"How Did Robert E. Lee Become an American Icon?" Topic

"After President Dwight D. Eisenhower revealed on national television that one of the four "great Americans" whose pictures hung in his office was none other than Robert E. Lee, a thoroughly perplexed New York dentist reminded him that Lee had devoted "his best efforts to the destruction of the United States government" and confessed that since he could not see "how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me." Eisenhower replied personally and without hesitation, explaining that Lee was, "in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. . . . selfless almost to a fault . . . noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities . . . we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Traitors, each and everyone of them.

Great men. All yankee killers. :)

100% agree with Irish Marine. However, Lee as a person was remarkable above his treason. Before the war, he was a gifted engineer and soldier who after all was offered the command of the US army. After the war, he tried to get the south to give up the nonsense and become patriotic Americans, again.

So All the Union veterans , who were will to forgive and forget were just as bad as Rebels.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
― George Orwell, 1984

There is a dichotomy of thought when it comes to Robert E. Lee. He possessed many admirable characteristics and at the same time was a traitor. Life is not always black and white, but shades of gray.

Consider too that George Washington was/is considered a traitor in England. All a matter of perspective.

"George Washington was/is considered a traitor in England"…. but a hero to America is want counts!!! It matters not too England, that's not the issue. Who cares what did or not do to England?! He is an __American__ hero… not Lee. Lee was no hero to the United States of America. Lee was a gentleman and a brilliant officer but not to the USA. Benedict Arnold was a brilliant officer on par with Washington but he betrayed America. Lee/Arnold… same. End result is the same.

Agree with Irish Marine.

Well, I agree with Irish Marine and with jdpintex. He was a traitor to the US and a great man/hero to the CSA. It's a shame that most folks only see one side of him, and usually with a simplistic viewpoint.

Clearly he made a choice to NOT betray his state. Virginia was his country. In his mind he was fighting against a tyrannical federal government. That was his constitutional right as he saw it.

BTW one of my ancestors was killed fighting against Lee at South Mountain. I went and found his grave two years ago.

The article in the link does little to address the question 'How Did Robert E. Lee Become an American Icon'. Indeed, as evidenced by other comments above, is he an American icon?

In terms of the way this thread is tending, I think Perris0707 seems to sum it up. Lee was fighting for his country. His country was not the United States of America as his country was no longer united with that grouping of states.

So… he is an Icon for some and a traitor for others… as many famous military men….

Amicalement
Armand

By 21st century standards he's beyond redemption – as would anyone be who defends owning people as property. This Atlantic article a couple years ago provides a good summary of the case against Lee:

link

And I firmly believe in the 10th amendment, the right of succession, and that the Federal government was tyrannical during (as was the CSA) and after the ACW.

Mostly it was post-war Lost Cause propaganda. He was a passable tactician and a lousy strategist. Read Longstreet and George Picket on what they thought about the old man. Grant had his number after the first battle.

After the civil war, the re-United States were going to have to find a way to reconcile what had happened into a usable future. Sociology, Political Science and History have always been the hand maidens of the American Experience.

Choices were made. I'm not defending them, but they became the narrative of the south in the war. Accomplished, honorable men embraced a misguided cause out of a sense of duty. As much as we may chafe at the idea, morality is subjective. How can anyone expect someone born and raised in any society to somehow see their world with 21st century eyes? They did the right as God gave them to see the right.

To be sure this road was paved with the outrage of abandoned Reconstruction.

But this is the Civil War perspective upon which I was raised. It afforded the defeated south a footing upon which to return to the nation with some sense of dignity.

If we are now to redefine that narrative, and in its' place recast the south as nought but traitors we must know that we will be upending the sense of self for millions of Americans. I don't really see that ending well. Charlottesville may end up being less of an aberration than we might like to think.

To be sure, we owe an enormous debt to the African Americans thrown aside with the death of Reconstruction. But I don't see pulling down one group naturally uplifts another.

We are who we are, where we are, when we are. We have no particular perfection of vision. Arrogance becomes no one.

Let's try building on Eisenhower's perspective with some context, some introspection and maybe a little forgiveness.

Benedict Arnold was perhaps our truest traitor. And one of our most accomplished Patriots. Reconcile that, then look at Lee.

If 21st century sensitivities condemn Robert E. Lee, then they must also condemn George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many of our founding fathers for being slave owners. They were all great men albeit with flaws. So easy in this day and age to sit back and criticize great men in left wing rags like The Atlantic.

HMS- I suggest that you would not be so magnanimous if it was your family that was owned like cattle.

I'm surprised at some of POVs here. Benedict Arnold betrayed our NATION. Lee fought our nation while some elements within it wanted to leave and there was disagreement on that.

The BIGGEST ERROR that I saw here was what has become popular Urban Myth. The War of Northern Aggression ( ;) ) was not fought over slavery. Several years into the war, it was characterized as such to give a moral edge to it. People in all parts of the country and the world have always used their positions of authority to subjugate other people and then used their influence and charisma to cover this up.

I recently read an article about Glen Bell, the founder of Taco Bell. I was shocked to read that in the 1950s in California there were laws to segregate Mexicans from white people, much as there were Jim Crow laws in the south.

No one gets to stand on a moral high horse anymore. We all have ancestors who were guilty.

Whether or not he is a hero, I have never considered. I have always had a very distinct liking for Stonewall Jackson.

The civil war was fought over the issue of state's rights. And what state right would that be? The right to own slaves. U. S. Grant specifically states in his memoirs the the civil war was fought to end slavery.

Whether you like him or not.

Icon = a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration.

Veneration = respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person

As Americans, we like our rebels. The "founding fathers" were all rebels. Some will not agree with their principles, but for the time, These were their convictions.

When we think of famous men of American history "icons", good or bad, his name will come up in most conversations.

I tend to reserve "traitor" for someone working for a foreign power--Quisling, say--or someone who works against the people who uniformed, paid and fed him, while still pretending to be one of them--Benedict Arnold, or Claus von Stauffenberg. (Yes, von Stauffenberg had excellent reasons, while Arnold was a complete disgrace. But we're discussing actions, not motives.)

I don't like using the word for conflicts of loyalty, where someone has to weigh what he owes his nation against what he owes his state--or, for that matter, his world or his religion. Too much depends on circumstances.

Lee served the United States well while he wore its uniform, and gave written notice when he could no longer wear it in good conscience. Really the worst thing you can say about him is that he gave up everything he had to serve what Grant called "about the worst cause which could be imagined." Plenty of bad men serving bad causes, or good causes out of personal interest. And (thank Heaven) sometimes enough good men in good causes. But a good man in a bad cause rates special attention. It makes you suspect the cause he thought he was serving was not the cause as we see it.

I'm very glad he lost. But the man who told his children "you should always want to do your duty. You should never want to do less, and you cannot possibly do more" and appears to have meant it, is not a man to be casually dismissed.

Excellent points Robert.

Agree!….

Amicalement
Armand

@usafpilot – So the general wrote that in his memoirs after the fact? …And in support of his CiC, which was not uncommon at the time, unlike today?

Come on! It may have ended up that way because of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed into law on January 1, 1863, but the Civil War began 2 years earlier. So your argument is that the war began 2 years earlier and was fought for 2 years before the law that allegedly caused the war was signed into law?

That doesn't hold water with me. No disrespect intended, but it doesn't make sense and we both know that history is written by the victors. It's like so many other things in our past, things become written over until someone questions what we "know" to be true.

The current outrage over the existence of a "Christopher Columbus Day" is a prime example. Even by the time that I was a child in school the whole "discovered America" claim had been debunked. There are not many people in the history of the world who are less deserving of a day dedicated to them, but CC got it because of circumstances. I honestly wish that the Federal Govt would officially rename the day to "Indigenous Peoples' Day".

I, too, was taught in school that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. However, after looking further into it as an adult, I found out the truth. Yes, the ACW was fought for states' rights, but slavery was not one of the rights in question until 2 years after the beginning of the war.

Despite the creation of Washington, D.C. being founded to prevent too much power being given to any one state, the reality is that it gives too much power to more than one state and to too many of them that are contiguous to the states that it is occupied by and most definitely the states in which it resides.

The south is in the same predicament that it always has been. Then again, that was the point of the ACW was to break the spirit and the backs of the South so that it could not have the prosperity that it sought (look it up, at least one of the original reasons for the disgruntlement in the South was the North's demands over commerce and the difference of the RR tracks when shipping goods between North and South) and considering that there were slave owners in the North, as well as the South, and considering that Honest Abe was himself a slave owner at one time, the only reason that it even makes any sense that the law would be signed into existence and backed by HA is because signing said law would prevent the South from ever enjoying the prosperity that it once had ever again.

