Lee Maybe It Comes Down to This!

[Jimklag]

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the oath is concerned, General Joe Johnston was of the opinion that the lawful act of resigning from the US military, superseded any further requirement to be bound by the oath.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.

I agree that resigning one's commission relieves one of further obedience to the military oath. However, what justifies the making of war on that country for which you previously swore that oath? State loyalty and "altered circumstances" are not good enough in my opinion. I am glad there was no wholesale resort to treason trials, but the U.S. government would have been well within the literal meaning and spirit of the laws had they decided to prosecute leading rebels for treason. These men may have been loyal to their home states and their "section", whatever that is, but they were absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, traitors against the USA. Resigning a military commission does not relieve one of his responsibiliries as a citizen.

 

[MattL]

So many excellent points

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.

Very good points on both accounts. Like you said a lot of hurt pride and animosity. The South was being submitted back into the Union, don't think they would've felt warm and fuzzy no matter what.

Also great point regarding how divided people were in the CW. People in each region apposed the actions of their region. We focus on how different each region was, but in truth they were far more alike than different, they were family.

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?

I agree. I think he was trying to make his actions fit a more desirable mold in hindsight.

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.

Agreed, another big difference.

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.

Very true, it's impossible to put ourselves in their shoes.

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/

Thanks for all that info, didn't realize that history.

 

[connecticut yankee]

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 think Lee in this October 3rd letter was trying at all to justify his personal decision to defend his native Virginia in war against the Union. Rather he was responding to Beauregard's earlier letter to him in which Beauregard expressed a horror at the idea of he himself having to sign an amnesty oath. Lee in a fatherly way was trying to reassure Beauregard that as untasteful as signing the oath may be, Beauregard should understand that true patriotism at times requires a person to take seemingly contrary actions to those one did before.

Lee's statement according to scholars is a superb definition of patriotism and is quoted extensively in literature of all kinds. For reference, here is the Beauregard letter that triggered Lee response on the meaning of true patriotism:

New Orleans, Sept. 7 1865

Dear General,

Your circular of the 31st. July reached me only a few days since. I regret to hear that you also have lost your papers. Johnston is in the same condition, I believe, for a part of his own & a large portion of mine were taken in Ga. Near Atlanta with my baggage, in direct violation of the terms of agreement between. Genl Sherman & Johnston & I have written to these two officers to Mr. Stanton & to Prest. Johnson on the subject, but all of no avail thus far. I fear I shall never recover baggage or papers, the latter had been collected with great care for the purpose of writing the history of the defence of Charleston, which cannot now be done, among those papers were those of the fall of Sumter in 1861, & of the campaign in Western Tenn. in 1862. It is painful to think, that we shall not be able to write the history of our struggle for Independence, & then commemorate the heroic deeds of our gallant soldiers a generous Enemy would aid us to comply with so sacred a duty!

I will endeavor to send you, as soon as possible, copies of the papers you call for, but my papers being still very much scattered, I am unable to state when I will be able to do so can they be trusted to the mail?

I see in the public papers that you intend leaving the country; is it so? I thought you had applied for pardon. I intend to have done the latter, as soon as I had been informed of you & Johnson having done so, but the seizure of my private baggage & papers has left me undecided in my future course. It is hard to ask pardon of an adversary you despise!

Wishing you health & prosperity. I remain Yours truly
G. T. Beauregard


(Source: Photocopy of original letter, Robert E. Lee Headquarters Papers, Folder 29, Mss3 L 515 a, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond)

 

[Cavalry Charger]

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

Personally, I don't think this issue involves a counterargument. Men did what they did based on their beliefs at the time. Some decided to remain loyal to their state, others to the country as a whole. The only betrayal that could take place (in this context) is in terms of their own personal beliefs. If they acted according to these, then my guess is they believed they were acting in accordance with what was right (in their own minds). It is hard to form a counterargument to this, or condemn it, but it is possible to disagree with the stance that they took based on your own beliefs. When it comes down to it, you could say the CW comes down to opposing belief systems, and men following honor codes which accorded with each. I realize I have just given myself a lot to think about by saying that. My compliments to @Eleanor Rose for forcing me to dig that deep

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I don't think Lee in this October 3rd letter was trying at all to justify his personal decision to defend his native Virginia in war against the Union. Rather he was responding to Beauregard's earlier letter to him in which Beauregard expressed a horror at the idea of he himself having to sign an amnesty oath. Lee in a fatherly way was trying to reassure Beauregard that as untasteful as signing the oath may be, Beauregard should understand that true patriotism at times requires a person to take seemingly contrary actions to those one did before.

