follow." In the light of his own words and hers, it is hard to understand why it has been so widely believed that he waited until the secession of Virginia to determine what he would do.There is not the slightest doubt that before he left Texas he had decided, without any mental struggle, or thought of personal gain or loss, to stand with Virginia, though he hoped with all his heart that the Union would be preserved.
-----
Lee starting on his way back to Washington, February 13, 1860:


As the vehicle was about to start, one of Lee's young officers asked: "Colonel, do you intend to go South or remain North? I am very anxious to know what you propose doing."
"I shall never bear arms against the Union," Lee answered simply, "but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."
-----
Lee on the road to San Antonio, lunching with Captain Cosby of his command, is asked about what will happen. Captain Cosby:

"He further said that he had confidence that Virginia would not act on impulse, but would act as she had in the past, and would exhaust every means consistent with honor to avert civil war. That, if she failed and determined to secede, he would offer her his services. That he had ever been taught that his first allegiance was due his mother State; that he fervently hoped that some agreement would be reached to avert such a terrible war; and there was no personal sacrifice he would not make to save his beloved country from such a dreadful calamity; but under no circumstance could he ever bare his sword against Virginia's sons. As he spoke his emotion brought tears to his eyes, and he turned away to avoid showing this emotion which was greater than he afterwards showed when he lost or won some great battle."
-----
Lee about February 16-18, after arriving in San Antonio and finding the Texans had seized the post and caused Twiggs to surrender (from Freeman):

Either then or a day or two later, while he was trying to make arrangements to travel to the coast, the Texas commissioners bluntly told Lee that if he would forthwith resign his commission and join the Confederacy, he should have every facility, but that if he refused he would not be allowed transportation for his effects. Holding that his allegiance was to Virginia and to the Union, not to any revolutionary government in Texas, Lee was indignant at such a proposal.
-----
Lee as he prepared to leave anyway, entrusting his property to Charles Anderson (from Freeman):

On their way thither, or as they prepared to separate, Lee thought he should make his position still plainer to the man who was helping him. He asked if Anderson remembered their conversation in the presence of Doctor Edwards some time previously? Anderson recalled it distinctly. Lee then said: "I think it but due to myself to say that I cannot be moved by the conduct of those people from my sense of duty. I still think, as I then told you and Doctor Edwards, that my loyalty to Virginia ought to take precedence over that which is due the Federal Government. And I shall so report myself at Washington. If any stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes (though I p429do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life. I know you think and feel very differently, but I can't help it. These are my principles, and I must follow them."
-----
Freeman on what might have happened had Lee still held the command in Texas instead of Twiggs:
In sad reflection on the political tragedy he was witnessing, Lee slept little that first night in San Antonio, and it must have been with some difficulty that he met curious inquiries with the statement that he was neutral in the controversy between Texas and the Union. By discretion and silence he avoided a commitment that might have had a momentous effect on his own career and on the whole course of the war. For what might not have happened if he had been in command of the department instead of Twiggs when the Texans demanded surrender? His own state had not seceded; he would have had no hesitancy in obeying the orders of the War Department; he certainly would have refused to surrender government property. Would he then have clashed with the Texans? Would he have been the first to face secession fire? The experience of Colonel Waite indicates that it might have been so. Waite was soon at odds with the Texans. They refused him transportation, and, on April 23, arrested him and several of his officers as prisoners of war, though they promptly paroled them.

[Note: I have seen other works that say many of the officers in Texas at the time speculated on this, on what would have happened if Lee -- not the 70-year-old Twiggs, a strong state's rights man, who arrived intending to return to New Orleans -- had been in command. Some of the younger officers believed Lee would have cut his way through the Texans and marched for Kansas.]
-----
Travelling homeward through a country in an uproar, Lee arrived in Alexandria on March 1 and went to Arlington.

Lee then visited Scott. The two spoke behind closed doors for three hours, and neither ever reported the conversation to anyone else. This was apparently early March.
-----
From Freeman:
All the while Scott probably was quietly at work, seeing if he might not hold Lee to the Union. Keyes thought that Scott did not expect Lee to fight against the South, but that the General believed it possible to put Lee at the head of an army so powerful that war could be prevented. General Twiggs was dismissed from the army on March 1 for his surrender of Texas. Colonel E. V. Sumner of the 1st Cavalry was named brigadier general to succeed him on March 16. Lee was at once made colonel and was given Sumner's regiment. This commission, which was signed by Abraham Lincoln, Lee did not hesitate to accept when, on March 28, it was forwarded to him.
[Note: at this time, Lee received an offer of a generalship in the Confederate Army from Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker. All evidence is that he ignored it, or at least that no one ever could find a reply. Freeman's opinion: "He owned allegiance to only two governments, that of Virginia and that of the Union, and there could be no thought of a third so long as these two did not conflict and Virginia did not throw in her destiny with the Confederate States. "
-----
More from Freeman: "... On April 4 a test vote in the Virginia convention showed a majority of two-to-one against secession. ... But during those days of suspense, Lee was confirmed in his point of view. He had been determined from the outset that he would adhere to Virginia and defend her from any foe. Now, fully, he realized that though he considered secession neither more nor less than revolution, he could not bring himself to fight against the states that regarded secession as p435 a right. He could not think of himself as fighting with the South against the Union, unless Virginia's defense were involved, but neither, as the possibility seemed to be brought nearer, could he reconcile himself to fighting with the Union against the South. ..."
-----
Then we come to the Confederate attack on Ft. Sumter, surrendered on the 14th. Lincoln calls for militia on the 15th. The nation is in an uproar, wild rumors abound. Virginia's secession convention goes into secret session, which is all Lee knows. On the 17th, Lee is called to meet with Blair and Scott in Washington. Blair offers him the command of a large field army. Lee: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."

