Thread: Robert E.Lee overrated?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

... was he over-rated by his opponents? Nah. Frequently, he was UNDER-rated, and look what happened almost every single time they did that.

Which Union generals do you think underrated him, Bluesman? If you mean Hooker, I'm not sure he believed his own boasts ... surely he was "whistling in the dark" ... when his moment came to actually attack Lee, he pulled back into Chancellorsville instead ...

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

...and his greatest imperfection was he was a traitor.

Gee, AR, you're going to have to help an Australian here ... certainly, the politics was that Andrew Johnson wanted Lee to go to trial for treason in June 1865, and only Grant's threat to resign saved The Old Man ...

But in 1861 did the Federal Government actually have the constitutional right to stop a state seceding?

If not, why would Lee be considered a traitor to a voluntary Union rather than a loyal Virginian?

Originally Posted by clackers

Gee, AR, you're going to have to help an Australian here ... certainly, the politics was that Andrew Johnson wanted Lee to go to trial for treason in June 1865, and only Grant's threat to resign saved The Old Man ...

But in 1861 did the Federal Government actually have the constitutional right to stop a state seceding?

If not, why would Lee be considered a traitor to a voluntary Union rather than a loyal Virginian?

Clackers,

You've got the question backwards - was there a constitutional right to secession, and the answer is no.

The Articles of Confederation was a "perpetual" Union, and the Constitution replaced it to for a "more perfect" Union. Therefore, one has to look at the Declaration of Independence for a moral right to declare revolution. However, how can one declare a moral obligation when the express purpose is to prevent the independence of slaves?

The following essay is a good one on this topic, The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

Originally Posted by Shek

Clackers,

You've got the question backwards - was there a constitutional right to secession, and the answer is no.

The Articles of Confederation was a "perpetual" Union, and the Constitution replaced it to for a "more perfect" Union. Therefore, one has to look at the Declaration of Independence for a moral right to declare revolution. However, how can one declare a moral obligation when the express purpose is to prevent the independence of slaves?

The following essay is a good one on this topic, The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

Well, when secession became a FACT through the legally elected representatives of the individual states, is Lee in any position to say that he was now duty-bound to fight against his 'country' (as it was understood by anybody you could've asked back then) of Virginia?

What we're talking about here is the difference in perspective from Lee as opposed to what the legislators believed they were entitled to do. And I'm not at all convinced that, before the question was settled for all time by force of arms in 1865, that in 1860, it wasn't legal. I mean, if what we're talking about is a free association of represented states and not an empire (the definition of which is a diverse set of peoples, held together by force), then I'd say that the South or any other piece of the Union DOES have a right to secede, implied in the very act of creation of same Union in the first dam' place.

So, LEE had very little choice from his point-of-view but to do his duty to the group he felt he owed his allegiance to - Virginia. (Remember - the Union had, in actual fact, been dissolved by the act of multiple states seceding, so when the United States Army, which he HAD been a member of, was ordered to attack Virginia, it was now a foreign army, sent to subdue a free people exercising their rights, as they saw them, right or wrong.)

I have no doubt he would've taken Lincoln's offer of command of Federal forces, had Virginia NOT seceded, and that seems to me to settle the question right there as to whether Lee was a traitor. He wasn't. And neither was his ancestor, George Washington, who did something very similar.

Oh, and hey - I lost your number. Call me.

Originally Posted by Shek

Clackers,

You've got the question backwards - was there a constitutional right to secession, and the answer is no.

I'm not sure that I have, Shek ... some questions for you, if I may ...

Doesn't the Tenth Amendment (1791) stress that any power not delegated to the Union or not explicit in the Constitution remains the right of the states?

Where in the Constitution did the States delegate the right to even suppress a secession?

The thirteen colonies surely didn't sign up to an arrangement where they might end up hapless subjects of the Congress equivalent of King George ... were Virginia, New York and Rhode Island so worried about a possible collective tyranny they made a point of ratifying the Constitution only with clauses permitting them to withdraw if the new government ever became oppressive?

During the war didn't the Federal Government accept the western counties of Virginia seceding to the Union, and in fact give them statehood as a reward?

And after the war, didn't the Union accept Texas seceding from Mexico, and give them statehood too?

Thanks for the info so far, Shek ...!

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And neither was his ancestor, George Washington, who did something very similar.

Not to be a b@stard, but George Washington had no children. At least according to this:
Martha Dandridge

Robert E. Lee married Mary Anna Randolph Custis, daughter of George Washington Parke Custis, who was the son of John Parke Custis, whose mother is Martha Dandridge, who later married George Washington.

Victory is the final arbritator of who was right in the first place. Why? because the victors write the history thereafter.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Victory is the final arbritator of who was right in the first place. Why? because the victors write the history thereafter.

Exactly, Blademaster, which is why I'm keen to get a range of views on this ...

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Well, when secession became a FACT through the legally elected representatives of the individual states, is Lee in any position to say that he was now duty-bound to fight against his 'country' (as it was understood by anybody you could've asked back then) of Virginia?

Since the President of the United States still existed, and his oath duty bound him to obey the orders of the President, then yes, he was duty bound. Furthermore, since the oath also required true faith and allegiance to the United States and to support the Constitution, he was duty bound to fight the states which attempted to secede. The first thing the Continental Congress ever did was pass the oath of office into law (The oath of office: a historical guide to moral leadership | Air & Space Power Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com. He completely disregarded his duty. He did not support the Constitution, instead, he directly acted as an agent against it. That is treason.

Originally Posted by clackers

Exactly, Blademaster, which is why I'm keen to get a range of views on this ...

You missed my point. Why bother get a range of views? I mean you had a range of views back in those days and some of those people were willing to fight for those views and guess what. All of them except one lost and the victor who won got to say that their view is right. The others can keep debating about their views but have to submit to the will of the victor. Hence, those views have little substance to it.

