Replies

But if he did consider himself to be a free agent, bound only to his attachment to Virginia and not the the various government he'd sworn allegiance to, there's a lot that's morally questionable about that.

LOL! '

I recognize no necessity for the state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.
With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relative, my children, my home. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed) I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword.

What would you do, when the federal government asks you to wage wage on your mother and father, sister and brother?

What would you do, when the federal government asks you to wage wage on your mother and father, sister and brother?

Lee's "sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed" and that "I may never be called upon to draw my sword" has a hollow sound when one reflects that what he offered Virginia and the Confederacy was precisely a drawn sword. The real irony, though, is that he wrote this to his Unionist sister Anne Marshall in Baltimore to explain why he was preparing to take up arms in a rebellion against their common country. And indeed, he did wage war against her son who became a Union officer.

Lee clearly did have a difficult decision to make. It's not a decision any of us could have easily made. All the options were bad. Fighting for the Union or staying out would have been very difficult for him. But taking up the Confederate cause wasn't any better a choice. Looking back, we can see how his choice prolonged the war and made it more costly than it otherwise could have been. And there are real moral questions behind someone who did not believe in secession and who had sworn allegiance to the US and it's Constitution to take up arms against it.

Soldiers are generally easier on those they fought against than civilians are. They have respect for those who fought bravely and hard in an opposing -- even a very unrighteous -- cause. What's objectionable is the idea that one could serve thirty years in the US army, pledge allegiance, lead men into battle, and head our military academy without coming to feel close ties to those from other states.

The argument may be made that Virginia was "real" and the Union an abstraction, but it looks as though for someone like Lee or Scott the reverse could be much truer. They'd spent their lives in service to the country, their fellow officers, and their countrymen and countrywomen. Scott remained true to the the loyalties he'd developed over his lifetime, while Lee turned away from them.