Lee's statement according to scholars is a superb definition of patriotism and is quoted extensively in literature of all kinds. For reference, here is the Beauregard letter that triggered Lee response on the meaning of true patriotism:

New Orleans, Sept. 7 1865

Dear General,

Your circular of the 31st. July reached me only a few days since. I regret to hear that you also have lost your papers. Johnston is in the same condition, I believe, for a part of his own & a large portion of mine were taken in Ga. Near Atlanta with my baggage, in direct violation of the terms of agreement between. Genl Sherman & Johnston & I have written to these two officers to Mr. Stanton & to Prest. Johnson on the subject, but all of no avail thus far. I fear I shall never recover baggage or papers, the latter had been collected with great care for the purpose of writing the history of the defence of Charleston, which cannot now be done, among those papers were those of the fall of Sumter in 1861, & of the campaign in Western Tenn. in 1862. It is painful to think, that we shall not be able to write the history of our struggle for Independence, & then commemorate the heroic deeds of our gallant soldiers a generous Enemy would aid us to comply with so sacred a duty!

I will endeavor to send you, as soon as possible, copies of the papers you call for, but my papers being still very much scattered, I am unable to state when I will be able to do so can they be trusted to the mail?

I see in the public papers that you intend leaving the country; is it so? I thought you had applied for pardon. I intend to have done the latter, as soon as I had been informed of you & Johnson having done so, but the seizure of my private baggage & papers has left me undecided in my future course. It is hard to ask pardon of an adversary you despise!

Wishing you health & prosperity. I remain Yours truly
G. T. Beauregard


(Source: Photocopy of original letter, Robert E. Lee Headquarters Papers, Folder 29, Mss3 L 515 a, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond)

Thank you for sharing that. It was a pleasure to read.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

I don't think Lee in this October 3rd letter was trying at all to justify his personal decision to defend his native Virginia in war against the Union. Rather he was responding to Beauregard's earlier letter to him in which Beauregard expressed a horror at the idea of he himself having to sign an amnesty oath. Lee in a fatherly way was trying to reassure Beauregard that as untasteful as signing the oath may be, Beauregard should understand that true patriotism at times requires a person to take seemingly contrary actions to those one did before.

Lee's statement according to scholars is a superb definition of patriotism and is quoted extensively in literature of all kinds. For reference, here is the Beauregard letter that triggered Lee response on the meaning of true patriotism:

New Orleans, Sept. 7 1865

Dear General,

Your circular of the 31st. July reached me only a few days since. I regret to hear that you also have lost your papers. Johnston is in the same condition, I believe, for a part of his own & a large portion of mine were taken in Ga. Near Atlanta with my baggage, in direct violation of the terms of agreement between. Genl Sherman & Johnston & I have written to these two officers to Mr. Stanton & to Prest. Johnson on the subject, but all of no avail thus far. I fear I shall never recover baggage or papers, the latter had been collected with great care for the purpose of writing the history of the defence of Charleston, which cannot now be done, among those papers were those of the fall of Sumter in 1861, & of the campaign in Western Tenn. in 1862. It is painful to think, that we shall not be able to write the history of our struggle for Independence, & then commemorate the heroic deeds of our gallant soldiers a generous Enemy would aid us to comply with so sacred a duty!

I will endeavor to send you, as soon as possible, copies of the papers you call for, but my papers being still very much scattered, I am unable to state when I will be able to do so can they be trusted to the mail?

I see in the public papers that you intend leaving the country; is it so? I thought you had applied for pardon. I intend to have done the latter, as soon as I had been informed of you & Johnson having done so, but the seizure of my private baggage & papers has left me undecided in my future course. It is hard to ask pardon of an adversary you despise!

Wishing you health & prosperity. I remain Yours truly
G. T. Beauregard


(Source: Photocopy of original letter, Robert E. Lee Headquarters Papers, Folder 29, Mss3 L 515 a, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond)

Great find.
I found the complete Lee letter to Beauregard at the link starting on page 207.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...heir actions change, and their conduct&f=true

There is a second letter to Beauregard dated Dec. 23, on page 209, that has an interesting conclusion. Apparently, P.G.T. had shared Lee's thoughts from his first letter and some were confused by his intent.

