Lee versus Thomas

[BillO]

Are you saying that Lee had honour because of his choice but Thomas didn't because he choose to fight for his country? I am not trying to be confrontational, I just wasn't sure what you meant by this statement.

Some folks internalize their emotional conflicts and some folks broadcast their indecisiveness to the world. Lee went upstairs and paced the floor for a night trying to make his decision while Thomas wrote letters bouncing back and forth as to whether he would stay or go. I don't know if I'd call it honor or that Lee was more straightforward and a lot quicker in his thought process.

 

[Quara]

Some folks internalize their emotional conflicts and some folks broadcast their indecisiveness to the world. Lee went upstairs and paced the floor for a night trying to make his decision while Thomas wrote letters bouncing back and forth as to whether he would stay or go. I don't know if I'd call it honor or that Lee was more straightforward and a lot quicker in his thought process.

I think straightforward is just the right term--while a wrenching decision for Lee, most of his life (his wife, his property, his social circle, those who helped his family in hard times) aligned well with Virginia. His loyalty to Scott and the US military were some examples of non-southern alignments, but there aren't many in Lee's case.

Thomas, by contrast, had a far more mixed set of loyalties then Lee. As just one example: Thomas's wife was a northerner, from a very prominent New York family. Aligning against her family would likely have put immense pressure on his marriage, and would have left her in a fairly precarious position wherever she lived had Thomas gone south. So which loyalty should Thomas fulfill-- loyalty to his southern heritage or the obligation to his wife made by his marital vows?

So I think you hit the nail on the head--Lee's loyalties aligned almost completely with Virginia so his decision was more straightforward, and could be made in a relatively short, if agonizing, timeframe. Thomas's loyalties didn't align as cleanly. The fact that he agonized over the choice doesn't make him less honorable than Lee. Of course he bounced back and forth--honor is easy to fulfil when it all points in one way, but it's a tricky thing when it pulls in different directions.

To dismiss Thomas's decision because he debated it for a while is difficult for me to swallow. Just using his marriage as an example of mixed loyalties, I wouldn't call it honorable if after a few hours of pacing, Thomas chose betray his wife's background and put her in a very difficult position. Likewise I'd be disappointed if he'd paid no mind to his Virginian heritage and struck north without a lengthy decision-making process.

I think it's natural that Thomas took longer to decide than Lee. As you pointed out, Lee's decision was comparatively more straightforward than Thomas's. Both men fulfiled their respective loyalties best they could, and both did so with great honor.

 

[Northern Light]

Some folks internalize their emotional conflicts and some folks broadcast their indecisiveness to the world. Lee went upstairs and paced the floor for a night trying to make his decision while Thomas wrote letters bouncing back and forth as to whether he would stay or go. I don't know if I'd call it honor or that Lee was more straightforward and a lot quicker in his thought process.

Okay thanks.

 

[Northern Light]

I think straightforward is just the right term--while a wrenching decision for Lee, most of his life (his wife, his property, his social circle, those who helped his family in hard times) aligned well with Virginia. His loyalty to Scott and the US military were some examples of non-southern alignments, but there aren't many in Lee's case.

Thomas, by contrast, had a far more mixed set of loyalties then Lee. As just one example: Thomas's wife was a northerner, from a very prominent New York family. Aligning against her family would likely have put immense pressure on his marriage, and would have left her in a fairly precarious position wherever she lived had Thomas gone south. So which loyalty should Thomas fulfill-- loyalty to his southern heritage or the obligation to his wife made by his marital vows?

So I think you hit the nail on the head--Lee's loyalties aligned almost completely with Virginia so his decision was more straightforward, and could be made in a relatively short, if agonizing, timeframe. Thomas's loyalties didn't align as cleanly. The fact that he agonized over the choice doesn't make him less honorable than Lee. Of course he bounced back and forth--honor is easy to fulfil when it all points in one way, but it's a tricky thing when it pulls in different directions.

To dismiss Thomas's decision because he debated it for a while is difficult for me to swallow. Just using his marriage as an example of mixed loyalties, I wouldn't call it honorable if after a few hours of pacing, Thomas chose betray his wife's background and put her in a very difficult position. Likewise I'd be disappointed if he'd paid no mind to his Virginian heritage and struck north without a lengthy decision-making process.

