Replies

Well let me take the contrarian point of view in this thread. Why doesn’t history celebrate Rommel, Napoleon or Attila the Hun?...Regardless of the shibboleth of states’ rights, Ole Dominion, etc. he did fight and sent his men off to die for maintenance of the status quo in the South which included a pseudo aristocracy and slavery.

First, every history class I've ever had did, indeed, treat the above military men with a great deal of respect. Their battle tactics are still studied in detail, in the same way that artists still study Michelangelo.

Second, I don't claim to know Lee's deepest personal feelings on the institution of slavery, but it has always been my understanding that in Lee's days, we were much more under a true system of federalism, which is to say that each state was sovereign, and the citizens of each state felt loyalty to their state first, and the Union second. Lee was originally offered full command of the Union Army because he was so clearly recognized as a great man, both in character and military competence, but he refused it because it would have required him to take arms against his home state of Virginia, which to him would have been unthinkable treason.

My guess is that Lee, and most Southerners who followed him, fought more due to the ingrained idea that the federal government had no right to dictate to the states how to run their own affairs. Very few Southerners could probably have given any real defense of the institution of slavery, either on moral or Constitutional grounds, but they could all have spoken quite eloquently on the view that men within sovereign states should not allow themselves to be dictated to. It is unfortunate that the issue of slavery was the basis for the conflict, but as we can see today, failing to defend successfully the rights of States to self-governance in such a distasteful matter has led to being unable to refuse the federal government anything, ever, even in the most righteous of matters, as is the situation we have now.

My guess is that Lee, and most Southerners who followed him, fought more due to the ingrained idea that the federal government had no right to dictate to the states how to run their own affairs. Very few Southerners could probably have given any real defense of the institution of slavery, either on moral or Constitutional grounds, but they could all have spoken quite eloquently on the view that men within sovereign states should not allow themselves to be dictated to. It is unfortunate that the issue of slavery was the basis for the conflict, but as we can see today, failing to defend successfully the rights of States to self-governance in such a distasteful matter has led to being unable to refuse the federal government anything, ever, even in the most righteous of matters, as is the situation we have now.

Well said!