Lee Maybe It Comes Down to This!

[Eleanor Rose]

There have been several thought provoking threads and discussions as of late about how various folks should be remembered for their actions during the Civil War. Some have pondered how the Confederate generals could have broken the solemn oath they took to serve the US army. Some have pondered if they should have been court-martialed after the war. Others have offered differing views. In a letter to General P.G.T. Beauregard on October 3, 1865, General Lee offered this explanation.

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them — the desire to do right — is precisely the same. The circumstances that govern their actions change, and their conduct must conform to the new order of things. History is full of illustrations of this: Washington himself is an example of this. At one time he fought in the service of the King of Great Britain; at another he fought with the French at Yorktown, under the orders of the Continental Congress of America, against him. He has not been branded by the world with reproach for this, but his course has been applauded."

Lee wrote this to Beauregard on his efforts to regain US citizenship. His words seem even more poignant knowing that he wrote them the day after he signed the amnesty oath.

 

[amweiner]

Great thread, as always, @Eleanor Rose! My personal opinion, whether it's right/wrong/illegal/otherwise, is that I'm glad Lincoln intended (and the Johnson administration continued) a policy of not trying anyone for treason. There had been enough blood and tears, and Lincoln (as well as Lee) sensed this acutely. Yep, there were cries for vengeance, and I think if Lincoln had made that policy it would've been carried out tenfold by people more vindictive and less restrained.

 

[jackt62]

As far as the oath is concerned, General Joe Johnston was of the opinion that the lawful act of resigning from the US military, superseded any further requirement to be bound by the oath. Whether you agree or not with his position, that seems to be the way that former US army officers who joined the confederacy justified their decisions.

 

[48th Miss.]

Great thread, as always, @Eleanor Rose! My personal opinion, whether it's right/wrong/illegal/otherwise, is that I'm glad Lincoln intended (and the Johnson administration continued) a policy of not trying anyone for treason. There had been enough blood and tears, and Lincoln (as well as Lee) sensed this acutely. Yep, there were cries for vengeance, and I think if Lincoln had made that policy it would've been carried out tenfold by people more vindictive and less restrained.

Not an expert but your could make the argument that the attitude and actions against the Germans in WW1 helped create WW2. The way we worked with Germany and Japan create lasting partners and 70 plus years of peace. Hard to say ifnthis could have been handled better during the CW thus putting us miles ahead today. Probably plenty of fault on both sides...

 

[amweiner]

Not an expert but your could make the argument that the attitude and actions against the Germans in WW1 helped create WW2. The way we worked with Germany and Japan create lasting partners and 70 plus years of peace. Hard to say ifnthis could have been handled better during the CW thus putting us miles ahead today. Probably plenty of fault on both sides...

Absolutely @48th Miss.!! John Keegan is one historian amongst many who argue that the roots of WW2 lie directly under the Versailles Treaty after WW1, and you make a strong point about how we handled peace following WW2 that's led to greater stability.

I have to wonder if Reconstruction had a chance at being more peaceful had Lincoln survived. He had established a prestige that would've been tough for the Radicals to mess with, but I doubt it would have prevented them from trying. Much food for thought...

 

[MattL]

There have been several thought provoking threads and discussions as of late about how various folks should be remembered for their actions during the Civil War. Some have pondered how the Confederate generals could have broken the solemn oath they took to serve the US army. Some have pondered if they should have been court-martialed after the war. Others have offered differing views. In a letter to General P.G.T. Beauregard on October 3, 1865, General Lee offered this explanation.

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them — the desire to do right — is precisely the same. The circumstances that govern their actions change, and their conduct must conform to the new order of things. History is full of illustrations of this: Washington himself is an example of this. At one time he fought in the service of the King of Great Britain; at another he fought with the French at Yorktown, under the orders of the Continental Congress of America, against him. He has not been branded by the world with reproach for this, but his course has been applauded."

Lee wrote this to Beauregard on his efforts to regain US citizenship. His words seem even more poignant knowing that he wrote them the day after he signed the amnesty oath.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, though if Washington and the US had lost they would have probably faced harsh consequences and in all honestly probably should have. The colonies betrayed Britain for their own self interests, I happen to support that action but nonetheless it was what it was.

Additionally it's hard for me to really apply the same parallel since the Colonies didn't have proper representation, they didn't have a say in the system that was formed that governed them. The South did and they affected an outsized influence compared to other regions of the US due to things like the 3/5ths rule etc. Then when things within their own agreed to system shifted against their benefit in a way fully appropriate within the system itself, they complained and exited. This doesn't mean I can't understand why they did what they did or think it's all evil, etc... Just makes the comparison to the American Revolution and their betrayal of Britain very different in many key areas. Lee thinking of himself like Washington is a bit delusional, it's romanticizing himself and the conditions in which his own region betrayed their Nation.

Just my initial thoughts at least.

 

[48th Miss.]

Absolutely @48th Miss.!! John Keegan is one historian amongst many who argue that the roots of WW2 lie directly under the Versailles Treaty after WW1, and you make a strong point about how we handled peace following WW2 that's led to greater stability.

I have to wonder if Reconstruction had a chance at being more peaceful had Lincoln survived. He had established a prestige that would've been tough for the Radicals to mess with, but I doubt it would have prevented them from trying. Much food for thought...

He would have been stronger than Johnson for sure. Hard to say how the South would have taken any of it regardless of who handled it. Lot of hurt pride and animosity brewing.

Keegans book is in the stack. Just read a brief book on ww1 by AJ Taylor. Remarkably stupid war that should have been avoided especially since most all the leaders were family, just thought so was the CW, friends, family, brothers.

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Lee thinking of himself like Washington is a bit delusional, it's romanticizing himself and the conditions in which his own region betrayed their Nation.

I agree. Perhaps he was still wrestling with his decision to side with the Confederacy. This sounds to me as though he is trying to justify the choice he made. Who is he trying to convince? General Beauregard, future generations or himself?

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Hard to say how the South would have taken any of it regardless of who handled it. Lot of hurt pride and animosity brewing.

Good point. I tend to believe it would have gone better under Lincoln's leadership, but we'll never know. I just noticed you live in NC. I live in Winston-Salem. What part of the state do you call home?

 

[shermans_march]

There have been several thought provoking threads and discussions as of late about how various folks should be remembered for their actions during the Civil War. Some have pondered how the Confederate generals could have broken the solemn oath they took to serve the US army. Some have pondered if they should have been court-martialed after the war. Others have offered differing views. In a letter to General P.G.T. Beauregard on October 3, 1865, General Lee offered this explanation.

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them — the desire to do right — is precisely the same. The circumstances that govern their actions change, and their conduct must conform to the new order of things. History is full of illustrations of this: Washington himself is an example of this. At one time he fought in the service of the King of Great Britain; at another he fought with the French at Yorktown, under the orders of the Continental Congress of America, against him. He has not been branded by the world with reproach for this, but his course has been applauded."

Lee wrote this to Beauregard on his efforts to regain US citizenship. His words seem even more poignant knowing that he wrote them the day after he signed the amnesty oath.

Lee's main reason for joining the Confederacy was Virginia's secession. He wouldn't fight against her. I wouldn't really say his was patriotism, but more of an obligation or devotion to his state. Washington's reasoning for leading and fighting with the Continental army was more than that. He saw the injustices the British subjected the colonies to since his early youth.

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Lee's main reason for joining the Confederacy was Virginia's secession. He wouldn't fight against her. I wouldn't really say his was patriotism, but more of an obligation or devotion to his state.

Completely agree!

 

[shermans_march]

Completely agree!

I think Lee is trying to rationalize or justify what he did. I am not seeing it.

 

[48th Miss.]

Good point. I tend to believe it would have gone better under Lincoln's leadership, but we'll never know. I just noticed you live in NC. I live in Winston-Salem. What part of the state do you call home?

Shelby, mother in law and brother in law are in King, daughter lives in Walkertown. Small world

 

[WJC]

As far as the oath is concerned, General Joe Johnston was of the opinion that the lawful act of resigning from the US military, superseded any further requirement to be bound by the oath. Whether you agree or not with his position, that seems to be the way that former US army officers who joined the confederacy justified their decisions.

Resigning his commission certainly terminated his U. S. military service. The question, though, seems to me to be whether once one takes an oath as required when entering military service, does that oath remain in effect after one leaves the service?
Those of us today who have served in the military have never had to question whether our oath, sworn while in the service, still applies. Lee, Longstreet, Alexander and many others were faced with that awful decision. I doubt that any of us can truly appreciate the seriousness, the finality of that decision. Perhaps it is best for us not to try to rationalize it, but to simply recognize that it was their decision alone and that they were forced to live with the consequences.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I posted this on another thread about viewing the 19th Century through 21st Century glasses, but I think it also has a place here:

It was Ulysses S. Grant himself who threatened to resign if any Confederates (who maintained the conditions of their parole after surrender) were tried for treason.

"Following the end of Civil War hostilities in 1865, there were many in the North who wanted the civil and military officials of the Confederacy to stand trial for treason. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln further flamed the desire of many to take vengeance upon the South and its leaders, particularly Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The New York Times was a leading proponent for treason charges against Lee, writing in a June 4, 1865 editorial: "He has 'levied war against the United States' more strenuously than any other man in the land, and thereby has been specially guilty of the crime of treason, as defined in the Constitution of the United States," and "whether Gen. Lee should be hung not, is a minor question."

President Andrew Johnson was another advocate of harsh treatment for Lee and his generals, but he was soon to learn his views were in direct contrast to those of the North's war hero, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. The Appomattox terms of surrender offered and signed by Grant included the clause "…each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." Grant had wanted peace and included this line to ensure there would be no future reprisals against the Confederates.

But on June 7, 1865, U.S. District Judge John C. Underwood in Norfolk, Virginia, handed down treason indictments against Lee, James Longstreet, Jubal Early, and others stating the terms of parole agreed upon with Lee were "a mere military arrangement, and can have no influence upon civil rights or the status of the persons interested." When Lee, who was preparing to apply for amnesty, became aware of the indictments, he wrote Grant asking if the Appomattox terms were still in effect.

After reading Lee's letter, Grant forwarded his own views to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton on June 16, 1865:

'In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.'

Grant also visited personally with President Johnson to discuss the situation, but was dismayed to find that Johnson fully intended to let the proceedings continue. Grant insisted the Appomattox terms be honored. Johnson asked when the men could be tried. "Never," Grant responded, "unless they violate their paroles."

Andrew Johnson, however, was just as stubborn as Grant and told the general he wouldn't interfere with the prosecution. Grant too refused to back down, telling the President he would resign his commission if the surrender terms were not honored. Johnson realized he had lost; the public would never support him over the far-more popular Grant. Word was sent to the U.S. District Attorney in Norfolk to drop the proceedings.

Grant then responded to Lee's letter. Copying his comments to Stanton in the reply, he wrote on June 20, 1865: "This opinion, I am informed, is substantially the same as that entertained by the Government." Lee was safe from trial, but Grant never told him how far he had gone to protect him."

http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

 

[Cavalry Charger]

And this (also posted on another thread):

"Lee was the perfect example of the South's genteel honor code and what William Alexander Percy called the 'broad sword tradition' - 'a dedication to manly valor in battle; coolness under fire; sacrifice of self to succor and protect comrades, family and country; magnanimity; gracious manners; prudence in council; deference to ladies; and finally, stoic acceptance of what providence had dictated'. He had also served and greatly distinguished himself in the United States Army for 32 years, so much so, that as the Civil War loomed, Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union forces. Lee was torn; in the days before secession he wrote "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 honor". Lee did not favor secession and wished for a peaceable solution instead; but his home state of Virginia seceded, and he was thus faced with the decision to remain loyal to the Union and take up arms against his people, or break with the Union to fight against his former comrades. He chose the latter. Lee's wife (who privately sympathized with the Union cause) said this of her husband's decision: 'He has wept tears of blood over this terrible war, but as a man of honor and a Virginian, he must follow the destiny of his State'. In a traditional honor culture, loyalty to your honor group takes precedence over all other demands - even those of one's own conscience".

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/11/26/manly-honor-part-v-honor-in-the-american-south/

 

[GS]

A man's freedom to change his loyalty, when new information and/or clarity of a situation arrived to his noggin, gave impetus for many soldiers to "jump ship", and change sides in the midst of War. Of course, there were plenty of those who changed loyalties due to cold metal persuaders stuck in their ribs.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Excellent post Cavalry Charger! Why Johnson or anyone felt it ok to violate terms of surrender in the first place, in order to quench some misdirected desire for revenge because kooks killed Lincoln indicates how far off base the government had been knocked. " A mere military arrangement ". Please. The entire war, between two countries, one a self-declared country no longer in existence, was over under this ' arrangement ' and no other.

Using Lincoln's name made the whole thing almost obscene. He'd have loathed it.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Lee wrote this to Beauregard on his efforts to regain US citizenship. His words seem even more poignant knowing that he wrote them the day after he signed the amnesty oath.

What I would like to know @Eleanor Rose , if possible, is what spurred Lee to write to Beauregard of this? From what I know of Lee, he was not particularly close to Beauregard. So, I'm guessing that P.G.T. instigated the correspondence, perhaps looking for advice? It just does not seem to be a part of Lee's make-up to reach out, without prompting, to express justification for his conduct. Or was he more human than portrayed and hoped P.G.T. would "spread the word" further to the south to rally to his side.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lee's main reason for joining the Confederacy was Virginia's secession. He wouldn't fight against her. I wouldn't really say his was patriotism, but more of an obligation or devotion to his state. Washington's reasoning for leading and fighting with the Continental army was more than that. He saw the injustices the British subjected the colonies to since his early youth.

The classic counter argument on this question is did General Thomas and the approximately 22 thousand white Virginians who joined the Union Army ( per Richard Current Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy NorthEastern University Press) somehow betray Virginia? Plus what of USCT troops from Virginia?
Leftyhunter