I think it's natural that Thomas took longer to decide than Lee. As you pointed out, Lee's decision was comparatively more straightforward than Thomas's. Both men fulfiled their respective loyalties best they could, and both did so with great honor.

Perhaps, with regards to Thomas' family's reaction, he made the right choice. He had to sleep with his wife, his family obviously thought more of the cause than they did of him. Families are strange things, and sometimes it helps if there is a real distance between you and them.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Lee went with his State while Thomas went with whichever made the best offer.

They both swore an oath to serve the union. Thomas stayed loyal, Lee broke his oath.

And I really don't think we can blame any of them. Lots of officers from the south stayed loyal and a lot went home.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Lee went with his State while Thomas went with whichever made the best offer.

I think the offers Thomas had in 1861 from the Confederate side where better than his existing position in the US Army.

 

[Northern Light]

They both swore an oath to serve the union. Thomas stayed loyal, Lee broke his oath.

And I really don't think we can blame any of them. Lots of officers from the south stayed loyal and a lot went home.

I cannot say that it our place to judge them, as they all had their own reason for choosing the course they took. In hindsight, perhaps some of them might have wished they had chosen a different course. How much different our little world of CivilWarTalk would have been if wiser heads had prevailed!

 

[E_just_E]

They both swore an oath to serve the union. Thomas stayed loyal, Lee broke his oath.

And I really don't think we can blame any of them. Lots of officers from the south stayed loyal and a lot went home.

The oaths they swore are interesting... Here is an older in depth post on this subject.

 

[cash]

The oaths they swore are interesting... Here is an older in depth post on this subject.

On March 30, 1861, on accepting his promotion to colonel, R. E. Lee took an oath that said, in part, "I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever."

Less than a month later, on April 20, with the United States facing an enemy, instead of serving the United States honestly and faithfully against that enemy, he sent in his resignation.

Did he have his fingers crossed on March 30? Did he mutter under his breath, "Except for southern states" when he was taking the oath?

Brian Steel Wills describes Thomas' view:

"George Thomas took such an oath as a sacred trust. He was especially critical of those brethren in the old blue who claimed some justification for violating theirs. In his eyes there could be none. In this regard, as he told another officer, these former comrades 'had sworn allegiance to the government [and] they were bound to adhere to it, and would have done so [if] they had been so inclined. He dismissed constitutional explanations particularly as poor 'excuses,' noting that the 'government to which they had sworn allegiance remained, and as long as it did exist, I should have adhered to it.' " [Brian Steel Wills, George Henry Thomas: True as Steel, pp. 101-102]

Ulysses S. Grant took this view: "We are now in the midst of trying times when every one must be for or against his country, and show his colors too, by his every act. Having been educated for such an emergency, at the expense of the Government, I feel that it has upon me superior claims, such claims as no ordinary motives of self-interest can surmount. I do not wish to act hastily or unadvisedly in the matter, and as there are more than enough to respond to the first call of the President, I have not yet offered myself. I have promised, and am giving all the assistance I can in organizing the company whose services have been accepted from this place. I have promised further to go with them to the State capital, and if I can be of service to the Governor in organizing his state troops to do so. What I ask now is your approval of the course I am taking, or advice in the matter. A letter written this week will reach me in Springfield. I have not time to write to you but a hasty line, for, though Sunday as it is, we are all busy here. In a few minutes I shall be engaged in directing tailors in the style and trim of uniform for our men.

"Whatever may have been my political opinions before, I have but one sentiment now. That is, we have a Government, and laws and a flag, and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, traitors and patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party. I do not know but you may be placed in an awkward position, and a dangerous one pecuniarily, but costs cannot now be counted. My advice would be to leave where you are if you are not safe with the views you entertain. I would never stultify my opinion for the sake of a little security."

 

[KansasFreestater]

I think straightforward is just the right term--while a wrenching decision for Lee, most of his life (his wife, his property, his social circle, those who helped his family in hard times) aligned well with Virginia. His loyalty to Scott and the US military were some examples of non-southern alignments, but there aren't many in Lee's case.