Do you really think that HA had a sudden attack of conscience as the history books say? Come on! Find me one politician in the entire world who even has a conscience and is not a professional and habitual liar. I have come to realize that the "giants of men" whom we have been taught to respect and revere were merely men like you and I and like the ones in office today. The very politicians of today whom we revile and who disgust us with their childish, "bad boy" antics.

@Robert +1 +1 and 2 thumbs up

Well, there are others who are far more articulate on the subject than me. I will just argue the one point concerning Grant. He wrote his memoirs at the urging of Mark Twain. Grant was suffering from throat cancer and finished writing his memoirs in the last few weeks (maybe days) of his life. He was a dying man who had no reason to bend the truth. He was never a political General. It is my belief to take him at his word.

#ninthdoc

You might want to review your sources about Lincoln being a slave owner. Mary Todd's family were slave owners. MT herself was attended by one in her youth, but whether she owned Mammy Sally, or whether MS was held by the family for MT's benefit isn't altogether clear.

To say the civil war was not fought over slavery is like saying that stealing the wagon had nothing to do with the load of whiskey it was carrying. Both arguably factually correct, but both swing wide of the point.

The south was fiercely protective of its' slave holding prerogitives, because slavery was the fount of the wealth and power of the southern elites. They knew there was a substantial anti-slavery movement in the north that was an existential threat to that wealth and power.

For decades north and south danced a delicate dance preserving the balance of power in the federal government. As a free state was admitted, so was a slave state. The balance in the House could jitter around. So long as the Senate was evenly divided and the VP could be relied on, they were safe. The Senate could hold the line.

But in 1858, Minnesota got admitted, but the Kansas application was rejected. The balance was broken. Only reliable Buchanan was left to hold the line with his veto.

The Republicans could assure the south all they wanted. They were not to be trusted. With Lincoln's election, the south's minority status was inescapable. Sooner or later the northerners would come for slavery, and with it the South's source of wealth and power.

The southern leaders took their states out of the Union to protect their hegemony.

The north fought back to preserve the union. There were factions in the north who wanted to make the war about slavery, but the moderates opposed this, fearing that the border states might bolt.

"…but slavery was not one of the rights in question until 2 years after the beginning of the war."

Slavery had been the principle right in question, since Rhode Island's admission to the Union broke the 6/6 balance.

It matters little when or why the north came round to making the eradication of slavery an espoused goal.

If slavery had been abandoned by the south before 1850 because they had found a new and better source of wealth and power, and the north's outrage was instead over cock fighting, and engineered federal legislation banning it, do you suppose Fort Sumter would have had anything to worry about?

Oh, and re Stonewall Jackson, undoubtedly a gifted warfighter. I would not have liked to have had to fight him. From what I gather, I don't think I'd much have liked following him either.

@ninthdoc
You said that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law on 1 January 1863 which is correct as it was an executive order introduced on Lincoln's initiative as President. It was rather difficult to enforce given that it only applied to states "in rebellion against the United States" and unsurprisingly the vast majority of them were solidly under CSA control at that time. Of course, six months later the CSA had sufficient strength to advance into USA territory through Maryland (slavery legal) and then into Pennsylvania.

Additionally, the 13th amendment was not passed until January 1965 and not ratified until after the war.

@HMS Exeter –

I stand corrected. You are indeed correct about it being Mary Todd Lincoln's family who were the slave owners.
I did find some interesting things that I found in my research of this tonight.

I did not realize that the Emancipation Proclamation actually did make some exceptions within the borders of the North. The border states: DE, MD, MO, and KY were allowed to continue slaver ownership. Interestingly enough, KY is where Mary Todd Lincoln's slave-owning family was from and where they apparently were allowed to continue their trade.

Lincoln himself was very torn on the subject and although he was morally opposed to slavery, he did not wish to give the freed slaves full equality. Ironically he was not enough of a forward thinker to realize that his vision freeing the slaves would not afford them then very things that they would need to attain his vision. He did believe that all men were created equal. However his version of equality for the freed slaves was that they only "have the ability" to raise themselves up to a higher level of society, not to automatically afford them and confer on them the same rights as any other American. Ironically, the very things that they would need to attain this "higher level" are the things that he would deny them: the rights to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office. I believe that we all know that the denial of access to these very things would prevent anyone in our society today of then from having the ability "raise themselves up". Lincoln's biggest belief was that the slaves should be colonized to another location to keep them separate from white people.

