"Conservative" David Brooks on Gen Lee

New York Times ^ | 6/26/15 | David Brooks

[ghost of stonewall jackson]

The harder call concerns Robert E. Lee. Should schools and other facilities be named after the great Confederate general, or should his name be removed and replaced?

The case against Lee begins with the fact that he betrayed his oath to serve the United States. He didn’t need to do it. The late historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor demonstrated that 40 percent of Virginia officers decided to remain with the Union forces, including members of Lee’s family.

As the historian Allen Guelzo emailed me, “He withdrew from the Army and took up arms in a rebellion against the United States.” He could have at least sat out the war. But, Guelzo continues, “he raised his hand against the flag and government he had sworn to defend. This more than fulfills the constitutional definition of treason.”

More germane, while Lee may have opposed slavery in theory he did nothing to eliminate or reduce it in practice. On the contrary, if he’d been successful in the central task of his life, he would have preserved and prolonged it.

Like Lincoln he did not believe African-Americans were yet capable of equality. Unlike Lincoln he accepted the bondage of other human beings with bland complaisance. His wife inherited 196 slaves from her father. Her father’s will (somewhat impractically) said they were to be freed, but Lee didn’t free them.

[gusty]

I would like to tip my hat in regards to this matter to Gen. James Longstreet. Longstreet did all you could do to bring about reconciliation not just between North and South, but between Black and White. Longstreet’s last battle was defending the Black citizens of New Orleans from White paramilitaries and mob in the 1870’s.

[Ohioan]

I would disagree that "Lee was a man of his times," as an accurate description. He was, of course, a man of his times--as is every man. But Lee like those Biblical Prophets was a man for the ages. He represented what Jefferson & Adams used to discuss in terms of a natural aristocracy.

My point about slavery, whether discussing Lee or the Prophets, is that it is not the issue that Brooks would make it. It is a labor system that has been experienced by all the major races & ethnic sub-races, for long periods, within the historic era.

And one can certainly have been opposed to the idea of employing it in one's own community, without acting like an Abolitionist fanatic. For that matter, consider Senator Daniel Webster, the most articulate foe of Slavery in the pre-war Federal Government, who denounced the Abolitionists in 1850: Webster's Address.

[Loyalist]

The people who demand the banning of the Confederate flag and memorials to Confederate soldiers today would have been demanding mass executions and other reprisals against everyone from Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee down to the lowliest private.

And they'd have created, not a stronger and more tolerant Union, but a resentful occupied territory subject to endless guerrilla warfare.

And how would that have helped promote racial harmony?

[Team Cuda]

So, I read the attached article. I found it fascinating (not as good as Alice in Wonderland, and with the same relation to the truth, but fascinating, nonetheless).

Lets’ start with the statement “Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.”. By “invasion” I presume the author is talking about the first battle of Bull Run, which occurred on July 21, 1861. Now, I am a product of Public and DoD schools, but I always learned that April comes before July, which would make the Battle of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 the first battle of the Civil War. There, Confederate forces under Pierre Gustave Toutant-Buauregard (love that name!) attacked US forces at Fort Sumter. So, if the first battle of the Civil War occurred over 3 months before the first US invasion, how was the invasion the cause of the war? Interestingly enough, Fort Sumter is addressed in #10 below. As I read it, Lincoln instigated the incident by not immediately surrendering and forcing the South to shoot first. Talk about blaming the victim (it’s your fault that I had to shoot you, because you didn’t give me your wallet fast enough).

The article then lists the 10 causes of the war. They are, in order (I’m assuming the order is important, otherwise they would just be bullet points):
1. Tariff
2. Centralization versus States Rights
3. Christianity Versus Secular Humanism
4. Cultural Differences
5. Control of Western Territories
6. Northern Industrialists Wanted the South’s Resources
7. Slander of the South By Northern Newspapers
8. New Englanders Attempted To Instigate Massive Slave Rebellion’s In The South
9. Slavery
10. Northern Aggression Against Southern States
When looking at history, I always like to go to the original source material. I would consider the Articles of Secession that each state wrote as a primary source. After all, this is what the actual people involved wanted to tell the world. Let’s start with South Carolina’s, as they were the birthplace of the Confederacy. I would assume that, since the Tariff is #1 on the list above, it would be prominently placed in the Article of Secession, right? Strangely enough, the South Carolina Article NEVER mentions Tariffs. Neither does Georgia’s, nor Mississippi’s, nor Texas’s. I could go on, but I suspect you get the point. You know what they all mentioned as the primary cause of the Secession (say it with me, you know what it is)? SLAVERY.
So, if the people actually involved with the rebellion say that the primary cause was Slavery, why is it listed as the ninth most important reason in the article? And if the author is so wrong about that, why should I believe anything in this article

[Moonman62]

Grant hated delay. He knew it also gave his enemy time to plan and regroup, and felt that he never gave him an advantage. Whereas, pressing forward with whatever he had usually did give him an advantage, because the enemy didn’t expect it.

