In 1861 Col. Robert E. Lee had a decision to make. He could stay in the US. Army and go to war against his home state, or he could defend his state, which without his control or desire, decided to secede from the union.
Lee loved the US Army and the Federal union, but he felt he could not go to war against his neighbors, most of his friends, the people he grew up with, his relatives, his family; two of his sons fought for Virginia, and his nephew Fitzhugh, who later became Governor, also fought for the Confederacy.
Lee operated on a completely moral and rational basis. He put his family and his state first. Today the consensus is that there was only one right answer, that was to fight for the Federal government. I suppose it is easier to moralize upon a decision when we know we don’t have to make it. But he did.
Imagine if you were put into a position where you had to take up arms against all the people you grew up with, went to school with, played with, and loved. And if you did you would be called a hero by people 150 years later and if you didn’t you’d be called a traitor by those same people. That was Lee’s position.
Now as far as the fatuous claim that Lee fought for slavery. In 1861 the Lincoln administration’s policy towards the seceding states was that if you stayed in the union you could keep the institution of slavery. It wasn’t until the Emancipation Proclamation came in 1863 that the Federal government made clear that the war, at least from their perspective, was about freeing the slaves.
First and foremost, Lee was a soldier, not a politician. The Legislature in Richmond believed that states had a right to secede in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. A view that a number of constitutional scholars, including William Rawle, held.
As far as the treason charge, Lee was never tried, or convicted of the crime. In the 1970’s by a special act of Congress Lee’s citizenship was posthumously restored. Congress passed laws in 1929 and 1958 making Confederate veterans US. War veterans. I don’t think Congress would have done that if they viewed them as anything close to traitors. President Grant even invited Lee to the White House on at least one occasion. Did the President let a traitor in the White House? Of course not.
After the war Lee worked hard to rebuild Virginia and reunite the nation. He inspired and educated a new generation of Virginia men at a small college in Lexington called Washington college. Later it was renamed to Washington and Lee.
Recently I was reading some of Lee’s letters and I came across this passage, which seems to sum up his love for the state and his mindset. Lee was working in St Louis and was homesick, but in 1840 he was sent back to Virginia and on his return he wrote:
“I felt so elated when I again found
myself back in the confines of the Ancient Dominion that I
nodded to all the old trees as I passed, chatted with the
drivers and stable boys, shook hands with the landlords, and
in the fullness of my heart -don’t tell Cousin Mary- wanted to kiss all the pretty girls I met.”
This passage presents an idyllic picture of Lee’s Virginia, and it is easy, or perhaps easier to understand why he would never take up arms and destroy that place which he affectionately called the “ Ancient Dominion.”
Lee was an honorable man. Virginians should be proud to call him a Virginian.
38 comments
Lee was a traitor who was given a chance to redeem himself. Much like Chelsea Manning.
Thanks for defending our state’s general. Remember that Virginia voted for NOT to secede, until Lincoln called for troops to fight the states of the Deep South, driving VA, NC, TN and one other state out of the union. MD almost followed, but Lincoln imprisoned all the legislators who were going to vote “yes”, & suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus.
Anyway, those of us who do not want a mob rule mentality to dictate the destruction of these monuments and statues and a one-side view of history for posterity had better start making phone calls, emailing, tweeting, etc. I called about one today, and had to work to drill down to the actual decision maker, and was told that only a handful of people on both sides had contacted him. This despite seeing loads of people venting on FB and on-line press articles.
This.
INDEED he was, or appears to many/most to be! BUT give up the ‘Jim Crow’ era edifices. Lee is quoted to have insisting at his death to have NO CONFEDERATE images or symbols at his funeral, memorial, or his person! SO BE HONORABLE to the honorable man. There should be NO Confederate imagery in public forums.
BUT HERE is the thing to be alert to: UVA students, and others, want to remove memorials to the Confederate DEAD in graveyards, etc. THAT IS a grave DIS-HONOR (pardon the pun!). ARGUE strongly against this and point out how dis-honorable these people are who claim the God-like knowledge to know who died honorably or dis-honorably.
Wrong.
So long as Republicans CONTINUE to invent these apocalyptical stories to shape their politics and public policy Republican will continue UNABLE to govern – local, state, or federal governments – and will become increasingly un-American, i.e. actually HATING, actively HATING AND HARMING other Americans.
That we agree on… I do not know if the story that Lee did not want anything Confederate at his funeral was started by Democrats or Republicans, but having falsities floated as reasons to do something political is unhelpful to say the least.
Lee biographer Jonathan Horn says: “So sensitive was Lee during his final years with extinguishing the fiery passions of the Civil War that he opposed erecting monuments on the battlefields where the Southern soldiers under his command had fought against the Union.”
Lee wrote:“I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavoured to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”
Lee’s biographer says that without proof.
Lee did write that but NO biographer has interpreted that quote to mean what Jonathon Horn said it meant. Indeed Douglas Southall Freeman’s 1935 biography of Lee has that quote in the context of Lee refusing to publicly defend himself from slanderous statement publicly made about him. AT NO POINT until Horn’s 2015 biography did anyone claim that Lee did not want monuments OR that he insisted that no Confederate iconography be at his funeral. As I said above, the fact that Jefferson Davis spoke at his funeral would indicate that that report is false.
