COLONEL RICHARD HENRY LEE ON WHY WE FOUGHT.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,137
Location
Laurinburg NC
#1
confederateveter01conf_0254.jpg



Colonel Richard Henry Lee was the grandson of Light Horse Harry Lee. He resided in Charles Town when he enlisted in the Confederate Army on April 18, 1861 as a Lieutenant. Some 28 years after the war, at the dedication of the Confederate monument at Old Chapel in Clarke County, Virginia he made this comment…
“It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family. As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes.”

Source: “An Illustrated Guide to Virginia’s Confederate Monuments,” by Timothy S. Sedore, page 10.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

fwb35

Private
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
105
#2
The Civil War was fought because Lincoln refused to allow the South to go in peace. Other Republican leaders and certain Northern business interests played key roles in the decision to use force, but ultimately Lincoln was the one who had to make the decision, and he chose to launch an invasion. The fighting and dying started when federal armies invaded the South. That’s why most of the battles were fought in the Southern states. If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war.

The Confederacy did not want war. One of the first things Jefferson Davis did after assuming office as president of the Confederacy was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly ties with the federal government (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 360-362; Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About the Civil War, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, pp. 156-157). The Confederacy offered to pay the South’s share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states (Charles Roland, The Confederacy, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 28; Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 77; William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 87). The Confederacy also announced that Northern ships would continue to enjoy free navigation of the Mississippi River (Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p. 138; Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 210-213). Yet, Lincoln rejected all Confederate peace offers and insisted that federal armies would invade if the Southern states didn’t renounce their independence and recognize federal authority (and Lincoln specified that this included paying the federal tariff).

“Why,” one may ask, “did Confederates sometimes refer to themselves as ‘rebels’?” Actually, many Confederates resented that term (see, for example, Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 282-284). Those Confederates who described themselves as “rebels” did so in sarcastic defiance and only in the sense that they were “rebelling” against being invaded and subjugated. Lincoln, on the other hand, labeled Confederates as “rebels” in order to reinforce his fraudulent claim that the South was trying to destroy democratic government.

It should be pointed out that many Northern citizens opposed the war and believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Dozens of Northern newspapers expressed the view that the Southern states had the right to peacefully leave the Union and that it would be wrong to use force to compel them to stay. Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.

Source, http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm
 

rhettbutler1865

Colonel, CSA Cavalry
Silver Patron
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
2,801
#3
View attachment 63449


Colonel Richard Henry Lee was the grandson of Light Horse Harry Lee. He resided in Charles Town when he enlisted in the Confederate Army on April 18, 1861 as a Lieutenant. Some 28 years after the war, at the dedication of the Confederate monument at Old Chapel in Clarke County, Virginia he made this comment…
“It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family. As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes.”

Source: “An Illustrated Guide to Virginia’s Confederate Monuments,” by Timothy S. Sedore, page 10.
I like your thread...and I always enjoy the comments from the actual people involved in the war. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,137
Location
Laurinburg NC
#4
The Civil War was fought because Lincoln refused to allow the South to go in peace. Other Republican leaders and certain Northern business interests played key roles in the decision to use force, but ultimately Lincoln was the one who had to make the decision, and he chose to launch an invasion. The fighting and dying started when federal armies invaded the South. That’s why most of the battles were fought in the Southern states. If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war.

The Confederacy did not want war. One of the first things Jefferson Davis did after assuming office as president of the Confederacy was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly ties with the federal government (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 360-362; Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About the Civil War, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, pp. 156-157). The Confederacy offered to pay the South’s share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states (Charles Roland, The Confederacy, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 28; Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 77; William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 87). The Confederacy also announced that Northern ships would continue to enjoy free navigation of the Mississippi River (Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p. 138; Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 210-213). Yet, Lincoln rejected all Confederate peace offers and insisted that federal armies would invade if the Southern states didn’t renounce their independence and recognize federal authority (and Lincoln specified that this included paying the federal tariff).

“Why,” one may ask, “did Confederates sometimes refer to themselves as ‘rebels’?” Actually, many Confederates resented that term (see, for example, Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 282-284). Those Confederates who described themselves as “rebels” did so in sarcastic defiance and only in the sense that they were “rebelling” against being invaded and subjugated. Lincoln, on the other hand, labeled Confederates as “rebels” in order to reinforce his fraudulent claim that the South was trying to destroy democratic government.

It should be pointed out that many Northern citizens opposed the war and believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Dozens of Northern newspapers expressed the view that the Southern states had the right to peacefully leave the Union and that it would be wrong to use force to compel them to stay. Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.

Source, http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm
Thanks for sharing a great source.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,348
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
#5
The Civil War was fought because Lincoln refused to allow the South to go in peace. Other Republican leaders and certain Northern business interests played key roles in the decision to use force, but ultimately Lincoln was the one who had to make the decision, and he chose to launch an invasion. The fighting and dying started when federal armies invaded the South. That’s why most of the battles were fought in the Southern states. If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war.

The Confederacy did not want war. One of the first things Jefferson Davis did after assuming office as president of the Confederacy was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly ties with the federal government (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 360-362; Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About the Civil War, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, pp. 156-157). The Confederacy offered to pay the South’s share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states (Charles Roland, The Confederacy, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 28; Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 77; William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 87). The Confederacy also announced that Northern ships would continue to enjoy free navigation of the Mississippi River (Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p. 138; Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 210-213). Yet, Lincoln rejected all Confederate peace offers and insisted that federal armies would invade if the Southern states didn’t renounce their independence and recognize federal authority (and Lincoln specified that this included paying the federal tariff).

“Why,” one may ask, “did Confederates sometimes refer to themselves as ‘rebels’?” Actually, many Confederates resented that term (see, for example, Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 282-284). Those Confederates who described themselves as “rebels” did so in sarcastic defiance and only in the sense that they were “rebelling” against being invaded and subjugated. Lincoln, on the other hand, labeled Confederates as “rebels” in order to reinforce his fraudulent claim that the South was trying to destroy democratic government.

It should be pointed out that many Northern citizens opposed the war and believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Dozens of Northern newspapers expressed the view that the Southern states had the right to peacefully leave the Union and that it would be wrong to use force to compel them to stay. Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.

Source, http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm
Almost everything in your post in regards to what the North thought about the South changed once Sumter was fired upon. And as related to Buchanan Lincoln was actually less aggressive as he was only going to land food if the Fox expedition wasn't resisted while Buchanan was going to send food and rienforcements irregardless of its reception.
 

rhettbutler1865

Colonel, CSA Cavalry
Silver Patron
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
2,801
#6
The Civil War was fought because Lincoln refused to allow the South to go in peace. Other Republican leaders and certain Northern business interests played key roles in the decision to use force, but ultimately Lincoln was the one who had to make the decision, and he chose to launch an invasion. The fighting and dying started when federal armies invaded the South. That’s why most of the battles were fought in the Southern states. If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war.

The Confederacy did not want war. One of the first things Jefferson Davis did after assuming office as president of the Confederacy was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly ties with the federal government (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 360-362; Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About the Civil War, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, pp. 156-157). The Confederacy offered to pay the South’s share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states (Charles Roland, The Confederacy, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 28; Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 77; William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 87). The Confederacy also announced that Northern ships would continue to enjoy free navigation of the Mississippi River (Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p. 138; Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 210-213). Yet, Lincoln rejected all Confederate peace offers and insisted that federal armies would invade if the Southern states didn’t renounce their independence and recognize federal authority (and Lincoln specified that this included paying the federal tariff).

“Why,” one may ask, “did Confederates sometimes refer to themselves as ‘rebels’?” Actually, many Confederates resented that term (see, for example, Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 282-284). Those Confederates who described themselves as “rebels” did so in sarcastic defiance and only in the sense that they were “rebelling” against being invaded and subjugated. Lincoln, on the other hand, labeled Confederates as “rebels” in order to reinforce his fraudulent claim that the South was trying to destroy democratic government.

It should be pointed out that many Northern citizens opposed the war and believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Dozens of Northern newspapers expressed the view that the Southern states had the right to peacefully leave the Union and that it would be wrong to use force to compel them to stay. Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.

Source, http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm
fwb,I like that you have references for your reply...however, where you do not, I think you're giving your opinion, not facts. 1) "The Confederacy did not want war; 2)"If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war". These are broad statements open to much debate. (Just 2 examples from your post).I've been reading "Rise, Progress, and Decline of Secession"--by W.G. Brownlow--Applegate & Co, 1862. It's a bit slow-going, as the book is an original, signed by Brownlow, and the pages are very delicate. If you get a chance, you might read this, then ponder again if the Confederacy did, indeed, not want a war.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
769
Location
Virginia
#7
Confederate%20Memorial%20Clarke%20County%20VA_zpsovkg9quf.jpg


Forgive the interruption for a moment. This is the Monument he was dedicating. The names of the locale members of the Stonewall Brigade who died during the war are inscribed on all four sides.

What is weird is I went to school with people with those last names. Grubbs, Copenhaver, Welch and on the other side the names of Ashby, Vorous and many others...I might have known the descendants or at least the relatives of these people. Somewhere there exists a pictures (not a very good one) of the actual dedication mentioned in the first post. If I find it I will post it.

