Posted on 10/17/2005 8:24:21 AM PDT by Incorrigible
|
AMERICAN IDENTITY With Malice Toward None, With Amnesty for All: The Pardon of Robert E. LeeBY DELIA M. RIOS |
WASHINGTON -- On Christmas Day 1868, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation granting "universal amnesty and pardon" to "every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion."
Certainly this included Robert E. Lee, former commanding general of the Confederacy's famed Army of Northern Virginia.
So then why, in the summer of 1975, did President Gerald R. Ford cross the Potomac River to sit among Lee's descendants on the portico of the general's hilltop home? He was there, Ford explained, to right an old wrong. He chose that place, Arlington House, to sign a congressional resolution restoring "full rights of citizenship" to Virginia's native son. Then he handed a souvenir pen to 12-year-old Robert E. Lee V.
Ford spoke of Lee's labors to bind the nation's wounds after the Civil War -- even as contemporary America reeled from the April withdrawal of the last U.S. forces from Vietnam, ending another long, bitter conflict.
Was it really Lee who needed Ford's healing hand? Or was Lee, in fact, pardoned twice -- for reasons that had more to do with 1975 than 1865? "It is a good question," says Michael Hussey of the National Archives.
The search for an answer begins in the strange odyssey of Lee's amnesty oath.
Weeks after the war ended, Andrew Johnson invited high-ranking Confederates to apply for amnesty. Lee actively promoted reconciliation. He wanted to take Johnson up on his offer, but learned he had been indicted for treason. He believed he was protected by the "parole" granted as a condition of his April 9, 1865, surrender to Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. His old adversary threatened to resign if Johnson did not honor the parole. Johnson agreed, freeing Lee to seek amnesty.
In doing so, Lee signaled that "opposition to the government was at an end," Douglas Southall Freeman wrote in his landmark history. "No single act of his career aroused so much antagonism."
But Lee did not realize an oath was required of him. It wasn't until Oct. 2 that he went before a notary public and signed his name to this pledge:
"I, Robert E. Lee, of Lexington, Virginia, do solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves, so help me God."
The oath apparently was forwarded to Secretary of State William H. Seward. Then it disappeared from history. Did Johnson see it? Was it misplaced? Suppressed? No one knows. One thing is certain: Lee's request for an individual pardon was never acted upon.
Lee did not press the matter. He was resigned to "procrastination in measures of relief," as he wrote his son, Fitzhugh. But relief did come -- on Dec. 25, 1868, with Johnson's universal amnesty, making Lee's appeal moot.
Only one restriction remained, from the 14th Amendment ratified in July 1868. Any Confederate who had sworn before the war to uphold the Constitution was barred from holding federal or state office. That included Lee, a former officer in the U.S. Army.
Lee died Oct. 12, 1870, at age 63.
Almost 100 years later, an old grievance surfaced -- along with Lee's long-lost oath.
Inspired by the Civil War centennial, an archivist named Elmer O. Parker, began looking for Lee's oath. This great-grandson of Confederate soldiers located the document in a cardboard box among State Department files in the National Archives -- under "Virginia" and "L" for Lee. "Exactly where it was supposed to be," Hussey says. "But no one had thought to look for it."
His find might have been a footnote to Lee's story -- after all, historians already knew that Lee had applied for amnesty. Instead, it stoked a stubborn misconception.
"General Lee died a man without a country," the Richmond News Leader protested early in 1975. The sentiment was repeated in news coverage of Ford's visit to Arlington House, and persists today.
If Lee believed this, it would be news to his biographer Emory M. Thomas and to scholars at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond. All Ford actually corrected -- posthumously -- was Lee's right to hold political office, something Congress had restored to former Confederates in 1898.
This was about symbolism. But for whose war?
In July 1975 -- when Congress took up the Lee resolution -- the United States was confronting its failures in Vietnam, with the bicentennial of the American Revolution -- heralded as a unifying event -- just months away.
Listen to Michigan Democrat John Conyers, addressing his colleagues from the floor of the House: "I would suggest to the members that until amnesty is granted to, and full rights of citizenship are restored to, those young Americans who, according to their consciences, resisted the ignoble war in Indochina, this resolution will be neither healing nor charitable."
Another Democrat, Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania, countered that the Bicentennial Congress should demonstrate "how we as Americans once divided can learn from our historic past and once again reunite when it is in our nation's interest."
The vote was overwhelmingly in favor. And so the nation's leaders looked to Robert E. Lee and the distant past for reconciliation and peace not yet realized in their own time.
X X X
A sampling of the billions of artifacts and documents in the National Archives is on view in the Public Vaults exhibit. On the Web, go to www.archives.gov and click on "National Archives Experience," then "Public Vaults."
Oct. 14, 2005
(Delia M. Rios can be contacted at delia.rios@newhouse.com.)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
General Sherman..in some parts of Georgia, those are STILL fightin words..
Quite the contrary. They were indeed suggesting that. I suggest you look at why any sane man would have gone to Arizona or New Mexico in the mid 19th century and what was the economic engine that drove the growth of those, and other Western territories. It sure as hell wasn't spectacular scenery they were interested in. It was the riches that lay beneath the ground and what better, cheeper way to dig those riches out than with slave labor?
See Jefferson Davis' speech to the Senate in 1850 condemning the admitance of California as a free state. Davis hated the idea that white men in the gold fields were doing the work that was better fitted for black slaves.