I'm still not of the opinion that the ACW was fought for the freedom of the slaves. The average soldier in the Union Army was likely apathetic at best to the slaves' conditions. I don't see them being invested enough to want to kill their own people and die themselves to free a group of people whom they can only say that they have apathy for.

@Quaama –

Yes, but that set the stage to cripple the South's economy once the war was over.

I don't say that Gen. Lee's 1863 campaign north benefited the CSA in the long term. My statement was simply to add force to my assertion that the Emancipation Proclamation was not really enforceable when it was made law. However, over the following two years it did add many soldiers to the Union forces (albeit on a segregated basis with white officers in charge).
The Emancipation Proclamation [or freeing the slaves] was certainly not the reason the war started given that the USA allowed its own people to own slaves yet seemed fit to say that those in the CSA could not do the same.

Well, the war most definitely was about slavery. The southern leaders who took their states out of the Union specifically stated that it WAS about slavery, and who are we, 155 years later, to say that it wasn't?

And that is the problem with 'good men' like Lee or the common Johnny Reb in the ranks, who didn't own any slaves but who was fighting for their state. No matter how you cut it, every one of them was fighting for a Confederate victory which by its very nature would assure the continuation of slavery for many, many years to come--and they knew it.

I can admire Lee as a general, but I can't separate that completely from the cause he was fighting for.

I concur that slavery was a main issue of contention between the USA and CSA: quite frankly, it is impossible to ignore.

I do have issue when it is claimed that "the civil war was fought to end slavery" just because Grant said so in his memoir. When the conflict started and Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_volunteers) where is it claimed they were going to war to free slaves? Where is it anywhere? [I suspect that if such a claim had been made by anyone with authority in the USA you would have had a few more states join the CSA and insurrections in many cities and towns across the USA.]

Sadly, the USA did not go to war to right moral wrongs although the end result was that the slaves were freed.

Every few months I read a new dispute about: was the ACW about slavery or not. Or mostly. Or probably. Or not really but basically yes.

I'm not an american citizen and I find the argument very confusing. For years I read and listened to tens of theories and opinions to make up my mind. Until a few weeks ago, when I bumped into this less known piece of history. I will put a link to the article but I will try to summarize it the best I can.

The year is 1861. Summer. The Union is in a bad spot and things looks grim. In Washington many excellent names are suggested to Lincoln. One of these is Garibaldi, world famous italian guerrilla general, who has been living in the States during the 50s. The US consul of Antwerp Quiggle decides to make a first move to contact Garibaldi to check the ground. The other actors are Sanford (US minister of Belgium) and Seward (US secretary of State).

First Quiggle (august 1861) and later Seward (september 1861) met with Garibaldi. Garibaldi made clear that beside the military leadership, the only condition under which he would have accepted to lead the Union was if Washington would have proclaimed the emancipation of slavery. Quiggle was aware of where the heart of Garibaldi was and tried to push the fight for Freedom theme but Garibaldi made clear that if the war was not officially about ending slavery he would not go.

Here is an interesting passage: "In a letter marked "confidential" Sanford reported to Secretary of State Seward what had happened; it is not unreasonable to assume that the letter was shown to or at least its contents summarized for President Lincoln when it arrived at the State Department early in October of 1861. After mentioning Garibaldi's convalescence following several months of rheumatism, Sanford got to the heart of the matter—that is, the hero's conditions for serving:

He said that the only way in which he could render real service, as he ardently desired to do, to the cause of the United States, was as Commander in Chief of its forces; that he would only go as such and with the additional contingent power—to be governed by events—of declaring the abolition of slavery. He would be of little use, he said, without the first and, without the second, the war would appear to be like any civil war in which the world at large could have little interest or sympathy."

And little further below (we are now in october 1861): "He (Garibaldi) thinks the parties are contending about purely material interests, and holds that neither of them has superior claims upon the sympathies of the European friends of liberty and of progress. … I do not believe he will take any part in the struggle unless he is convinced that the government and the people of the North are united in the determination to pursue a policy which shall necessarily result in the abolition of slavery."