As far as the Wilderness goes, Grant knew he had the numerical advantage and that a draw was just as good as a victory. He also knew that he wouldn’t be turning back and that he would do whatever it took to see his pursuit of Lee through to its conclusion.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “I believe the terms of the will said the slaves were to be freed within five years of his father-in-law’s death. Lee did free the slaves, although the last of them were not freed until a few months after the fifth anniversary of date his father-in-law died. “

That’s very close to what I’ve read, too. Apparantly the Will said to free the slaves two years after the father-in-law’s death, unless it was financially impractical, at which case the slaves were to be freed no later than five years from the date of his death.

There was a large amount of debt the father-in-law owed and Lee had to try to satisfy all the creditors. This is why Lee asked the court for an extension to the five year date for freeing the slaves as opposed to the two year date. The court granted his request.

There was unrest among some of the slaves at having to wait for their freedom until the fifth year. Three escaped and supposedly, at Lee’s order, they were whipped severely, including a woman. How accurate this all is I don’t know.

[DoodleDawg]

Apparantly the Will said to free the slaves two years after the father-in-law’s death, unless it was financially impractical, at which case the slaves were to be freed no later than five years from the date of his death.

In fairness to Lee, five years after his father-in-law's death was October 1862. He did have a lot on his plate at that time.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “In fairness to Lee, five years after his father-in-law’s death was October 1862. He did have a lot on his plate at that time.”

Yes, he sure did. He also gave the Yankees a lot to think about, too.

[NTHockey]

Sorry David, but it IS about rewriting history. Everything that is written and said about the South, the Confederacy, the war, its leaders and its people is done through a presentist prism.

They made their choice based on the conditions that existed at that time. They deserve all the honors given them. To rob them of that honor is a discredit to us all. Do we next banish Jefferson because he owned slaves? Or Washington? Some have already suggested that.

Slavery was indeed a stain on the nation’s history. But a greater stain is the 55 million+ babies murdered since 1972.

[x]

No he did not. He resigned his commission, which effectively revokes his oath.

I don't know how things were then, but today "The oath is for an indeterminate period; no duration is specifically defined" [Wikipedia].

The bigger question is, when your name has become synonymous with personal honor, as Lee's was, whether your word should be as subject to changing circumstances as Lee's apparently was.

If Lee and other officers had made it clear that they weren't going to change their loyalties, perhaps war could have been avoided.

[central_va]

Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and even Stanton did not pursue the issue of treason against Southern combatants because that would put secession on trial and they would have lost.

fixed it.

[x]

Brooks limits the meaning of the Confederate flag to southern heritage which he implies must give way because it is also associated with racism. But the flag also represents federalism, a real and legitimate interpretation of the Constitution which, one might add, impelled Robert E Lee to decline the offer to lead the Yankee armies and to stay true to this interpretation of the Constitution. According to this interpretation, codified in the ninth and 10th amendments, Robert E Lee would have committed treason had he drawn his sword against his native state.

You can't at once reject the Constitution and claim to be fighting for some interpretation of the Constitution that allows you to reject it. And, no, no amendment to the Constitution allows a state or part of a state or collection of states to fight against the union and declare citizens who don't join in traitors.

Lee, at least, was honest enough to consider himself a patriot or nationalist for the Confederacy, somebody who was committed to his new government, at least when the war was at its height and it looked like they would win. Maybe you should respect his commitment and not try to twist it into something it wasn't.

[central_va]

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[nathanbedford]

You can't at once reject the Constitution and claim to be fighting for some interpretation of the Constitution that allows you to reject it.

That is your interpretation of the Constitution but obviously not General Lee's. If you believe in the right to secede from the union, and you must put yourself into the mindset of the South in 1861 to be fair, that was the interpretation which was virtually unanimously held in Virginia at that time. Accepting that interpretation, means that to deny the right to secede because "you cannot claim to be fighting for some interpretation of the Constitution that allows you to reject it" is like saying you cannot be seeking to amend the Constitution when the Constitution provides for amendments. If you believe your state has the right to secede you do not believe you are a traitor.

While it is true that no amendment permits a state or part of state or collection of states to fight against the union there is no explicit prohibition against a state withdrawing either.

As to your last paragraph, Lee resigned his commission in the union army and offered his service to Virginia, not to the Confederacy. It was only later that he became part of the Confederate Army. The point is that his loyalty was to Virginia and that was his rationale for declining to accept command in the union army and for resigning his commission. When Virginia joined the Confederacy he naturally followed the lead of the state to which he was loyal.

The mindset is important in judging the character of the man. If you believe the United States is a union of states then, assuming again that the state has the right to withdraw from that union, by using force to drag a state back into the union is to wage an unjust war. It was not Virginia but South Carolina that fired first at Fort Sumter. It was Lincoln's call for volunteers to fight to compel states to return to the union that galvanized southern resistance and convinced them that the North intended to invade their country. Given Lee's mindset which was entirely congruent with the culture in which he lived (not the culture of David Brooks in New York City in the 21st century), his decision in 1861 is not "traitorous."