Thomas, by contrast, had a far more mixed set of loyalties then Lee. As just one example: Thomas's wife was a northerner, from a very prominent New York family. Aligning against her family would likely have put immense pressure on his marriage, and would have left her in a fairly precarious position wherever she lived had Thomas gone south. So which loyalty should Thomas fulfill-- loyalty to his southern heritage or the obligation to his wife made by his marital vows?

So I think you hit the nail on the head--Lee's loyalties aligned almost completely with Virginia so his decision was more straightforward, and could be made in a relatively short, if agonizing, timeframe. Thomas's loyalties didn't align as cleanly. The fact that he agonized over the choice doesn't make him less honorable than Lee. Of course he bounced back and forth--honor is easy to fulfil when it all points in one way, but it's a tricky thing when it pulls in different directions.

To dismiss Thomas's decision because he debated it for a while is difficult for me to swallow. Just using his marriage as an example of mixed loyalties, I wouldn't call it honorable if after a few hours of pacing, Thomas chose betray his wife's background and put her in a very difficult position. Likewise I'd be disappointed if he'd paid no mind to his Virginian heritage and struck north without a lengthy decision-making process.

I think it's natural that Thomas took longer to decide than Lee. As you pointed out, Lee's decision was comparatively more straightforward than Thomas's. Both men fulfiled their respective loyalties best they could, and both did so with great honor.

To take another general as an example: If the "Gods and Generals" movie was accurate (and if I'm even remembering it accurately!), one of the things that weighed on Stonewall Jackson's decision was the fact that he'd been educated at federal expense and had sworn an oath to that government upon his enlistment.

 

[Elennsar]

Something to note on Thomas unrelated to honor but related to Sherman:

Sherman describes Thomas as slow, but "true as steel".

This is Sherman we're talking about. The guy who could be critical to the point of tearing holes in the paper because he's writing so furiously.

"slow, but true as steel" sounds to me like "Thomas isn't perfect, but he's the next closest thing." .

 

[wausaubob]

On March 30, 1861, on accepting his promotion to colonel, R. E. Lee took an oath that said, in part, "I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever."

Less than a month later, on April 20, with the United States facing an enemy, instead of serving the United States honestly and faithfully against that enemy, he sent in his resignation.

Did he have his fingers crossed on March 30? Did he mutter under his breath, "Except for southern states" when he was taking the oath?

Brian Steel Wills describes Thomas' view:

"George Thomas took such an oath as a sacred trust. He was especially critical of those brethren in the old blue who claimed some justification for violating theirs. In his eyes there could be none. In this regard, as he told another officer, these former comrades 'had sworn allegiance to the government [and] they were bound to adhere to it, and would have done so [if] they had been so inclined. He dismissed constitutional explanations particularly as poor 'excuses,' noting that the 'government to which they had sworn allegiance remained, and as long as it did exist, I should have adhered to it.' " [Brian Steel Wills, George Henry Thomas: True as Steel, pp. 101-102]

Ulysses S. Grant took this view: "We are now in the midst of trying times when every one must be for or against his country, and show his colors too, by his every act. Having been educated for such an emergency, at the expense of the Government, I feel that it has upon me superior claims, such claims as no ordinary motives of self-interest can surmount. I do not wish to act hastily or unadvisedly in the matter, and as there are more than enough to respond to the first call of the President, I have not yet offered myself. I have promised, and am giving all the assistance I can in organizing the company whose services have been accepted from this place. I have promised further to go with them to the State capital, and if I can be of service to the Governor in organizing his state troops to do so. What I ask now is your approval of the course I am taking, or advice in the matter. A letter written this week will reach me in Springfield. I have not time to write to you but a hasty line, for, though Sunday as it is, we are all busy here. In a few minutes I shall be engaged in directing tailors in the style and trim of uniform for our men.

"Whatever may have been my political opinions before, I have but one sentiment now. That is, we have a Government, and laws and a flag, and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, traitors and patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party. I do not know but you may be placed in an awkward position, and a dangerous one pecuniarily, but costs cannot now be counted. My advice would be to leave where you are if you are not safe with the views you entertain. I would never stultify my opinion for the sake of a little security."