"My remarks in my former letter were not intended to question the conduct of Southern citizens before the war, but to show that, what patriotism required of them then. it requires of them now; if they do not so read, I beg you will correct them."​

 

[connecticut yankee]

Great find.
I found the complete Lee letter to Beauregard at the link starting on page 207.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ghITAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=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&source=bl&ots=qWKAmril54&sig=B7uWJzwS0OXSxfTzwDVqsgOA3zs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3yb-a9dHWAhUBgCYKHfYkC3IQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=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&f=true

There is a second letter to Beauregard dated Dec. 23, on page 209, that has an interesting conclusion. Apparently, P.G.T. had shared Lee's thoughts from his first letter and some were confused by his intent.

"My remarks in my former letter were not intended to question the conduct of Southern citizens before the war, but to show that, what patriotism required of them then. it requires of them now; if they do not so read, I beg you will correct them."​

Thank you O' Be Joyful for posting the entire words in the October 3, 1865 Lee letter to Beauregard. I tried to find this letter on the web but to no avail. Good researching on your part.

I am now convinced more than ever that Lee was putting the past war behind him and was outlining an approach to the future he was convinced the South should take. Thanks also for the follow-up Dec. 23rd letter to Beauregard. This shows clearly that Lee felt he needed to clarify his earlier position as to what the South needed to do to be true patriots in the years ahead. Lee was one of the most what I call "consistent thinkers" of the Civil War era. The politicians waffled in their beliefs (even Lincoln) and military leaders changed their opinins frequently. But Robert E. Lee, besides being extremely respected for his sense of duty and honor, was a man who never waived in his thinking.

 

[leftyhunter]

Personally, I don't think this issue involves a counterargument. Men did what they did based on their beliefs at the time. Some decided to remain loyal to their state, others to the country as a whole. The only betrayal that could take place (in this context) is in terms of their own personal beliefs. If they acted according to these, then my guess is they believed they were acting in accordance with what was right (in their own minds). It is hard to form a counterargument to this, or condemn it, but it is possible to disagree with the stance that they took based on your own beliefs. When it comes down to it, you could say the CW comes down to opposing belief systems, and men following honor codes which accorded with each. I realize I have just given myself a lot to think about by saying that. My compliments to @Eleanor Rose for forcing me to dig that deep

How does one betray a state? The issue was not state sovereignty it was preservation of slavery.
Lee was not willing to make war on his fellow slave owners. Thomas owned two slaves but he was.
Lee did not fight on behalf of a state but on behalf of preserving slavery.
Leftyhunter

 

[Cavalry Charger]

How does one betray a state?

I didn't say they did. I think what I said is they chose to remain loyal to their country as a whole. Some people might look on that as betrayal (to their State), but that isn't the point I was trying to make. Whatever their State stood for, and their perception of that, is unique to their understanding at the time. We can paint it with whatever brush we like, but we can't get into their heads and ever fully understand their reasoning which was based on their beliefs.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I didn't say they did. I think what I said is they chose to remain loyal to their country as a whole. Some people might look on that as betrayal (to their State), but that isn't the point I was trying to make. Whatever their State stood for, and their perception of that, is unique to their understanding at the time. We can paint it with whatever brush we like, but we can't get into their heads and ever fully understand their reasoning which was based on their beliefs.

No, you're correct ( for what it's worth coming from the non-academic, whift, from not- Virginia ). There are so many laminated layers, agenda or just, plain historical shellac on Lee, he's awfully tough to see. Then there's the microscopic inspection of the guy's belly-button lint for each flaw and counter-indication he may or may not be who he said he was. As with anyone famous. Who can withstand that kind of inspection or, for that matter, the opposite- insisting he had no belly button lint, or possibly, a toilet?

It may be this honor thing we just, plain cannot wrap our heads around in 2017. No, really. We say we do- then point to the gazillion reasons no one really had ' honor ' 150 years ago. Without yammering on, on the topic, making eye glaze over, we really cannot fathom what encompassed a personal code instilled by sociological, familial, cultural and religious influences of that, particular moment in time. I wish we could- at least what we seem to be witnessing is a struggle with this concept, ' honor '. Makes you a little wistful.

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Thank you O' Be Joyful for posting the entire words in the October 3, 1865 Lee letter to Beauregard. I tried to find this letter on the web but to no avail. Good researching on your part.

I am now convinced more than ever that Lee was putting the past war behind him and was outlining an approach to the future he was convinced the South should take. Thanks also for the follow-up Dec. 23rd letter to Beauregard. This shows clearly that Lee felt he needed to clarify his earlier position as to what the South needed to do to be true patriots in the years ahead. Lee was one of the most what I call "consistent thinkers" of the Civil War era. The politicians waffled in their beliefs (even Lincoln) and military leaders changed their opinins frequently. But Robert E. Lee, besides being extremely respected for his sense of duty and honor, was a man who never waived in his thinking.

I want to add my thanks too @O' Be Joyful! Wonderful post!

 

[Carronade]

How does one betray a state?

States can also have laws against treason; in 1861 all 11 Confederate states and 10 northern states did, as did West Virginia and Nevada when they joined they joined the Union.

There have not been a lot of state prosecutions for treason, but treason to Virginia was one of the charges against John Brown and his men; Brown's defense argued that as a non-resident he owed no loyalty to the state. Mormon founder Joseph Smith was in jail on charges of treason to Illinois when he was lynched.

 

[István.AT]

How does one betray a state?

Short answer: in the same sense like one can betray a friend or family.

 

[Waterloo50]

many who argue that the roots of WW2 lie directly under the Versailles Treaty after WW1,

Absolutely it did but to the Victors go the spoils, I've always held that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were far to harsh, where was it that Hitler made the French sign their armistice, in the same rail carriage that the Treaty was originally signed, Hitler even sat in the same seat occupied by Marshal Foch when the 1918 armistice terms were signed. I know that I am stating the obvious but, if the Victors continue to oppress the defeated then sooner or later things will turn full circle. The Civil war was won, there was absolutely no need to divide the country further with harsh reparations and punishment.

 

[Carronade]

Indeed, Versailles was almost as harsh as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which Germany had imposed on Russia the year before.
The French were no doubt thinking of the Treaty of Frankfurt which ended the Franco-Prussian War....
When the Prussians were likely recalling the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807 which dismembered Prussia.....

 

[leftyhunter]

Short answer: in the same sense like one can betray a friend or family.

So if one is not willing to fight for slavery then one is disloyal to the state of Virginia?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Absolutely it did but to the Victors go the spoils, I've always held that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were far to harsh, where was it that Hitler made the French sign their armistice, in the same rail carriage that the Treaty was originally signed, Hitler even sat in the same seat occupied by Marshal Foch when the 1918 armistice terms were signed. I know that I am stating the obvious but, if the Victors continue to oppress the defeated then sooner or later things will turn full circle. The Civil war was won, there was absolutely no need to divide the country further with harsh reparations and punishment.

True but Reconstruction was done horribly. Somehow 80 odd years later in Germany and Japan the U.S. did a much better job.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

States can also have laws against treason; in 1861 all 11 Confederate states and 10 northern states did, as did West Virginia and Nevada when they joined they joined the Union.

There have not been a lot of state prosecutions for treason, but treason to Virginia was one of the charges against John Brown and his men; Brown's defense argued that as a non-resident he owed no loyalty to the state. Mormon founder Joseph Smith was in jail on charges of treason to Illinois when he was lynched.

It would be interesting if there is a link to the various state treason codes or ideally if they could be posted for all to see especially the one about Virginia.
It would be also interesting to see if Thomas and other Virginia born Union military officers plus the approximately twenty two thousand white Virginians who enlisted in the Union Army violated Virginia's law against treason.
Per Richard Current most of the twenty two thosand white men from Virginia who joined the Union Army wete grom NorthWest Virginia they enlisted well before West Virginia was admitted as a Union State.
Leftyhunter

 

[István.AT]

So if one is not willing to fight for slavery then one is disloyal to the state of Virginia?

Why not holding a séance and asking the participants themselves? Joke, obviously.
But you asked how does one betray a state. If we don't meddle ourselves in a legalisms (that usually have little to do with actual people motivations), then, in a human sense, betrayal can be understood as breaking some promise or oath, or as going against people that you have deep emotional ties to. Some of the Virginians who joined the CS Army after the secession of their state might have seen their fellow countrymen exactly in that light.

 

[leftyhunter]

Why not holding a séance and asking the participants themselves? Joke, obviously.
But you asked how does one betray a state. If we don't meddle ourselves in a legalisms (that usually have little to do with actual people motivations), then, in a human sense, betrayal can be understood as breaking some promise or oath, or as going against people that you have deep emotional ties to. Some of the Virginians who joined the CS Army after the secession of their state might have seen their fellow countrymen exactly in that light.

It's a curious intellectual construct that unless one fights to keep fellow Virgnians enslaved then one is a traitor.
Leftyhunter