Now please carry on on.
 

fwb35

Private
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
105
#8
fwb,I like that you have references for much of your reply...however, where you do not, I think you're giving your opinion, not facts. 1) "The Confederacy did not want war; 2)"If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war". These are broad statements open to much debate. I've been reading "Rise, Progress, and Decline of Secession"--by W.G. Brownlow--Applegate & Co, 1862. It's a bit slow-going, as the book is an original, signed by Brownlow, and the pages are very delicate. If you get a chance, you might read this, then ponder again if the Confederacy did, indeed, not want a war.
Though I share similar opinions, the one here I posted is from historian Michael T Griffith, a great source, I suggest reading him and the facts he brings to the table.
 

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
14,987
Location
Ohio
#9
Though I share similar opinions, the one here I posted is from historian Michael T Griffith, a great source, I suggest reading him and the facts he brings to the table.
You need only use the search mechanism on this forum. He's a forum member who hasn't posted here in quite some time, largely because his "facts" have been thoroughly refuted. Like this supposed "fact" that you regurgitated above:

Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.
Buchanan said no such thing. Here's what he DID say:

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution."

"...But the distinction must ever be observed that this is revolution against an established government, and not a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look the danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution."

"... Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation."


"...The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution."

- James Buchanan, December 3, 1860

Source: http://millercenter.org/president/buchanan/speeches/speech-3735
Now, you may notice above that Buchanan did say that he believed the federal government had no power to "coerce a state into submission which is attempting to withdraw". But that's not what Mr. Griffith said. He claimed Buchanan said "the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states" period. That's the kind of BS we've all seen here many times. Buchanan made it very, very clear that the so-called "seceded states" had never legally seceded, and that the government had every right to use force against them if they "endangered" the Union by "the bombardment of Fort Sumter" or by creating some other "urgent and dangerous emergency":

"Urgent and dangerous emergencies may have arisen, or may hereafter arise in the history of our country, rendering delay disastrous, such as the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate Government, which would for the moment justify the President in violating the Constitution, by raising a military force without the authority of law, but this only during a recess of Congress. Such extreme cases are a law unto themselves. They must rest upon the principle that it is a lesser evil to usurp, until Congress can be assembled, a power withheld from the Executive, than to suffer the Union to be endangered either by traitors at home or enemies from abroad."

- James Buchanan, 1866

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=TL4TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161
It's also worth noting, something else that Mr. Griffith is wont to ignore, that Lincoln himself said he would make no efforts to "coerce" the seceded states back into the Union as long as they engaged in no further aggressive acts:

'In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."'

- Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp


 
Last edited:

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,080
Location
Long Island, NY
#11
Almost everything in your post in regards to what the North thought about the South changed once Sumter was fired upon. And as related to Buchanan Lincoln was actually less aggressive as he was only going to land food if the Fox expedition wasn't resisted while Buchanan was going to send food and rienforcements irregardless of its reception.
The post is just a long cut and paste from a Michael T. Griffith jeremiad. If you look at the source of it, it is the usual Lost Cause apologia. Note to new folks: It is ok to post brief quotes, but they should be marked so as to indicate that they are someone else's words. Quotations or italics warn us that this is someone else's work. There should also be an attribution.

In the post in question there is a hyperlink at the very end, but nothing to tell us that the entire post is from Mike Griffith.

Here is the source.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernsidecondensed.htm
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
6,918
Location
New Hampshire
#13
You need only use the search mechanism on this forum. He's a forum member who hasn't posted here in quite some time, largely because his "facts" have been thoroughly refuted. Like this supposed "fact" that you regurgitated above:

His repeated efforts at posting Lost Cause nonsense were so easily dismissed he went in search of a less knowledgeable crowd. Repeating his efforts will bring the same results. It is not an attack. It is refutation of known falsehoods.
 

fwb35

Private
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
105
#15
Senator Joseph Lane in a speech to the Senate on March 2, 1861
Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right, this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this Government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases “executing the laws” and “protecting public property” for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession: that is, that this Government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is to inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the designs in smooth and ambiguous terms. (Congressional Globe, Second Session, Thirty-Sixth Congress, p. 1347, in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, pp. 216-217)
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,348
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
#16
Senator Joseph Lane in a speech to the Senate on March 2, 1861
Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right, this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this Government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases “executing the laws” and “protecting public property” for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession: that is, that this Government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is to inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the designs in smooth and ambiguous terms. (Congressional Globe, Second Session, Thirty-Sixth Congress, p. 1347, in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, pp. 216-217)
Hmmmm and yet they were very eager to set up a situation in which war would be inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top