A lot of people on this thread have been saying that Lee was over-rated because he failed to account for the North's industrial and numerical superiority... however that is ludicrous. It is like saying that Yamamoto was overrated because he wasn't able to defeat the United States. In both situations, given the balance of forces against the underdog (the Confederacy and Japan), their position was quite simply unwinnable as long as the United States continued to fight. There was no way to win without the North choosing to quit, and so the Confederacy was screwed as long as Lincoln was in office.

Originally Posted by ofogs

Since the President of the United States still existed, and his oath duty bound him to obey the orders of the President, then yes, he was duty bound. Furthermore, since the oath also required true faith and allegiance to the United States and to support the Constitution, he was duty bound to fight the states which attempted to secede. The first thing the Continental Congress ever did was pass the oath of office into law (The oath of office: a historical guide to moral leadership | Air & Space Power Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com. He completely disregarded his duty. He did not support the Constitution, instead, he directly acted as an agent against it. That is treason.

You are forgetting that secession was caused by the South saying that the North was violating their constitutional states rights through the tyranny of the majority... a view many southerners held, and one that is supportable if you look at the manner in which the constitution was interpreted in 1860. When we swear an oath as an Army officer we swear to protect the constitution and obey the orders of the commander in chief... but what happens if those two components of the oath come into conflict? That was the problem confronting Lee, and I for one cannot blame him for choosing his home state... I just regret that he had to make that choice at all.


I would also note that before you start denouncing Lee as a traitor, he was really the reason why reconciliation was possible. It was he who had the credibility to tell his men not to conduct a guerrilla campaign and make it stick. Conquering the South was one thing... making it a part of the United States again was made possible only because Lee was an honorable man. I shudder to think how history would have turned out if he had advocated fighting the occupation.

:P My view of Lee (and any other Confederate who had been a Federal official) has less to do with the right of secession (in which I say see Shek’s post…spot on) and more to do with what OMOGS said…it centers on the oath of office. Lee, Longstreet, Jeff Davis, Joe Johnston and so on had all taken, numerous times, the oath of an officer to support and defend the Constitution. NONE of them took an oath to the Commonwealth of Virginia, state of Tennessee, etc. they violated that oath by taking up arms against their country.

When I teach my Civil War survey class, I start out my class after talking about the syllabus with the statement “R.E. Lee was a traitor.” Now, living in the Old Dominion, that always ensures class participation!!! After the final exam, I ask it as a question and spend the last hour of the course, ungraded in leading a discussion on the topic. Since Marse Robert was never tried for treason, there is no right answer. But in my opinion? Well, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…..

On to the rest.

Bluesman,

First of all, I blush when you call me master….doesn’t really apply. As I said to a good friend of mine (who IS a master) I am kind of a remora in the school of Civil War history. If I did not have my real job I could put more time into it and maybe make it.

Anyway, in this whole realm of who was better, who was worse, etc…I gotta tell you, I have this vision of Joshua Chamberlain and Pete Longstreet looking out across the fields of Gettysburg (one of my least favorite battlefields) while sitting on a wall and one turning to other and saying “Ya know, in about 150 years, a whole bunch of people are going to look back and argue over whether we fed our troops the right food for breakfast!” Those poor guys have been second guessed to the nth degree. Hell, I think of one charge I made 21 years ago as a company commander at NTC and realize I screwed up. These poor SOBs have had every one of their decisions over analyzed worse than any ex-wife could do (and I know of what I speak in THAT department!)

I did do my graduate work on Grant…mostly because that was what was available in the day. If I could do it differently and in today’s world I would go a different route (how’s THIS for a pretentious title of a master thesis “JFC Fuller’s Nine Principles of War and an Evaluation of U.S Grant’s Generalship at Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chattanooga”) I have learned since that was published 15 years ago to take myself a lot less seriously!

As for reinterpretation of history... As historians it is unavoidable. In fact there is a term for it…historicism. It means we reinterpret history based on the values and experiences of our time. Anyone who takes a graduate degree in history must take a class in historiography (methods and practices of research) and historicism is a big part of it. I know you are familiar with the term of Schools of thought. Well, the study of our Civil War falls into that perfectly. And each is about 20 – 25 years old. Immediately following the war was the Devil Theory.ie. The war was caused by evil men doing bad things. It gave rise to the Lost Cause view in which those in vogue in the Confederacy got to trash those who were considered “questionable” (Jubal Early and Pete Longstreet anyone?) It also was the period covered by the autobiographies, etc. (Hence my warning on depending on them as a source of info). After that was the period covered by the first professional historians (signified by Woodrow Wilson, the first PhD in history in the US) which was the first analytical view of the war. That reinterpretation continues to this day. So my interpretation of the Civil War is different today than it was 18 years ago in grad school because we are in a different period of interpretation since then.

Oh, and why does this occur? A HUGE reason is we are coming across new original sources of materiel, which coupled with improved secondary sources, force us to get it right…until the next school of thought comes along/

So, backing into your question about Bruce Catton. Mr. Catton was a wonderful story teller…much like Shelby Foote and Ken Burns. He and they are to be lauded for bringing great stories to a wider audience. I own Catton’s Trilogy of the AOP in a signed original addition as well as on tape and love listening to it while driving long distances. But I would go to the works of Will Greene, Ken Noe, Brooks Simpson, Jeff Wert, Gordon Rhea, Wiley Sword, Gary Gallagher or Allan Nolan if I wanted some serious discussion of the Civil War.

Thus endeth the lesson!

And I would have replied sooner but I was too wrapped up in my beloved Patriots forgoing their way to the Super Bowl!!! :P