In any event, at the end of the war he was free and parted under the terms of the surrender granted by US Grant at Appomatox. Subsequently, he was never prosecuted for treason. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States required the federal government to compensate his family for improper expropriation of the Custis estate at Arlington. If Robert E Lee committed treason the United States government failed to make the most of it.

[Dick Bachert]

Thanks for the troll.

[DoodleDawg]

“I think Ulysses S. Grant is vastly underrated as a man and as a general. I know people think this and that about his drinking habits, which I think have been exaggerated way out of line. The fact is, he never demanded more men or material from the war department, he took over an army that had a long history of retreating and losing. That army had no confidence in their fighting ability and Grant came in as a real outsider. He had so many disadvantages going into the 1864 campaign, now 100 years ago. But he met every test and rose to the occasion unlike I’ve ever seen in American history. He was a very tough yet very fair man and a great soldier. He’s not been given his due...Grant devised a strategy to end the war. He alone had the determination, foresight, and wisdom to do it. It was lucky that President Lincoln didn’t interfere or attempt to control Grant’s strategic line of thinking. Lincoln wisely left the war to Grant, at least in the concluding moves after he came east. Grant is very undervalued today, which is a shame, because he was one of the greatest American generals, if not the greatest.” — Dwight Eisenhower to David Brinkley, July 1964

[rockrr]

That is your interpretation of the Constitution but obviously not General Lee's. If you believe in the right to secede from the union, and you must put yourself into the mindset of the South in 1861 to be fair, that was the interpretation which was virtually unanimously held in Virginia at that time.

I'm not so sure that was the case. Lee didn't appear to be conflicted about secession when he wrote to his son G. W. Custis Lee:

I received Everett’s Life of Washington which you sent me, and enjoyed its perusal. How his spirit would be grieved could he see the wreck of his mighty labors! I will not, however, permit myself to believe, until all ground of hope is gone, that the fruit of his noble deeds will be destroyed, and that his precious advice and virtuous example will so soon be forgotten by his countrymen. As far as I can judge by the papers, we are between a state of anarchy and civil war. May God avert both of these evils from us! I fear that mankind will not for years be sufficiently Christianized to bear the absence of restraint and force. I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none. Letter to his son, G. W. Custis Lee (23 January 1861)

Neither was his wife, Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee, or his sister. They were all outspoken against secession.

While reseaching the contents of that letter I also came across this anecdote that I thought interesting and relevant:

There is another peculiar post-script to the secessionist drama of 1861.

Oddly enough, one Robert E. Lee was living in Texas at that time. Lee had been stationed in Texas on and off for several years, commanding the Second United States Cavalry in frontier skirmishes against Comanches and Mexicans. He didn't seem too fond of the frontier life; he wrote to his wife of living of a "desert of dullness."

With war approaching, Lee received orders summoning him back to Washington, so he departed Fort Mason, in Mason County, on Feb. 13, 1861, for the journey east. But in San Antonio, Lee was waylaid. A federal general from Georgia, who had taken over Lee's Texas responsibilities, had just cheerfully surrendered his men and supplies to Texas rebels who had ridden out to San Antonio (Sam Houston had dispatched the Texas Rangers to try to prevent this, but they did not arrive in time). So Lee, as a federal army officer, was potentially a prisoner in a state (or country) that was preparing for war with the federal government.

Lee donned civilian garb, reminded the Texans he was a Virginian, and was ultimately allowed to proceed (though he was apparently quite provoked by the Texans, who tried unsuccessfully to get him to declare allegiance to the South then and there). He got back to his home in Arlington on March 1 — and little more than a month later, took a command in the Confederate army.

Interesting that he didn't join up with "the cause" right then and there.

[DoodleDawg]

Thanks for the troll.

I don't think he's trolling at all. The website you linked to was full of errors and inaccuracies start to finish.

[Dick Bachert]

Fascinating. Trolls come in pairs!

[rjsimmon]

I don't know how things were then, but today "The oath is for an indeterminate period; no duration is specifically defined" [Wikipedia].

The oath, with regard to military service, is for as long as the commission or enlistment lasts. Beyond that is up to the person in question and is simply a matter of choice, not contractual obligation.

The bigger question is, when your name has become synonymous with personal honor, as Lee's was, whether your word should be as subject to changing circumstances as Lee's apparently was.

Since the inception of these United States and the Constitution that binds them, States have been pre-eminent. The Articles of Confederation attempted to make a cooperative of sorts, but there was no mutual benefit amongst the various States. This led to failure of the AoC. However, loyalty was ALWAYS to the State before the Federal government, which is why Lee chose Virginia. Were you to survey the divisions and regiments of the War Between the States, you would see an overwhelming amount of State flags and banners vice a single Stars an Stripes or Southern Cross.

If Lee and other officers had made it clear that they weren't going to change their loyalties, perhaps war could have been avoided.

Interesting supposition. There are probably a good many articles written about such a thesis. Might be worth you doing an article on and submitting to one of the many magazines dedicated to the WBtS.