Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas 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.
Well, looks like he changed his mind, tho it seems he disarded several of his own reasons why the Union should be preserved.
No. He didn't change his mind. As Tim has so ably pointed out, his primary loyalty was to Virginia. Once hostilities commenced, and he went with Virginia, he felt he was honor-bound to commit himself to what Virginia had committed herself.
I agree that his personal agony must have been beyond comprehension. He believed in the Union and was not fond of slavery as a national object. Yet, he was unable to rent a condo in Miami and get out of the way of forces over which he had no control. In that, I see the concept of aristocratic honor and duty -- admirable, but ultimately misplaced.
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
Freeman's account is pretty much in keeping with everything I know about Lee, although, I had never heard of Lee calling secession, "treason". I remain skeptical. The main reason being that Lee was a man of high integrity and in his own words he would not knowingly do a wrong thing (I am unwilling to do what is wrong, either at the bidding of the South or the North.)
As much as Lee loved Virginia I believe he placed two things above her. That would be his family and his honor. I can't reconcile myself to the fact that Lee would take part in what, in his mind, was treason.
Freeman cites as a source an article written in 1884 by Anderson. This was 23 years after the conversation. So while I don't discount it entirely, I do remain a skeptic. I don't think it is in keeping with Lee's character at all.
Regarding Freeman's opinion that Lee never believed in secession as a right of the states, where did he get this opinion? Lee never said that. I remain open to the fact this may be true, but it is not what was taught at West Point and I know of no other source but Freeman's opinion.
Between December of 1860 and April of 1861, Robert E. Lee repeatedly expressed his opposition to secession. He used words like revolution, anarchy, and treason to refer to it. He said that he did not believe the right of secession existed, nor did he believe it was ever intended to exist by the Founding Fathers. He did this in private conversations, in meetings with government officials, in private letters. Freeman, his great biographer, was intimately familiar with all of this and much more. That is where Freeman developed his opinion.
There really is no doubt of this. From a letter of Lee to his son:
Fort Mason, San Antonio P.O.
29 Jany 1861My dear Son ... [Note: this omitted part deals with family and financial matters] ...
The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the
aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father
R.E. Lee
That Lee found himself on the horns of a dilemma is undoubted. In the end, he saw his duty and loyalty as being to Virginia first and always -- just as he had steadfastly told everyone he met from the days when he was leaving to the time when he resigned in April. He also knew that his family, along with Virginia, sat squarely in the path of war as it loomed closer, and the destruction his family would see was much on his mind in March and April when he met with Scott and Blair
We can see the anguish and the pain of his decision. But we must also see that Lee believed very strongly in those terrible days of the Winter of Secession that no such right of secession for the states existed
We can see the anguish and the pain of his decision. But we must also see that Lee believed very strongly in those terrible days of the Winter of Secession that no such right of secession for the states existed.
Thank you for posting that. Everyone is familiar with the rather famous quote, "If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none." But, in reading what leads up to the quote does, indeed, indicate that Lee believed there was no right to secession. He said secession was nothing more than revolution and he pointed out how the Virginia statesmen accused New England of treason and wondered how they could view the secession of the Southern states any differently.
I doubt anyone can fully appreciate how difficult that time was for him. He loved the Union. His father was a revolutionary hero, after all. But he was raised to believe his first loyalty was to Virginia and in all of the chaos he had to make decisions that preserved his personal honor which was more important to him than the Union or Virginia.
While I have the highest regard for Lee, his opinion is just one of many and as I've pointed out, I don't share that opinion.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Thank you for posting that. Everyone is familiar with the rather famous quote, "If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none." But, in reading what leads up to the quote does, indeed, indicate that Lee believed there was no right to secession. He said secession was nothing more than revolution and he pointed out how the Virginia statesmen accused New England of treason and wondered how they could view the secession of the Southern states any differently.
I doubt anyone can fully appreciate how difficult that time was for him. He loved the Union. His father was a revolutionary hero, after all. But he was raised to believe his first loyalty was to Virginia and in all of the chaos he had to make decisions that preserved his personal honor which was more important to him than the Union or Virginia.
While I have the highest regard for Lee, his opinion is just one of many and as I've pointed out, I don't share that opinion.
Rose, no one asks that you share his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about things in the world.
However, there is a huge difference between having an opinion and acting upon it. The secessionists are perfectly welcome to have an opinion about whether or not the "right of secession" existed. They do not have the jurisdiction to decide if it does exist as a legal right. Only the Supreme Court has that.
That is where the secessionists went wrong. They tried to force their belief on others. They seized property, they raised troops and threatened others with them, they used force to obtain their goals and finally -- when others started to resent and oppose this behavior -- they assaulted them.
