Robert E. Lee and Revisionist History

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 12/22/2008 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Pistolshot]

Correct. The South didn't want to be told what to do by a central government about slavery. The North wanted to force the states back into the union to deal with slavery on a political level instead of by force of arms.

BOTH sides felt it would last a few weeks, months at the most. Remember the picnickers at 1st Bull Run? When it became apparent the South wasn't going to return on it's own, and the Northern armies wouldn't do what was necessary to end the rebellion, the war turned into one of attrition.

The secession of the Southern States was one of emotion rather than practicality.

[JSDude1]

The southern patriots WERE legally allowed to seceed according to the then US Constitution: Ever heard of the 10th Amendment: List me where it specifically stated in the Constitution that a state couldn’t freely leave the union?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

In comparison, the Southern leadership made the ridiculous claim that their rebellion was somehow legal under the Constitution.

Tell me exactly where in the U.S. Constitution that secession is expressly forbidden.

No where.

In fact, this is the precise reason that the U.S. government had to release Jefferson Davis from prison in 1868 without a trial since it was afraid that, legally speaking, there was a very good chance that the courts would rule that secession was indeed legal, as Davis was going argue in his defense.

To this day, no federal court has ever ruled on whether or not secession is legal under the U.S. Constitution.

[Citizen Blade]

The southern patriots WERE legally allowed to seceed according to the then US Constitution: Ever heard of the 10th Amendment: List me where it specifically stated in the Constitution that a state couldn’t freely leave the union?

It's not specifically stated, it's an implicit prohibition. Under the Constitution, States are not allowed to, for example, change their borders by even an inch without Congressional approval. It logically follows that they can't unilaterally secede, either.

But, in any event, the Southern states never even bothered to discuss the issue of secession within a Constitutional or legal process. They never even contemplated whether they were on the hook for any portion of the Federal government's debt. They raised an army, started a war by firing on a US fort and ended up losing.

[Swiss]

Actually article III section 2 points out that if there is a dispute to a right such as succession the US Supreme Court has the right to decide.

Frankly I don’t know if either side did bring the matter to the courts like it should of been done before they turned to military actions.

[pburgh01]

When I reported to my first company as an infantry lieutenant, my company commander had a quote from Rommel painted on the wall.

Well I think the OP was not based on a totality of Lee's military experience, more people bemoaning the besmirching of Lee's place in history. The revisionist camp on Lee I personally don't think has been a fair portrayal of his life. I think after reading plenty of Lee biographies my sense of the man is he had this 18th century sensibility when it came to state loyalty, more a colonial view of the country than a post Revolution view. To simplify that Lee had really been a racist, effete aristocrat is simplistic and not accurate. Why he shut out the moral and pragmatic factors when he decided to fight for the Confederacy is legitimate reason for debate.

[JSDude1]

Implication is NOT specficially in the US Constitution: I think the 10th Amendement Contradicts your logic: since NOTHING prohibits states from leaving the USA, and since they entered into the Union on their own accord (when they individually ratifed the current Constitution), then it is not only implied, but SPECFICALLY stated that that the states “reserve” the power (right) to seceed~!

[Phlyer]

You're right about the formal assignment of responsibility, of course, but Lee was de facto head of the Confederate Army before becoming the de jure head, so he has some responsibility even if it were limited to giving good advice to Jefferson Davis.

And even taking your definition of his responsibilities as correct, there is little reason to support a raid into Pennsylvania as defense of Virginia and Richmond.

The rationale for that raid was that if he could lure the Army of the Potomac out and defeat it decisively, then the Union would give up. That is, in fact, a strategic rationale. It was just flawed both in appreciation of the situation (not likely that Lincoln would give up, and too far before the elections of 1864 to influence them directly), and in execution.

Again, I think Lee was a great general. He was tactically sound in most cases (all our generals, including Washington, lost battles so Gettysburg alone cannot negate all his spectacular successes) and probably unmatched as a personal motivator of men. But he doesn't quite rise to the first rank as I would prioritize the qualities of a general.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree over your contention that Lee was a second rate general.

[Citizen Blade]

Lee fought the only war he could, given the logistical situation he was facing. In his boots, Grant would have done the same things. Similarly, if Lee was heading the Union armies, he would have fought the war the same way as Grant did (and, if Lee had accepted command of the Union armies, the civil war would have probably been over in a year or two).

It’s my opinion that the South should have surrendered after Lincoln was re-elected in 1864. The writing was on the wall at that point- the Union had given Lincoln a mandate to finish the war with the complete defeat of the CSA. The South should have realized that every day the war continued after that election was just a waste of lives and resources.

[chaosagent]

Robert E. Lee was a brilliant general and, by all accounts, a gentleman. However, he also violated the oath he took as an officer in the United States Army and took up arms against his country. He was a traitor and should have been treated as such.
____________________________________________________________

Couldn’t exactly the same thing have been said about Washington and others who had been in the British Army and then fought on the side of the colonies?

[groanup]

But the man, through his command of his army, is responsible for the deaths of more loyal Americans than even Hitler.

I think you're confusing Lee with Lincoln.

In terms of historical respect, he should not be placed in the same category as the Union generals who fought to preserve the Union.

So, in your mind, fighting to keep a strong central government is nobler than fighting to be free from it.

[Phlyer]

Lee fought the only war he could, given the logistical situation he was facing.

If that is true . . . how good a general was he? If he had no choices, then he didn't really have much to do with the way things turned out.

I'll have to disagree with your contention. There were three major choices he could have made. This presumes that Jefferson Davis would go along, which I think is a valid presumption.

1) He could have recognized Vicksburg and the control of the Mississippi River as the true strategic center of the Confederacy, and reinforced it as required to beat Grant. This was - at least as reported in history - Longstreet's recommendation. And the timing would have been good because at that point Grant was still learning how to be a general and was very susceptible to the superior tactics of Lee and Longstreet. This would have had the best chance of setting up a sustainable, long-term stalemate (at least) that would have eventually led to conclusion that met the South's objectives.

2) He could have used his forces to secure several Southern ports and surrounding waters. This would have shown the Europeans that the South could maintain their territorial integrity, and it would have facilitated the trade which was - in the end - the only reason the European powers might have chosen to intervene.

3) He could have used his army as a raiding force to draw the Union army into battles that posed such a nuisance to the North that it would decide to end the war. This is what he chose to do, and it is a sign of an all-too-typical arrogance on the part of leaders (not just Lee, by any means). This option is based on the the presumption that only your own side is patriotic, courageous, and determined. With any stress, the other side will break, yet your own side can hold out as long as it takes. In fact, truly successful generals assume that the other side has moral strength at least as great as your own side, and that only overwhelming conditions will break them.

Obviously, this is not always true. France in 1940 is an example of a hollow, fragile enemy just asking for an excuse to quit. Yet that same presumption - with even more justification after the first few months of the campaign - led the Germans to defeat against the Soviets. And a similar presumption (reportedly not shared by Yamamoto) led to Japanese defeat.

A nation can set up those defeat conditions on itself - as we did in Viet Nam - by ostentatiously making it clear that there was no real threat to the other nation. We were that way in Iraq until Petraeus and the 'surge.' But with Lincoln and Grant, the 'give up because I'm tired of this' option was not real. So ultimately, Lee misread the courage and determination of his adversary, both strategically and - at Gettysburg - tactically.

Or so I would interpret things. Armchair quarterback / generals are a dime a dozen, and you may think you have some change coming.