[Note: Gee, Ft. Sumter is attacked and Lincoln has called for troops. Lee still says he is opposed to secession. Can you finally admit he meant what he said now?]

-----
Lee then goes to see Scott. He tells him what transpired with Blair. Scot says: "Lee, you have made the greatest mistake of your life; but I feared it would be so." Scott says: "There are times when every officer in the United States service should fully determine what course he will pursue and frankly declare it. No one should continue in government employ without being actively employed." Scott says: "I suppose you will go with the rest. If you purpose to resign, it is proper that you should do so at once; your present attitude is equivocal."
-----
Lee then meets with his brother Smith. They talk of what to do, but neither seems to wish to take a final step just then. Lee rides back to Arlington.

Amid the rumors, Lee rides into town on the morning of the 19th and sees the news: Virginia has seceded! Lee's only recorded observation, to a druggist as he paid a bill: "I must say that I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession."

No choice now. Lee has said he will follow Virginia, and Virginia has seceded:

Arlington, Virginia (Washington City P.O.)
20 April 1861.
Hon. Simon Cameron
Secty of War
Sir:
I have the honor to tender the resignation of my commission as Colonel of the 1st Regt. of Cavalry. Very resp'y Your Obedient Servant.
R. E. Lee
Col 1st Cav'y.
-----
Lee never believed in any "right of secession". He always thought it was simply revolution. But he saw his allegiance as belonging to Virginia, and so with Virginia he went.

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-10-2006, 11:45 AM
hawglips's Avatar
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
He was also quite clear that he felt secession was nothing but treason.
I see now it is even quite clear that Lee felt secession was nothing but "treason."

I thought it was "nothing but revolution" and that revolution was what he was hoping the seceding states would resort to only as a last resort?

Now, it has deteriorated to being "quite clear" the he felt secession was "nothing but treason?"

I guess Lee must have felt that treason was the honorable thing to do.

Hal
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-10-2006, 07:20 PM
unionblue's Avatar
Captain (5000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 5,802
Default

Hal,

Or it may be Lee thought it was the only option open to him, given his loyalty to his State. Trapped by loyalty.

What's that line by Shakesphere? 'None dare call it treason...'

Unionblue
__________________
"The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass

"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-11-2006, 09:18 AM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I see now it is even quite clear that Lee felt secession was nothing but "treason."
I thought it was "nothing but revolution" and that revolution was what he was hoping the seceding states would resort to only as a last resort?
Now, it has deteriorated to being "quite clear" the he felt secession was "nothing but treason?"
I guess Lee must have felt that treason was the honorable thing to do.
Come on, now, Hal. Stop being evasive and trying to act as if your grumbling about the facts proves something you cannot say openly.

Lee did indeed say secession was nothing but revolution, that no right of secession existed or was intended to exist, and noted that Virginia statemen had called secession treason in 1808, and so it would be no different now. You already know this. You already have been shown his words. You can find them, if they have somehow slipped your mind, by simply scrolling backwards through the messages of this discussion.

What Lee felt -- as he himself stated -- was that his *first* duty lay with Virginia. As he repeatedly stated, he would do what Virginia would do, no matter what the choice was. By his standards of duty and honor, he felt that his commitment to Virginia required him to follow where she led, even if the course she chose was what he considered revolution and treason. I have told you this many times and pointed it out in his own words through letters and conversations he had with friends in the days before Virginia seceded.

There is no reason for you to say you "guess Lee must have felt" anything. He himself made his decision, and the reason for it, perfectly clear.

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-11-2006, 09:41 AM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 4,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I see now it is even quite clear that Lee felt secession was nothing but "treason."

I thought it was "nothing but revolution" and that revolution was what he was hoping the seceding states would resort to only as a last resort?

Now, it has deteriorated to being "quite clear" the he felt secession was "nothing but treason?"

I guess Lee must have felt that treason was the honorable thing to do.

Hal
Is treason ever honorable? You seem to be implying that it is...
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-11-2006, 12:56 PM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,463
Default

Dear Shane,

Of course treason can be honorable! Patrick Henry, George Washington etc. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence lays out the justification for revolution. The question is, did the South of 1860 have as valid reason for revolution as the colonies of 1776.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-11-2006, 03:31 PM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is offline
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,656
Default

Quote:
The question is, did the South of 1860 have as valid reason for revolution as the colonies of 1776.
Danger, Will Robinson! It would seem that no reason is required, if you want to set up your own state, do it -- and make up the reasons as you go along.

I'm not all that convinced that the colonies had so much right on their side as history would have us believe. However, they did win.
Ole
__________________
I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-11-2006, 06:16 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 4,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
Dear Shane,

Of course treason can be honorable! Patrick Henry, George Washington etc. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence lays out the justification for revolution. The question is, did the South of 1860 have as valid reason for revolution as the colonies of 1776.
IMHO Treason is the basest form of betrayal. However; in fairness treason is merely a matter of dates and winners and losers.

The only real credence I can give the Revolutionaries of 1776 is that they were in a situation where there were two sets of laws: one for the English and one for the Americans and there was certainly a degree of screwing over the colonists going on. Was it a valid /legit reason for a revolution? History has made that decision fo me.

Nothing I have seen shows me this to be true of the South in 1860.
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations