Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake

He properly resigned his commission. We forget today that the concept of loyalty to the country as a whole was one that didn’t come into being until post-war, and even that evolved over time. One’s loyalty was to that of their home state. I’m not going to re-debate the Civil War. My main point was what I said to the other fella, Lee alone couldn’t have stopped the Civil War had he accepted Lincoln’s offer. If he had turned against Virginia, he would’ve been considered the biggest traitor to the South, bar none, and his name would’ve been forever associated with the likes of Benedict Arnold. He knew that and that’s why he did what he did.

More than a few men whom would’ve preferred a different course of action were forced to have to choose sides. Moral superiority was not a province exclusive to the North as both sides had their fair share of wrong-headedness. The North, too, had demogogues, such as Massachusetts’ Charles Sumner. Unfortunately, in two diametrically opposed viewpoints, war is the only solution to reach its ultimate settlement.


273 posted on 06/20/2008 12:53:32 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj
He properly resigned his commission.

It isn't proper to resign one's commission as soon as one's brothers-in-arms are about to enter into battle - in order to join their enemy.

We forget today that the concept of loyalty to the country as a whole was one that didn’t come into being until post-war, and even that evolved over time. One’s loyalty was to that of their home state.

False. The concept of loyalty to the country as a whole was present from the very beginning, and was an essential attitude for the pursuit of the War Of Independence in the first place. It was not until the pernicious notion of oxymoronic "states' rights" became an artificial political ideology following the nullification crisis that this idea took root.

There was always local pride and an insistence on local prerogative, but the concept of the state before the union did not take shape until the drawing of hard sectional lines from 1820 onward.

My main point was what I said to the other fella, Lee alone couldn’t have stopped the Civil War had he accepted Lincoln’s offer.

He could have ended it quite quickly and relatively bloodlessly.

A general of his skill and impetuousness provided with McClellan's vast resources would have taken Richmond in the fall of 1861. The close of hostilities in the east would have crippled the western Confederacy.

If he had turned against Virginia, he would’ve been considered the biggest traitor to the South, bar none, and his name would’ve been forever associated with the likes of Benedict Arnold.

George Thomas, a Virginia regular army officer who remained loyal to the Union, defeated the South's last great army in the West - the Army of the Tennessee commanded by archetypal Rebel John Bell Hood.

Thomas basically destroyed Hood's command and paved the path Sherman took to the sea.

Thomas was not and is not reviled in Virginia, not even among the scattered deadenders still living there, and he certainly is not likened to Benedict Arnold.

He knew that and that’s why he did what he did.

In other words, concern for his reputation was paramount.

More than a few men whom would’ve preferred a different course of action were forced to have to choose sides.

Some, like Thomas, made the morally right decision. Some, like Lee, made the morally wrong one.

Moral superiority was not a province exclusive to the North as both sides had their fair share of wrong-headedness.

The cause of war was the question whether or not slavery should be extended to the federal territories. There is only one moral answer to that question and the GOP was in the right.

The North, too, had demogogues, such as Massachusetts’ Charles Sumner.

The cowardly assault on Sumner - whose only crime was speaking words that the cowards involved didn't like - illustrates the difference between the two sections' rhetoric at that point.

Unfortunately, in two diametrically opposed viewpoints, war is the only solution to reach its ultimate settlement.

A solution to the issue had been proposed. One side was willing to compromise, to sacrifice part of what it wanted in order to reach an accomodation.

One side wasn't and took a calculatedly belligerent stance.

418 posted on 06/24/2008 7:16:49 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson