Devotion to the cause?

[archieclement]

I have often wondered as I read of CW commanders in particular who offered or contemplated resignation, should that reflect on their devotion to the cause of Union or Independence?

 

[JOHN42768]

I don't see anyway that could be determined as a general trend of lack of devotion to duty. All cases would have to be considered based on the individuals circumstances. I'm sure some felt that they had done all they could and called it a day. On the other hand ones that stayed the course regardless of outside problems just had more built into their character.

 

[archieclement]

But if one believes in a cause, shouldn't that take precedence over ones rank, duty, or assignment?

 

[Quaama]

My understanding is that an officer could simply resign his commission. There would be no legal impediment for them doing so and enable them to serve elsewhere. The best known case is, of course, R.E. Lee who tendered his resignation to Winfield Scott [link] saying that "Save in the defense of my native State shall I ever again draw my sword." Lee was quite clear on where his loyalty lay, his country, Virginia.

Non-commissioned officers and soldiers did not have this option but many left the Union army to defend their native States as part of the Confederacy.

 

[archieclement]

My understanding is that an officer could simply resign his commission. There would be no legal impediment for them doing so and enable them to serve elsewhere. The best known case is, of course, R.E. Lee who tendered his resignation to Winfield Scott [link] saying that "Save in the defense of my native State shall I ever again draw my sword." Lee was quite clear on where his loyalty lay, his country, Virginia.

Non-commissioned officers and soldiers did not have this option but many left the Union army to defend their native States as part of the Confederacy.

Yes I took it to mean Lee did not believe in Union if it was a coererced union.

So that would be an example of an offer of resignation indeed indicating a lack of enthusiasm for that cause.

 

[Quaama]

Yes I took it to mean Lee did not believe in Union if it was a coererced union.

So that would be an example of an offer of resignation indeed indicating a lack of enthusiasm for that cause.

I think it is twofold. I think he was, at the least, disillusioned with what the Union was doing but also prepared to serve what he regarded as his country.
It was only in March 1861 that Lee accepted promotion to US Colonel then:
April 12 - Sumter;
April 15 - Lincoln calls for 75,000 militia;
April 17 - Virginia secedes;
April 18 - Lee meets with Scott;
April 19 - Lincoln orders blockade of ports;
April 20 - Lee resigns US army commission; and
April 23 - Lee accepts command Of Virginia armed forces.
In less than a month Lee had been promoted to US Colonel before events then led to him resigning that commission then accepting command of Virginia's forces.
He clearly regarded his duty to serve his State, Virginia.
I also like President Eisenhower's explanation as to why he had a picture of Lee in his office - see [link].

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I have often wondered as I read of CW commanders in particular who offered or contemplated resignation, should that reflect on their devotion to the cause of Union or Independence?

Something I read made me give this a long thought. Phillip Leigh talks about this in a brief note and I agree with him on this when he says that, "in the Southern army the question was "who ranked?" Not who was the best general or best colonel, or best captain - but who ranked?"

And in the end, with that issue always going on, that played a great deal into what finished the Southern army - the constant jealousy and Davis moving people around or keeping people too long in one spot creating deep morale problems.

On the other hand ones that stayed the course regardless of outside problems just had more built into their character.

Agree with this. Some could beyond their own selves (on either side) and fight for the bigger picture and remove their ego from it. A great many couldn't. Nothing new under the sun there.

 

[archieclement]

I think it is twofold. I think he was, at the least, disillusioned with what the Union was doing but also prepared to serve what he regarded as his country.
It was only in March 1861 that Lee accepted promotion to US Colonel then:
April 12 - Sumter;
April 15 - Lincoln calls for 75,000 militia;
April 17 - Virginia secedes;
April 18 - Lee meets with Scott;
April 19 - Lincoln orders blockade of ports;
April 20 - Lee resigns US army commission; and
April 23 - Lee accepts command Of Virginia armed forces.
In less than a month Lee had been promoted to US Colonel before events then led to him resigning that commission then accepting command of Virginia's forces.
He clearly regarded his duty to serve his State, Virginia.
I also like President Eisenhower's explanation as to why he had a picture of Lee in his office - see [link].

I agree, don't want to change the focus, but some indeed saw the Union as a Union of sovereign states......and in that spirit it would be hard to justify coercion.

But Union as the north saw it, as a forced or coerced Union of unwilling states.....was rather obviously not a view he shared.

One may not share that view, but would seem somewhat folly to not recognize some did.

 

[Quaama]

I agree, don't want to change the focus, but some indeed saw the Union as a Union of sovereign states......and in that spirit it would hard to justify coercion.

But Union as the north saw it, as a forced or coerced Union of unwilling states.....was rather obviously not a view he shared.

No argument with that. The view would depend on the individual as when you asked "But if one believes in a cause, shouldn't that take precedence over ones rank, duty, or assignment?" Some would choose the cause they believed in whereas others may think that their duty lay with their position at the time and not resign from that position.

 

[DanSBHawk]

But Union as the north saw it, as a forced or coerced Union of unwilling states...

I'm not sure where you got this, but that's not how "the north saw it."

 

[archieclement]

I'm not sure where you got this, but that's not how "the north saw it."

Not sure how you didn't realize it......but we would either be one of three things..

1- a union of willing states
2- two separate countries
3-a coerced or forced union of unwilling states

1 and 2 were out......that's the reality of forcing states to stay in a union they wanted no part of.....we are no longer a union of free will, but one of coercion.