The quote itself, BTW is from a letter Lee wrote to David McConaughy of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association in 1869. Lee had been invited to be involved in the battlefield preservation efforts (to tell “his side” so to speak). The full quote is ““My engagements will not permit me to be present, and I believe if there
I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it well, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”
It is Democrats and the left who are using this now to create more division. It is an extension of the same type of race-card plays that we saw during the Obama administration. Why are violent mobs of antifa and BLM activists only now demanding these monuments come down? Do you think maybe they are still mad about Trump?
Mark Lilla, Columbia University, has just published an excellent small book and given excellent interviews – as a Democrat – severely criticizes Democratic political reliance on ‘identity’, ‘blame’, etc. Of course, Republicans do the same, from a different angle, and THAT is the very reason Republicans should gladly come together to remove Confederate statues – especially military statues – from public forums.
So The premise is Lee succumbs to peer pressure of his friends and as a direct result of his actions hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
He would be more admirable if he had a functioning moral compass.
No… the premise is that you shouldn’t be using a false narrative and modern day standards to condemn a good man.
The was was already happening with or without him. Lincoln asked him to command the Union army. If he had not fought for VIRGINIA, there would still have been a war.
If he had served the United States it would have likely ended sooner, and there would be no discussion on whether his memorial is appropriate or not. But here are.
Virginia was his home.
this argument is just a big circle. Leave this as a local issue and let’s be done with it.
No.
Ok, go pout then
I am not going to pout… I will fight against this attempt to destroy history and Western Civilization.
An internet warrior, determined to force her revisionist history on the people of Virginia. coming this fall Amy H. stars in Histrionics.
It is not I who am being revisionist. That would be you and your ilk.
brilliant as always.
Where have all of the Virginians gone? Somewhere we lost our spirit.
The current leadership of Virginians were not raised as Virginians where we were taught pride in our Virginia heritage and surroundings in grade school. The governor is from New York. Sen. Kaine from Minnesota and Sen. Warner from Indiana. They never had the opportunity to learn and know of the heritage of Virginia as young people and as thus Virginia pride and history is only secondary at best to the current leadership of the State. Hummm! Would they be called carpetbaggers?
I attribute most of Gillespie’s attitude on this issue to the fact that he is from New Jersey.
Jill Vogel is better. She has posters saying “teach history, don’t destroy it” or similar.
I think you have diagnosed the problem. People who have not lived in Virginia for a long time have trouble understanding us. We grew up with Virginia history being taught in elementary school. Outsiders think we secretly store klan robes in our closets, and the only possible reason for opposing the removal of historical monuments is some hidden racism.
Very well written. Thank you.
A friend of ours had to take a citizenship test and was actually asked to write about the causes of the Civil War, and said friend cited states rights as the root cause, and got the citizenship. This was back in the 90s however.
When last you were here, were you or were you not advocating the end of organized college sports?
BTW, as an old man, I’ve come to grips with passing the world on to you and yours. Organized college sports, up to you. Lee? Fine, whatever you and your companions want. Erect, tear down whatever you choose as regards public art, statues, monuments. Pass and repeal laws as you choose.
Please, find some consistency, for your own sake. Tear down organized college sports is your call, but it is hypocrisy by comparison to your call for respecting history, which is replete with intercollegiate athletics and their influence on our society.
I believe the Emancipation Proclamation was not to free the slaves but a political move to keep the French from siding with the South in our second war for Independence.
Also worth pointing out… the Emancipation Proclamation left slaves in the North still in bondage.
Most of the people who are trying to remove Lee and Jackson and the rest are not real Virginians nor do they understand the concept of what it meant to live in the US in 1860. The average man or woman from Ohio thought of themselves as an Ohioan first. Same with North Carolina and Virginia. Each of the United States at the time saw itself as an individual country. Question was did they want to be part of the Union or not.
This. Shelby Foote described that phenomena perfectly when he pointed out that people said “the United States are” before the Civil War but after it moved to “the United States is”.
Absolutely true. Life existed around Virginia laws, rules and regulations. I would say most had no idea which of the same was happening in surrounding states. Indeed we lived like Virginia was our own country and that continued on into the 1900’s.. Here in Southwestern Virginia we were as poor as a church mouse in most cases, both black and white were. And to our “rich” cousins in Northern Virginia we still have much poverty. We live with probably 20-30 % of the land mass and 13% of the population and are basically considered not worth the effort to politicians, governor, senators, representatives and the Sate governing bodies. I am thankful to say that we still have a lot of pride and we care for our fellow person. We often are portrayed as hillbillys and rednecks which is untrue but we do have some, just as there are hoodlums in the larger areas. It is better to go with the hillbillys and rednecks because they are not stealing from you and breaking your windows.
I was born in NOVA, and left there to live in the Valley. The Valley has the most beautiful people and they’re not the rednecks and beer drinking slobs that many NOVA elitists make us out to be. We are quite sophisticated politically and are very involved in our community and with our school system. We also understand our collective history, where NOVA is now just an extension of DC and the swamp.
Sad but true.