Patriot Perspective
Open Thread: Robert E. Lee
Today we take a moment to remember the birth anniversary of Robert E. Lee (1807-1870), one of the greatest military commanders in American history. He was also a great man of faith who gave his all for the cause of liberty and states' rights.
There were many honorable men of the Confederate States of America, whose objective was, first and foremost, the protection of states rights, and decidedly not the continuation of abhorrent institution of slavery. For a better understanding on the issues of the day, read this perspective on Abraham Lincoln, which was not included in your grade-school civics class. The honor we give these men has its roots in the founding of this great nation.
Mark Alexander notes in his essay, "Lincoln's Legacy at 200," that "the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined President Abraham Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: 'I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.' He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: 'Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender.'"
12 Comments
M Rick Timms. MD
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Thank you Mark for acknowledging the life of this honorable man, whose character has been often maligned under the pen of the victorious. I encourage readers to take this time to recognize the true meaning of States Rights, and examine the words of men who were willing to give their lives for their home--their State.The danger of unlimited Federal Government and the issue of States Rights versus the power of the U.S. Government has been lost on most of us for far to long. Now we begin to see the issue become of critical importance as Americans are forced to look to their State governments to protect them from the abuses of the Federal government-i.e. healthcare reform, student loan reform, banking and mortgage industry, salt content of your soup, etc-, as well as neglect of those areas for which the Feds are indeed responsible- defense and border control.We all look at American history through the prism of two hundred years time, and it is difficult sometimes to understand that at the Founding and for some time after, the strong commitment to one's home State was far more developed than allegiance to the yet unproven concept of a Federal Government. No where is this more eloquently expressed than by Robert E. Lee as he anguished over the decision to resign his US ARMY commission in order to return to his Home - his state - almost 100 years following the founding of our Federal Government.“Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this 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 relatives, 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 on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.” Robert E. LeeI would imagine that most of us consider ourselves to be Americans, but we still consider our "homes" to be the State in which we live. It is the character of our States, that in large part determines the nature of our work and leisure.Do not mistake the present day calls for recognition of "States Rights" as a revolution against our Nation- but rather as a necessary stand against those who have usurped the Federal authority granted by the Constitution. They have been enabled by unfettered taxation which has enriched the nations coffers beyond comprehension. The huge amount of Federal taxation and confiscated wealth has created the fraudulent system in which we now are forced to send an elected representative to Washington to retrieve a portion of our hard earned wages, which should never have been sent there in the first place. This is not what the Founders intended, rather it is precisely what they warned us against.Thanks again for recognizing Robert E. Lee as an honorable man and also for your insightful refernces on Abraham Lincoln and the prevailing notion of the "Federal Government" in 1860.
Grandson of Liberty
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Thanks very much for bringing this to light. The Constitutional issue which propelled the South to secede was the differences between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian visions of the role of the Federal government. The North was very much intent on growing the powers and reach of the Federal government and the redistribution of taxes (at the time, tarriffs). Look at who provided the most taxes from imports and exports and look at where the taxes were being spent - the biggest example is the railroad networks - they were mostly up North. The history of the North is based upon a utopian desire to force cohersion on the people and destroy any diversity which is not in line with their way of thinking. There is no mention of slavery in either Lincoln's nor Davis' inaugural speeches of 1861 and slavery was not abolished until 1866 - a full year after the Confederacy ceased to exist. Congress could have passed the 13th Amendment (not the original Corwin 13th amendment) easily between 1861 - 1865 if the true goal of the war was to end slavery; however, it waited until the Confederacy was defeated to outlaw slavery. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves in areas of control by the US government - it was a political ploy to isolate the Confederacy politically and create slave rebellions in the South, thereby disolving the Confederate Army to suppress them (which did not occur). However, the slavery issue is the pivotal issue in the moral justification for the Northern invasion of the South. In 1861, there were no calls for the ending of slavery, only the "preservation of the Union." If we believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which states, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..." then the Southern States did so in a form much more convincing than those of their forefathers in 1776 - by voting for secession. The invasion of these independent and sovereign states is a direct violation of the principles of this republic.
Tom H
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Sorry to rain on your parade but the Southern rebellion was due to slavery. Look at the secession articles of South Carolina, or read the first speech delivered by the vice president Alexander Stephens. States Rights is revisionist claptrap of the ancestors of those who rebelled. Lee was just another traitor. However, he was a military genius and personally an honorable man. All Americans should respect that.
jds in deep in the truth , south of lincoln
Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM
read what lincoln said and read the paperwork ... Lincoln is what happens when a loser finds himself in powered .....
traitor is defined by who wins the war. not by the truth .
Jim G
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Thank you Mark for the acknowledgement of a great American, one who is often unjustly villified by a segment of our society who have not taken the time to educate themselves in the true motivations, complexities and issues of the time that led to a very tragic, costly, and in truth, an unnecessary war.Good comments as well from Dr. Timms and Grandson. Tom H... not so much. I will agree with you Tom in that the conflict did revolve MUCH around the issue of slavery, but it was not the only issue and perhaps even not the primary issue. The catalyst? Yes. But the sole and overriding reason? No.And where the real tragedy enters the equation is where we find the whole conflict to have really unnecessary. Abololitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison were greatly inspired by Britains William Wilberforce and the example set by that nation in it's abolition of slavery. But where they abjectly failed (the American Abolitionists that is), is found in the example of the method. Britain understood they couldn't just do away with the peculiar institution and expect those who had so much capital invested in slaves to just lie down and take it. It would spell financial ruin for them and would not be all that good for the overall national economy either. So a compensation technique was employed to ease the financial distress and to incentivize slave-holders in the process of this period of great change.The American Abolitionists rejected this method out of hand. It almost seems as though their goal was not just to abolish slavery, but to punish the slave-owners in the process. Throughout this era where slave-owning nations were coming to grips with the idea of individual liberty (a concept largely introduced to the wider world by the United States and it's Declaration of Independece) and the concepts incompatibility with slavery, only two nations freed their slaves through the method of war - The United States and Haiti. The U.K., Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, and many others did so through peaceful means.The are those on both sides, North and South, who are at fault for tenor of the conflict that eventually led to war, but the North's uncompromising intent to subject the Southern States to their will in defiance of the founding principle of a "Union of Soveriegn States" is what ultimately brought the country to war.
Langston Donkle
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM
In my opinion, Lee's greatest years were his last when, declining numerous political opportunities and lucrative business associations, he chose to assume the presidency of a small, impoverished college now known as Washington & Lee University.
Joe S.
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM
In re: Tom H. Take a look at the Emancipation Proclamation....It freed "some" of the slaves, but not "all" of the slaves,i.e., certain parish's in La. Take a look at the time element Lincoln wrote said proclamation. Lee did not own slaves personally. As T. Harry Williams pointed out clearly....the "war" was about the will of a minority being imposed upon a majority. Money and land.......what wars always are about. Regards and Happy R.E. Lee day!
Grandson of Liberty
Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 8:43 PM
Jim, excellent commentary. Tom, I recommend you start reading rather than falling back on what you learned in school. If the South truly fought for slavery - shame on them. However, the issues were so much more than what you boil down into a single cause. I challenge you to look at the Northern states and how they "abolished" slavery. New Jersey set a date for when all slavery was to be eliminated allowing their citizens to sell them - once sold, they outlawed slavery in the state and then banned any blacks from coming into the state. Not a moral way to ending slavery for those enslaved. But you don't read about that in your school history books, let alone the fact that the slave trade ran through Northern ports, not Southern ones - the profits of which fueled the North's industrial revolution. But those who don't know their history or the constitutional aspects of this war resort to the age old propaganda used by the Left and yell "racist" or, in this case, "slavery."
Jsmith
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:33 AM
Thank you for commemorating the birth of this great American, Virginian, general, gentleman and educator. He is routinely and wrongly defiled in today's PC culture, but there is much we can learn by studying him.
Mark Douglas
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM
As Alexander Stephens said, if your facts are true, your position would be true. But your facts are nonsense, and so is your position.First of all, get a clue. Southern leaders, Southern newspapers, Southern Ultimatums, Southern headlines, Southern books, Southern sermons bragged what they fought about, at the time.The SPREAD of slavery. Jefferson Davis said it. Southern newspapers said it. Southern Constitution embodied it. Southern editors bragged about it.What you shouted from the rooftops, you are like cowards, who dare not mention it now.Did you ever hear about the FIve Southern Ultimatums? Your own leaders issued them. Go read them. Go read the headlines about them. All five Ultimatums were about the same thing -- the SPREAD of slavery. Jefferson Davis, even writing years later, in his book "Short History of the Confederate States" went on and on about the "intolerable grievance" that made the war necessary. Guess what HE said it was?Slavery in the territories.Oh, and Kansas had just voted 98% to 2% to keep slaver out forever, AND fought a 4 year war against the thugs and murderers sent out by slave owners. No place on earth was more anti slavery than Kansas.But never mind that, all five Ultimatums -- ALL FIVE -- were about the spread of slavery into the territories. Not one, not two, not three, not four. ALL FIVE. Essentially, Southern leaders said -- at the time -- spread slavery or we attack. Then they did.You weren't taught this were you? No kidding, the South has been crying like bullies who got their ass kicked, running home to momma, for 150 years. So not only were you NOT fighting for states rights -- you fought to SPREAD slavery, according to southern leaders -- you fought to stop states rights. You fought to spread slavery AGAINST the will of the people.Learn some real history, not your bullshit circle jerk of nonsense.
jds in deep in the truth , south of lincoln
Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM
slavery came into the US Rhode Island and Mass..... it was a nasty reality of the times and history that no one can justify but do not make it sounds like all the Yankees wanted to intergrate the local school systems and the Rebs were agn it ...... the South had the right to leave the Union and Lincoln violated the terms of the agreement ..... and lots of other things the Constitution protected.....
We have two countries right now.... liberal/socialist big govt NE and West Coast, and conservative/liberterian/small govt south and midwest.
Mark Douglas
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM
http://leepapers.blogspot.com/