But this is really a distraction from the OP, that's rather irrelevant anyway

As regardless of however you wish to try to spin the northern view.....Lee's resignation signaled he didn't identify with it, but instead Virginia's, and that's all that is relevant to the OP. As his resignation offer did imply wasn't devoted to the cause he offered his resignation from.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Not sure how you didn't realize it......but we would either be one of three things..

1- a union of willing states
2- two separate countries
3-a coerced or forced union of unwilling states

1 and 2 were out......that's the reality of forcing states to stay in a union they wanted no part of......

So how does Georgia fit into this when Brown decided to secede from the Confederacy because he felt coerced? Was Georgia going to become its own separate country?

If other states did the same thing, then the Southern Confederacy dissolves as Texas would and historically wanted to be its own country. Texas would take the Southwest. Texas isn't going to recognize Maryland for example as a Southern state nor would many of the eastern states have much to offer Texas for example.

Even Mary Boykin Chesnut said in her diary that the "inner circle" of the Richmond political crowd weren't going to recognize Maryland as a Southern state if the Confederacy won. So you already have Georgia out, Maryland being pushed out, only the average person and soldier is unaware of it, which other Southern state is going to declare secession? Or parts of a state? Northern Alabama cert had Union interests.

There is no solid Southern block politically as comfy as that may appeal.

 

[archieclement]

So how does Georgia fit into this when Brown decided to secede from the Confederacy because he felt coerced? Was Georgia going to become its own separate country?

If other states did the same thing, then the Southern Confederacy dissolves as Texas would and historically wanted to be its own country. Texas would take the Southwest. Texas isn't going to recognize Maryland for example as a Southern state nor would many of the eastern states have much to offer Texas for example.

Even Mary Boykin Chesnut said in her diary that the "inner circle" of the Richmond political crowd weren't going to recognize Maryland as a Southern state if the Confederacy won. So you already have Georgia out, Maryland being pushed out, only the average person and soldier is unaware of it, which other Southern state is going to declare secession? Or parts of a state? Northern Alabama cert had Union interests.

There is no solid Southern block politically as comfy as that may appeal.

If Georgia had seceded, it would be, what else would it be?

It was the last CSA state restored to the Union in 1870. And no one but you has said there was a solid southern block.

However there was a collection of states no longer willing to be part of the idea of a US union......so there was only 2 possibilities going forward, as the south removed the 1st. The union removed the 2nd.......which left 3

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not sure how you didn't realize it......but we would either be one of three things..

1- a union of willing states
2- two separate countries
3-a coerced or forced union of unwilling states

1 and 2 were out......that's the reality of forcing states to stay in a union they wanted no part of.....we are no longer a union of free will, but one of coercion.

But this is really a distraction from the OP, that's rather irrelevant anyway

As regardless of however you wish to try to spin the northern view.....Lee's resignation signaled he didn't identify with it, but instead Virginia's, and that's all that is relevant to the OP. As his resignation offer did imply wasn't devoted to the cause he offered his resignation from.

Sorry, but no. There's another "thing."

A union of states, each on their honor entered voluntarily into the union with consent of the others, and if they wished to renege, would have to exit the same way.

But I agree that it is off topic for your thread.

 

[archieclement]

Sorry, but no. There's another "thing."

A union of states, each on their honor entered voluntarily into the union with consent of the others, and if they wished to renege, would have to exit the same way.

But I agree that it is off topic for your thread.

Yes the union ruled out no 2 for no 3, no argument on that. Your point the other states could have choose to let them go in peace is noted, however wasn't the course they took.

As far as OP, when Lincoln issues call for troops for coercion, both Lee and Virginia signal no identity for that cause.

So the resignation offer tendered, did mark lack of devotion to that cause in that case

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yes the union ruled out no 2 for no 3, no argument on that. Your point the other states could have choose to let them go in peace is noted, however wasn't the course they took.

As far as OP, when Lincoln issues call for troops for coercion, both Lee and Virginia signal no identity for that cause.

So the resignation offer tendered, did mark lack of devotion to that cause.

The secessionists chose to unilaterally renege, and then start shooting. Lincoln said before he was inaugurated that if the people wished to convene a convention, he had no problem with it. Unfortunately, the secessionists chose war.

The premise of your thread doesn't take into account 19th-century ideas about honor. Many officers resigned if they felt dishonored, regardless of the 'cause.' It's just Presentism to make assumptions about their motives.

 

[archieclement]

The more apt resignation for the OP with Lee would be the offer after Gettysburg.

Would assume it reflects mainly a willingness to accept the blame and responsibility for the loss.

But would offering such a resignation when everyone's service was needed, reflect at all to his devotion to the CSA?

 

[archieclement]

The secessionists chose to unilaterally renege, and then start shooting. Lincoln said before he was inaugurated that if the people wished to convene a convention, he had no problem with it. Unfortunately, the secessionists chose war.

The premise of your thread doesn't take into account 19th-century ideas about honor. Many officers resigned if they felt dishonored, regardless of the 'cause.' It's just Presentism to make assumptions about their motives.

Actually it was you who pointed out they could have left with the consent of the others, I agreed, instead Lincoln called for 75k troops....but again it seems you are trying to steer away from the OP, even when I agree that you were right in the other states could have let them go.

And wouldn't say the premise ignored honor at all, that is in part the heart of the op

 

[archieclement]

But which cause is more important, honor over ones rank/position/duty or loyalty to a greater cause such as Union or Independence?

 

[Lubliner]

From what I understand about Bushrod Johnson, while at West Point he was blamed for some sort of delinquent acts he took part in. Later on this became a reason for taking his lot and placing it with the Confederacy. He was originally from Ohio, and had family there during the war.
Lubliner.