With Malice Toward None, With Amnesty for All: The Pardon of Robert E. Lee

Newhouse News ^ | 10/14/2005 | Delia M. Rios

[Ditto]

Some attributed this to the Military culture of the South, that is the prevelence of Military Schools (VMI, Citadel) that attendance by the Southern gentry became an integral part of society and culture, as it is still today. (VMI,Citadel,TAMU Corp.)

In many ways, the elite of the American South followed the British aristocratic model of that same era. The eldest son inherited the estate (plantation) the second son entered the clergy, and the youngest son became a military officer. Going into private business was considered a step down the social ladder for members of the elite class.

[Rebelbase]

What percentage of Southerners served in the Union Army?

My understanding was that non slave holding areas like West Va. and East Tn. were more inclined to the union economy than the Southern plantation economy, so there were union troops from those areas.

Any Union regiments from Mississippi, Al, or deep south were of token numbers, it they existed at all, IMO.

Please show me if I am wrong.

[Alberta's Child]

I haven't really expressed a particular view about slavery in the South. I did, however, point out that the famous orater/abolitionist (and former slave) Frederick Douglass saw through a lot of the moral hypocrisy of the North. He pointed out, for example, that so many of his fellow abolitionists were adamantly opposed to slavery -- but were just as adamantly opposed to the equal treatment of black Americans under the law.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . since George Washington set the example for national above state loyalty among the military several generations earlier.

That's a good point. I would make the case, though, that Washington's attitudes about "national above state loyalty" were very much influenced by the fact that he had once served in the British army, and not in a colonial militia.

[Tallguy]

I believe you are mistaken in a "dead wrong" cause. Allow me to point out that the War between the States was fought over States Rights. Not slavery as taught by today's liberal biased schools. It was a conflict over States rights Vs Federal Government Rights.

...and one of those 'States Rights' was the defense of the institution of Slavery. How does the 'Fugitive Slave Act' figure into your argument?

[Ditto]

In any event, the book "The Real Lincoln" gives a VERY solid exposition on the dictatorial stylings of Abraham Lincoln.

Nonsense. Reading Dlierenzo on Lincoln is like reading Al Frankin on Bush.

[GarySpFc]

What in particular do you think I am ignorant of?

It is very obvious that many on this thread understand perfectly the events leading up to the war. I have better issues than to spend time on an argument you are seeking.

[SOLTC]

In "None Died in Vain" Robert Leckie relates that Grant deleted a normal article in the surrender. He knew that, if he made the Confederate troops surrender their horses, Lee would have to surrender Traveler.

Mort Kunstler has a painting "We Still Love You, General Lee". Returning to his camp after meeting with U.S. Grant at Appomattox, Lee rides his beloved Traveller through the Southern lines.

Also, if you doubt Lee as a soldier, read John Eisenhower's "So Far from God" and Jeff Shaara's "Gone For Soldiers" about the Mexican War.

[Deep Fried]

What a silly and sophomoric comparison. Where does one begin to respond. I guess there would be a comparison if most of the primary foundng fathers had been Japanese and Lee had been the oriental version of the name Lee (no, that would make him Chinese and we are searching for Japanese comparison.) Also, Peal Harbor would have been a port on one of the main Japanese Islands. Japan would have wanted to succeed from the "union" they had played a principal role in establishing and they would have had to tell the "Yankees" they demanded the port the evacuated first because it was on land owned by Japan. Also, the "Yankees" would have to be discovered as sending a stealth armed reinforcement while declaring they had no intention of doing so.

Goodness gracious...do you have any more fantastic and uninstructive "comparisons"?

My advise...get a history book.

[Heyworth]

Any Union regiments from Mississippi, Al, or deep south were of token numbers, it they existed at all, IMO.

Please show me if I am wrong.

The 1st Alabama Cavalry, Sherman's personal escorts on his march to the sea. "During the war over two thousand loyal Southerners served in the 1st Alabama: farmers, mechanics, traders and others, from 35 counties of Alabama and eight other Confederate states. "

http://www.swannco.net/1st_Ala_Cav/first_cavalry.htmlhttp://www.swannco.net/1st_Ala_Cav/first_cavalry.html

And a more general discussion...

http://www.rootsweb.com/~arcivwar/loyal.htm

[Rebelbase]

So we have 2000 from Alabama. If we apply that number to the 11 confederate. states, gives us and estimated 22,000 union fighters from the south.

What is that, about 1% of the total combatants in the war?

Like I said nationalism in 1861 was a far cry from what it is today.

[Getsmart64]

and maybe not even as great as Grant.

Your knowledge of history is disconcerting...

[Deep Fried]

'Lee was almost an exception, being willing to serve on whatever side his state happened to fall on, and other than skillful political maneuvering in Richmond by the confederate side, Lee would have willingly been at the head of the Union Army'

Lee was no exception! Almost to the man, except for a small inconsequential percent, all white men and women served on the side that their state had aligned itself with. Nationalism ran high, but it ran through the state and its affiliation.

[dinoparty]

I know said rule of grammer. But sometimes it is clearer and less rigid sounding(in a short snippett on a forum) to put it at the end.

[dinoparty]

Your lack of an argument is disconcerting.

[dinoparty]

My advice...quit with the sophomoric insults and stick to the facts.

[dinoparty]

he he he
So, yes, it is me the ignorant one against the many omniscient ones on this thread! Please...

[elbucko]

The Constitution does not state that states have a right to leave

Nor does it state they don't. Which leaves that power where? Thank you.

If the above issue, session, cannot be resolved politically, then that power resides with the most powerful. The Confederacy thought it was the most powerful, in the end, it was not.

The Constitution was designed to remove powers from the states that they could not, or should not use, such as foreign affairs and to connect the states, in their mutual self interests, with a federal system. The Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican American War upset this balance because of massive lands introduced in these new territories and their implication on the issue of additional slave states for the North or reduced representation in Congress for the South.

As a far West, Westerner (CA), with kin in both the North and South and having listened since childhood to all the arguments, I have concluded that the "Conflict of the 1860's" was all about Eastern power - North or South - over the new Western territories and whether any additional states would be slave or free. The rest is mere prologue.

[Heyworth]

If you read the second link, you see that the number is more like 100,000 for the entire south. Given that the size of the CSA army was most likely about 800,000, that means that something like one white military-age southerner in eight fought under the Union flag.

[dinoparty]

Ah yes, the 'ole "you are not a serious student of history if you don't agree with me" trick.