These constitute with me two great objections to the propositions of the honorable Senataor [sic] from Kentucky; but, without stating all the objections that I have, and they are very many, I will merely point out a few of the prominent points to which I object in the argument of the Senator. He assumes as facts things which are mere matters of opinion, and I think of erroneous and injurious opinion. But, deferring the discussion to another occasion, I desire at present merely to notice the assertion of the honorable Senator that slavery would never, under any circumstances, be established in California. This, though stated as a fact, is but a mere opinion-- an opinion with which I do not accord. It was to work the gold mines on this continent that the Spaniards first brought Africans to the country. The European races now engaged in working the mines of California sink under the burning heat and sudden changes of the climate, to which the African race are altogether better adapted. The production of rice, sugar, and cotton is no better adapted to slave labor than the digging, washing, and quarrying of the gold mines.
You history library is too limited for honest discussion of the subject....
That is correct, not even President Jefferson Davis -- who, by the way, longed for a trial to prove the Union wrong in its assertion that the South had no right to secession.
If you've been in my house to view my library, then maybe I'd better call the police!
I wouldn't be so sure. Winning the Revolution and delivering the infant republic was only part of Washington's legacy. Guiding and protecting that infant through the dangerous early years was Washington's most significant accomplishment. Washington, to the day he died, always put that infant nation first.
If the Confederacy had won, Lee would have again turned inward to Virginia (which is about all he concerned himself with during the war as well) and through the early years of that "republic" when the inevitable disputes and dangers would have arisen, Lee would have only viewed them through the eyes of a Virginian. He would not have been the indispensable man of the Confederate States. He would always be what was expected of him by his family legacy --- Robert E. Lee, Virginian.
Sorry, I've just been replying to so many replies that I am a little too scattered to notice subtle humor!
At least you haven't questioned my qualifications to discuss the issues (yet)...
Only took a 110 posts for the truth to come out....
Speaking of naive, I can't help pointing out the naivity of the "pro-secession states rights" argument. One person's naivity is another's brilliance, I guess...
But are they obligated to remain? If not, what is the process by which a state can secede properly?
No. Lee loved the Army - he war torn by his love of it and his state. He had already informed Blair that he could never draw his sword against his state Virginia - and prayed that he was not called into Union service. If it came to that, he faced resignation under orders - a disgrace. To his commanding officer Winfield Scott he wrote:
General:Basically, with the secession of Virginia, Lee was a citizen of a state not a member of the federal union, and no longer obligated to his oath to a union that would soon attack his state. Lincoln via Blair had offered him the one thing he had long desired, and yet his love and respect for his state prevented it from occurring. Lee was an officer, and a gentleman.Since my interview with you on the 18th inst. [18 Apr 1861] I have felt that I ought no longer to retain my commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation, which I request you will recommend for acceptance. I would have presented it at once, but for the struggle it has cost me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted all the best years of my life and all the ability I possessed.
During the whole of that time — more than a quarter of a century — I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors and a most cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one, General, have I been as much indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness and consideration, and its has always been my ardent desire to meet your approbation. I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration, and your name and fame will always be dear to me.
Save in defence of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.
Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continuance of your happiness and prosperity, and believe me, most truly yours,
R. E. Lee
"Comparatively, there were few slaves in that region, and the people knew but little, from any actual experience, of the dominating character and purpose of the slave power, except that they were not the objects of its solicitude; were not its beneficiaries, and were practically excluded from all participation in the conduct of public affairs. They were, in a sense, vassals of a system of obedience."
An eloquent description of the reduction of all human beings when any government entity considers itself to poses "Rights", as in this instance, "State's rights". The US Constitution does not grant any unit or sub unit of government any of the natural prerogatives referred to as "rights". Government, federal or state has only "powers". Only "person", "persons", or "the people" poses rights to be accordingly protected by the Constitution. Those who proclaim "State's Rights" in proclamation of their independence, only betray themselves to the tyranny of a central government with similarities to the Soviet Union. The USSR was a state with all the rights.
Some of these old rebel veterans, who long wistfully for the good old days of "states rights" and segregation, remind me of old Russian, "babushka", women who long for the "good old days" of Joseph Stalin. Like her, they should be careful for what they wish.
Further, what bearing do post-war SCOTUS rulings have on Lincoln's thoughts and reasonings at the time of the Proclamation? Shall we cite Texas v. White in discussing Lee's decision to serve as a Confederate general?
Lastly, how can any Johnny Reb simultaneously claim to abjure the jurisdiction of U.S. Constitution by supporting secession, yet claim protection of his chattel property by it?
Only took a 110 posts for the truth [ Clay's American System] to come out....
.."Clay was a corrupt statist who spent his political career promoting mercantilism, protectionism, inflationary finance through central banking, and military adventurism in the quest for empire."...(excerpt from Von Mises).
So does that make Clay a Hamiltonian, a Buchananite, or a Neo-Con?
Your supposition is a red herring, and merely indicates that you have no interest in learning or discussing this topic in anything other than an antagonistic way. Therefore, this volley will be my last; you can keep to whatever surreal fantasies you wish from here.
DiLorenzo has put quite a bit of research into his book, and certainly has quite a bit more PRIMARY EVIDENCE (i.e., newspaper articles from BOTH the North and the South, from the TIME PERIOD) in his book than anything Al Franken and company would provide. Ever. Heck, he's even got more documentary evidence than people such as Ann Coulter. The fact that you don't recognize documentary evidence when you see it reflects very poorly on your stature. Sometimes that means reading books you don't agree with at first. You may find out that the documentary evidence is crap, but at least argue the EVIDENCE, rather than the emotions. Emotions are for liberals, not reasoned Conservatives.
Good day, and good luck.
That is the riddle and the paradox, isn't it? The un-reconstituted Reb holds the sword of freedom in one hand and the chains of another in the other. It's as consistent as the "Religion of Peace".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
