"Conservative" David Brooks on Gen Lee

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

[BlackElk]

Union soldiers generally acquitted themselves well on the battlefield. They often had material advantages in the field particularly later in the war. The North, having been far more industrialized, was better able to equip and feed its soldiers. The North had superior railroads for transporting troops and supplies. The North had more population available for the recruitment of troops.

All that having been said, the Northern troops waged generally honorable warfare and waged it effectively. No defender of the Southern cause ought to stoop so low as to disparage the Northern troops. Both Grant and Sherman proved themselves to be quite gentlemanly after the war although that may not have been as obvious in the heat of battle.

Grant certainly guzzled more whiskey than was prudent on the last day of the siege of Vicksburg when he sent seven human waves against that city's battlements. Lincoln acknowledged this when he said a supply of such whiskey should be sent to each of his generals. Grant was more temperate during the rest of the war.

Sherman certainly burned Atlanta and a lot of the rest of the South on his March to the Sea.

The Irish (from the sacred nation of my sainted paternal grandmother of Cork) fought on BOTH sides. I believe that the famed Irish Brigade (69th NY) distinguished itself in the late unpleasantness. Matt Keough, last trooper to go down at Little Big Horn, taking six warriors with him, came here from Ireland not to drink but to serve in the cause of abolishing slavery after decorated service in Pius IX's papal army against Garibaldi, Mezzini and Cavour. Padraig Claiborn served as a Confederate General and was killed in battle. Phil Sheridan, of Irish ancestry, was Sherman's right arm.

Like most victorious armies or navies in battles throughout the history, the "luck" of victory was generally the residue of hard work, diligent planning and effective execution.

Conscripts? Probably both sides had conscripts. New York City had draft riots against conscription. In the South, many (not all) simply ignored attempts at conscription and got away with it.

In the absence of specific historic proof to the contrary, we ought to regard each of the 600,000 who fell on both sides as "all our honored dead."

Where we apparently differ is that I would hold Lincoln responsible for 600,000 dead in a quite unnecessary war. The nation would have been far better served if Senator Douglas had been elected POTUS.

[Team Cuda]

It certainly wasn’t my intent to troll. I was just pointing out the inaccuracies in the attached letter. I apologize if any of my (admittedly) sarcastic asides caused hurt feelings, but it doesn’t change the fact that the attached file is historically, factually, and provably WRONG.

I think that one of the issues is that, when people say “My ancestor didn’t fight to protect slavery, He fought for (fill in the blank), I have no doubt at all that they are sincere. However, that does not change the fact that the reason the Southern States seceded was to protect the institution of Slavery, and no other reason. Anyone claiming otherwise is, at best, lacking in historical knowledge. The author is this paper, however is deliberately engaging in obfuscation, and not doing a very good job at it. Seriously, to claim that the #4 reason why the South seceded is because their ancestors came from a different part of England than the ancestors of the Northerners is a reach comparable to the distance between LA and Hong Kong!

If you would like to refute any of my arguments, or support any of the arguments from the attached document based on historical FACTS, I would be more than happy to continue this discussion

[DoodleDawg]

Fascinating. Trolls come in pairs!

We all appreciate a good laugh. And your link provided that in spades.

[nathanbedford]

I agree, Lee was not conflicted about secession, he abhorred it but fully supported it when "honor" required: "Secession is nothing but revolution" but the dissolution of the Union was "honorable" and "proper" as revolution because the south had been "aggrieved by the acts of the North."

The second portion of your reply concerning Lee's actions in Texas confirm the sentiments he expressed in his earlier letter quoted in the first portion of your reply. His actions were also consistent with my earlier reply in that Lee conceived of his duty to his state which was not Texas but Virginia. While in Texas he was not relieved of his duty to the United States since he was still a serving officer.

I do not read Lee as having second thoughts about the right to succeed or the grievance justifying succession, he clearly, however, regarded the step as a last resort representing a real calamity for the nation and its people.

Written in the context of the life of George Washington as described in the biography the letter notes Lee was reading, the sentiments expressed were common at the time in Virginia and in the rest of the South to the effect that the southern states by revolution [Secession] were effecting a "second American revolution" which was fully in accord with the moral justification of the first.

[x]

That is your interpretation of the Constitution but obviously not General Lee's.

Actually, it was Lee's. At least in January 1861.

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.

Not so much. Even Lee himself didn't accept that interpretation:

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 ...

True, in the same letter Lee went on to say:

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.

But it's clear that he did not accept the view you attribute to him. At least not before circumstances changed.

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.

As the letter indicates, the idea of fighting sword in hand for Virginia was in Lee's mind even before war began and before Virginia voted to secede. And that's problematic. When you find army officers discussing the circumstances when they'd fight against the country whose constitution they'd sworn allegiance to and the army they served in, something is wrong.

Of course, our point of view in the 21st century is different from Lee's. I doubt very many people today would contemplate the prospect of civil war as calmly as Lee did. We'd probably want people -- even career military officers -- to do what they could to prevent it, rather than simply passively drift into it, "following the state of the state" they "were loyal to" -- rather than the country they'd sworn allegiance to. People at the time didn't know what they were getting into. But we do, and our perspective isn't invalid.

[nathanbedford]

But I think the letter of January 1861 unquestionably reveals Lee's true intention. We must note that he also wrote:

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

The proper step for redress Lee was to to write in the same letter was revolution which he equated with secession. Lee was clear on the right of his state to oppose the federal government with arms but he was also distressed at the prospect.

Let me take this occasion to put on the record my own feelings on the subject even while I project my understanding of Robert E Lee's state of mind. I have consistently spoken out on these threads against the idea of taking up arms against the federal government. I have spoken out at length in one of my infamous long-winded replies about the foolhardiness of attempting to wage war against the federal government with handguns. I have done so knowing full well that it would generate blowback from many fellow conservatives. I have cited Robert E Lee's reluctance to permit his troops to melt away from Appomatox into the Western Mountains to wage guerrilla war after the surrender. I join Lee in regarding terrorism as beyond bounds and I have written that I believe such a war against United States would inevitably degenerate into terrorism.

Rather, I strongly advocate resort to article 5 as a reasonable constitutionally authorized procedure to restore the Constitution and to hopefully save the Republic, however long the odds.

I believe my assessment of the mindset of Robert E Lee to be valid for the man who was very much of his time. Since that time we have fought a civil war and, like elections, civil wars have consequences. The idea of secession, equally the idea of nullification, has been settled on the very fields my great-grandfather fought on for cause which he passionately believed in but which was not to be. In the perspective of history, it is all to the good that the cause was lost. But the cause was not entirely evil and the sacrifices on its behalf were real and noble. The Confederate battle flag represents far more than slavery, it represents the cause of federalism, the cause of home rule, the cause of individualism even as all of those causes and more which it represented were tainted by slavery.