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.
What I don't have is anything that says that the entire Maryland legislature was arrested. Nothing whatsoever. All I've seen is that some legislators were arrested in September of 1861 for advocating a vote on secession. Considering that the U.S. was engaged in an armed rebellion with the southern states at the time then the arrest of those who advocated joining that rebellion isn's surprising. Especially considering that the Maryland legislature had voted against secession four months prior to that. Perhaps you can identify your primary sources?
Again, how could they be readmitted to something that they were never out of to begin with? If you read the Reconstruction Acts you will see that what was being readmitted were their congressional representatives. There was never a vote, for example, admitting or readmitting Mississippi or Texas as a state. That would have been redundant.
This from th Gt.Gt. Grandson of a member of the 161st NY Vols.
Then there is the fact that students of history and military men can admire the skill and bravery even of their opponents, even in the midst of conflict; Patton and Montgomery cordially hated each other, and admired Rommel, Monty to the point of keeping Rommel's portrait in his HQ.
This from the nephew of a member of the 101st Abn Div, wounded at the Bulge.
And I did my time too :)
Americans have fought two wars for independence; one, the US vs. Gt. Britain, and t'other, the Confederacy vs. the Union.
We have had no revolution, and no civil war, as properly defined, IMO.
I visited G'burg* a couple of years ago and stood on the line of the 20th Maine, and noted three things.
1. As stated in The Killer Angels and the filmed version, had the line folded, it could have been flanked and possibly rolled up along the ridge.
2. There were other regiments further up the "fishhook", and it could well be that had the 20th collapsed, the next one or two regiments** might well have shifted position in time to save the battle. The confederates might have been on their last, or second-to-last charge as it was and unable to press the advantage.
3. The bluecoats had good interior lines and could quickly reinforce, even with the nearby action on Culp's Hill, without having to cross hotile terrain, had it got bad enough.
*Want pics? :)
**I'd tell you which ones, but I'm in the process of moving and my books were packed first.
So if your saying that they were states but did NOT have recognized representation for 7-8 years, and would NOT be recognized until they met certain criteria, they weren't really states now, were they?
Maybe the justices were afraid of being jailed by king Lincoln. SCOTUS also legalized abortion, sodomy, separtism, slavery, lawful siezure of private property for private use, and myiad other insane opinions - they are not gods.
Even so, the acts plainly are unconstitutional (violation of Amendment IV, V, VI, VII and VIII), and the court did rule post bellum 9-0 that the Constitution cannot be suspended.
But bootlicker's could care less about rights and constitutional protections - all they worry about is that they get a pat on the head, and maybe a chance to kiss the arse of their master, and that those evil Southern women and children were slaughtered, their homes destroyed.
I'll stand up with my ancestors and the founding fathers against tyranny, and I'd do so for anyone - what's right cannot be made wrong by the words of a tyrant. Samuel Adams said it best:
'If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were out countrymen.'
The representives of the confederate states, for the most part, were gone over the span of two congresses. Those states did not send duly elected members to Washington. Every two years when a new congress is conviened, all 435 members must be seated and sworn in as the legitimate representative from their district and the election was conducted fairly and certified by designated body of that state's government. Same goes for 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years.
The decision to admit members is entirely up to the house and senate.
I'm sorry, I stand corrected. It was only a few prominent members of the legislature who were arrested. I am curious though: Weren't these arrests enough to deprive the legislature of a quorum needed to pass any legislation at all (secession-related or not)?
What do you respond to the Federal government's actions regarding the transport of troops through Baltimore against the will of the citizens of Maryland? As I've read, Washington was petitioned requesting that troops not be sent through Maryland at all, and Baltimore in particular. The administration complied initially, and then when they had sufficient strength, they overpowered the citizens of Baltimore and seized all private weapons, ignoring that the Constitution made no provision allowing the Federal government to do so.
(The only source for my material that I can readily identify is "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." I'd have to dig up the titles of the other books I've looked at. :) )
Regards,
~dT~
"It's no accident that the 140 years that have passed since the end of the Civil War have been marked by an endless (and unconstitutional) expansion of Federal powers."
Agreed. I'd like to see that trend reverse itself, but I'm not holding my breath.
SirChas....thx for the ping. I glanced at this before all the responses. The passions still run deep.
No, because the Revolution was not triggered by slavery. Slavery was incidental to the Revolution. The South was focused on the more limited issue of states right, which at that time was inextricably linked to slavery. I know that southern apologists here generally minimize the connection between the Civil War and slavery, so I assume you'll do the same. Make your point if you wish, but I'm not going to get caught into debating that for the 100th time.
Self-righteous prick.
If that's what you call someone who doesn't endorse going to war to protect the right to enslave other people, I suppose I fit your definition. No offense taken.
Why does name-calling seem to be the response of first resort on this thread?
Signed,
Another Self-Righteous Prick
How utterly noble and principled Washington was to take this stand after he had already led a revolution against "his nation" on behalf of "his locality."
I'm a Tar Heel first; however, there's no chance that any state would get put in that predicament again. But should it happen I'd rise for The Old North State.
I agree with what you say (from a great great great great nephew of a soldier in the 140th PA, who fought at Chancellorsville and in the Wheatfield at Gettysburg -- this is the closest relative I could find...)
I understand and agree that it was essential to reunify and heal, and accusations and trials would have definitely been counterproductive. However, this does not mean that the rebel leaders were not blameworthy.
Lol! Of all the real and imagined depredations of "Billy Blood", the unreported "rock salt" claim takes the cake. I'm surprised his boys moved so far and so fast totin' all that rock salt!
I don't think you have to channel the dead to make a reasonable assumption. After all, when his subordinates called Grant "a butcher", General Lee is reported to have said, "I think that General Grant has managed his affairs rather well".
BRAVO SIERRA. On 25 Jul 1868 the following became law after overriding Johnson's veto:
"Be it enacted, &c., That each of the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the 39th Congress, and known as article 14 [Amendment 14] ... and the State of Georgia shall only be entitled and admitted to representation upon this further fundamental condition: that the first and third subdivisions of section 17 of the fifth article of the constitution, of said State, except the proviso to the first subdivision, shall be null and void, and that the general assembly of said State, by solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the State to the foregoing fundamental condition."Please enumerate the clause of the Constitution that allows the federal Congress - devoid of Southern voices - the right to force them to ratify an amendment. The states had already been readmitted after ratifying Amendment 13 - and per the Constitution - 'no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.' The federal legislative events after that were concocted by tryants.
Georgia legislators ratified the 13th, rejected the 14th, rejected the 14th again AFTER the law cited above, and then were FORCED to ratify Amendment 15 before 'readmission' ['That the [Georgia] legislature shall ratify the fifteenth amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, before senators and representatives from Georgia are admitted to seats in Congress'].
Some folks just love living under dictatorial rule. </sarcasm>
Since you've only made 11 posts (under this screen name) since joining FR, perhaps it's understandable that you haven't made much of an impression, but I went back and read them and was greatly entertained by your description of slave quarters that made them sound like a honeymoon cottage in the Poconos.
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.
