There was a time long, long ago, when Americans understood that the fundamental building block was the state. This time long ago, these people considered themselves “Virginians” or “Pennsylvanians” first, and American’s afterward. They were proud to be Americans but also proud to be “Virginians”.
From a modern perspective, the US federal government has been allowed so much power and abuse of power over the separate, sovereign states, progressively crushing their authority for over 150 years or possibly more, that the modern American is generally clueless as to how vital the states were to people at the time of the Civil War and before.
(I hate the term Civil War as the war was most certainly not a Civil War. The South was not trying to control this nation, but trying to separate from this nation. It was a rebellion for southern freedom from US oppression, not a civil war for control of the USA. But I digress...)
For a small example of how important the separate states used to be, look only at the electoral college. Many modern Americans think national elections should be based on the popular vote. But we were not intended to be a raw democracy, with it’s mob rule. We were meant to be a republic. The foundation of that republic was the state. So, voters do not elect national office-holders. The separate states elect national office-holders, and the candidate who gets the most votes from the separate states, via the electoral college, wins the election. In this manner, states with tiny populations have a disproportionate strength relative to their populations. The wisdom of the founders is never-ending.
Back to Lee. You say he followed his tribe. He followed his state. Lee was already a national hero, having captured the abolitionist John Brown.
Lee believed that slavery was immoral and sinful...
“Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
“Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army, but he chose instead to remain loyal to his state of Virginia, which voted to join the southern cause.
“On April 17, General Winfield Scott, Virginia-born hero of the War of 1812 and captor of Mexico City in the Mexican War, offered command of the U.S. Army to Robert E. Lee. Lee declined on the grounds that he could not participate in what he called “an invasion of the southern states.” Scott said that if Lee could not command U.S. troops he should resign his commission. He did, explaining, “If Virginia stands by the old Union, so will I. But, if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, or that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native State with my sword, and if need be with my life.”
“Lee believed he was defending Virginia, not slavery.”
http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/confederates.htm
Interestingly, many Virginians sympathized with the north, so much so that part of Virginia seceded from the main state and became West Virginia. More interestingly, had Virginia stayed with the Union, Lee would have commanded Lincoln’s Army.
It is not that far-fetched to believe that Virginia could easily have joined the Union rather than the Confederacy. Viginia was the 8th state to secede from the Union, long after South Carolina’s initial move. Central to the decision of Virginians to secede from the Union, was their outrage over Lincoln’s behavior violating the Constitution, which they viewed as tyrannical behavior.
http://www.virginiavignettes.org/?p=93
Robert E. Lee did not follow his tribe, as you believe. He followed his state because his loyalty to his state was paramount, as was true of most people living in the 1960s. This was a no-brainer for most. Yes, brother fought brother but for the most part, people fought for their states during the “Civil War”, not against them. Lee did the same. He basically had no choice. As Virginia went, so did he.
I’m from Mississippi and spent 30 years in the regular army, and then got my PhD in military history so please hear me out.
Plain and simple Lee, and other serving officers who turn in their blue for gray, were traitors to the uniforms they wore and the country they swore to protect (Lee had worn his more than thirty years and had spent very little of that time in his home state. This does not include Jackson and others who were not on active duty at the time of succession.
I quite understand Lee’s aversion to lifting a sword against his home state; but that said I cannot see how in good conscience he could lift the sword against those he had served with. Better for him to have left the army and set in his rocking chair at Arlington.
Lee’s success against his country caused more than 300,000 deaths, both from the north and south, and bleeding southern manhood dry for generations.
My two cents.
Happy birthday General!
“Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
=== The above is a contextomy (context has been removed)
=== Full quote follows
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm
I was much pleased the with President’s message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?