My personal view is that they stood an excellent chance of being allowed to depart in peace if they had proceded within the Constitution, peacefully and legally. But they chose not to do that. They started a war. In doing so, they put their opinion first and denied the right of others to have a say in a decision that affected all of the United States. As Lee said, that is just revolution.
Thank you, cedarstripper. I was hoping someone had a better idea of where that was (I was on page 17 of one thread in search of that.) Rose, do you copy?
Ole
Yes, I found the thread and read it. There is much conflicting information. From the excellent article posted by Neil, I got the impression that regardless of the year(s) the book was in use at West Point, the principals in it were discussed and accepted by many of the students.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Forgive me, dear lady, but if that is the impression you got from my post, then I failed utterly to convey its full intent.
There is more than a good chance that students at West Point NEVER even read the chapter in Rawle's textbook that concerned secession before that book was discontinued and Kent's commentaries became the new textbook.
While I am sure secession was debated amongst the Corps of Cadets during the period before the Civil War for many years, I doubt very much that it was driven by reading Rawle's views on secession.
Sincerely,
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
Neil, these three excerpts from the article you posted is what I based my opinion on. A lot of the article seems to be based on conjucture and Col. Dudley's opinions regarding the evidence.
"The records mention no text-book; it was undoubtedly selected by the professor on his own motion, and it became a question as to which of two works. Sergeant's, published in 1822, or Rawle's, published in 1825 may have been used, copies of each being found in the academy library.”
“No authority is to be found in the academic records for the use of either of these works or any reference to either of them; but in the journal of S. P. Heintzelman, United States Army, kept while a cadet at the military academy, which is now in the academy library, reference is found to recitation and examination in "Rawle on the Constitution." Gen. Heintzelman was graduated in the class of 1826, with Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, and it affords evidence , therefore, that Albert Sidney Johnston received instruction in this textbook.”
“It is undoubtedly true that the question of the right of a State to secede was under discussion by cadets and that Rawle's work was often referred to in these discussions and its views quoted in support of the right of secession. It is because of this fact that it is probable that the memories of these graduates are at fault in thinking and believing it to have been used as an authorized text-book. Their recollection and the records, however, are in conflict on this point.”
Another reason for my opinion is that simply because no record could be found, Col. Dudley is calling the former cadet's memory, "faulty". Is it not also probable that no record was found because the record "simply couldn't be found"? This investigation was done decades after the time in question.
It seems more likely to me, at least, that the cadets were so familiar with Rawle's work because it was required reading.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
It seems more likely to me, at least, that the cadets were so familiar with Rawle's work because it was required reading.
A few graduates recalled the work. As to its being required reading, I think Neil's citation made it quite clear that the class was not necessarily taught every year during the book's short existence in the library.
That the chapter on the constitutionally of secession was the subject of any classes using the book as required reading is highly doubtful. If the entire book was covered in any year it was used, then Rawle's conclusions on the trajedy of secession, along with its legality, was also covered.
Secession was likely, given the hoohaw about nullification, discussed among the students during their informal gatherings; I doubt very much that the book was used in most of those discussions as supporting either side.
It remains that the legality of secession, as Rawles expressed it, was not taught at West Point in any way even approaching having an influence on its graduates.
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
It seems more likely to me, at least, that the cadets were so familiar with Rawle's work because it was required reading.
Rose,
Which cadets would those be? The only significance of Rawle's book is that it provided an endorsement of a right of secession by the US (via the academy) for many of the confederacy's leaders, including Davis and Lee, yet they came through West Point in later years. Is it your opinion that cadets later than the 1825-26 term were still instructed with Rawle's book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash"
Rawle on Secession, #14, "Under Chaplain McIlvaine, who was a man of wide reading and varied interests, the curriculum was changed from year to year. During the term of 1825-26, a course on American constitutional law was given. The textbook was Rawle's <u>On the Constitution,</u> in which the right of secession by the states was plainly and repeatedly set forth, though the exercise of that right, in other than extreme cases, was reprobated." Douglas Freeman, Robert E Lee, A Biography
According to the above, we can't even be sure how regularly cadets were instructed in constitutional law from term to term, let alone whose texts were relied on or the prevailing opinion.
Secession was likely, given the hoohaw about nullification, discussed among the students during their informal gatherings; I doubt very much that the book was used in most of those discussions as supporting either side.
Ole, you doubt Dudley's investigation? He said: “It is undoubtedly true that the question of the right of a State to secede was under discussion by cadets and that Rawle's work was often referred to in these discussions and its views quoted in support of the right of secession.
He went on to say that is why he believed the former cadets memory was flawed in thinking it was a textbook. Personally, I have to wonder how he knew about the cadet's informal gatherings and what they discussed including what they used for references.
At any rate, it was a popular work and it seems the cadets did use the book either formally or informally.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