The whole story leaked and produced reactions everywhere:
"The Times of London declared:

The Americans—certainly the Northern States—have yet to learn the art of war. As if despairing of native genius or enterprise, President Lincoln has actually sent to ask Garibaldi to accept the post of Commander-in-Chief, throwing into the bargain the emancipation of the slaves."

Fast forward one whole year (September 1862):
"On September 1, 1862, Consul Canisius wrote to General Garibaldi:

… I am taking the liberty of addressing to you the present in order to ascertain whether it might not enter into your plans to offer us your valorous arm in the struggle which we are carrying on for the liberty and unity of our great republic. … The honor and enthusiasm with which you would be received in our country, where you have passed a portion of your life, would be immense, and your mission, which would be that of inducing our brave soldiers to fight for the same principle to which you have nobly consecrated all your existence, would accord fully with your views.

(…) Garibaldi got the message and again expressed a willingness to fight for America. Nevertheless he was tenacious about one condition: freeing the slaves. By now he was no longer asking for supreme command of the Union army. In another letter from Varignano, on October 5, 1862, Garibaldi wrote to Marsh:"… it would be necessary to proclaim … the principle which animates us—the enfranchisement of the slaves, the triumph of universal reason."

(…) "In the correspondence between Seward and Canisius, however, there was one most revealing piece of information—that President Lincoln was fully aware of all the dealings to enlist Garibaldi in the Union cause. Seward's dismissal letter to Canisius of October 10, 1862, declares flatly what Lincoln never put in writing himself about the original offer of a Union army command: "That invitation was given by the President's direct authority."
At the time of the second offer President Lincoln had issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Presumably that satisfied Garibaldi's condition that freedom for the slaves had to be the banner under which he would fight. But the war had moved past the point where the presence of an inspirational hero from abroad looked like a realistic approach to victory."

If you are interested to the full article, please go here: link

The reasons Lincoln didn't push an "ending slavery" narrative was manifold, but principally he couldn't risk losing the wavering border states to the Confederacy, and two, since he (and reflecting the general Amwrican seentiment) believed whites and blacks couldn't live together on equal terms. The outcome most ardently sought was recompense to slave owners followed by sending blacks abroad to Liberia or South America, anywhere but the United States.

Very easy to sit in judgement 158 years later. It's ludicrous to believe that the average confederate soldier was fighting to preserve slavery per se. I believe that a good many of the confederate leaders were. It's the modern equivalent of Billionaires saying they should own yachts. Perhaps they should or should not but it's hardly something that many of us would be willing to lay our lives down for. Please no hate comments – I know yachts are not the same as slavery but just trying to site a concept.

I do think that at the time, the identify of people was much more centered around their state, not the USA. And then there is the whole constitutional argument for succession. I don't know why we think we can separate all of these things and think there was one causal.

In returning to the question of Lee, he always cited the rights and defense of his state as his cause. Consider another national hero:

Abraham Lincoln:
He stated that if he could avoid the war without addressing the issue of slavey he would.

During his debate with Douglas he said:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,"

He was for re-colonization of slaves as he thought that black and whites could not live together given their history.

His emancipation proclamation freed no one. It only applied to states that were in rebellion. It did not apply to union states where slavery also existed.

And yet he made many quotes on the evils of Slavery and believed it should be abolished.

In the end, I think most men have merits and demerits. These can be taken in pieces where we find value for us emulate.

Frankly, I find our own times as confusing now as it was then. We seem like a very divided nation with little in common if you listen to our leaders. The issues may be different but maybe we are not so far from where they were in 1861. Many of the issues if you boil them down go back to who has money and where it's going.

I am at work so I need to be quick :)
The problem with the Yacht analogy is that yachts are not integral to the economy as a whole. We could emancipate the yachts today and it would likely register very little in the overall economy.
Sorry, gotta go!

On a Tuesday, January 12th, 1882. It was raining.

"On a Tuesday, January 12th, 1882. It was raining."

Yes, but where? How much? Was some falling as snow? Is a full and detailed investigation required?

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his powerful outboard?

+1 Rusty Balls.

For a century, the Civil War was generally seen to have been fought to preserve the Union. In the 1960's, that suddenly morphed within the halls of academia into an argument that the war had really been fought to end slavery – a rather sudden change of opinion that I believe had much more to do with the passionate sentiments towards the then current civil rights movement than with the actual historical record.

B

Nevertheless, slavery was the great dividing factor between north and south. Take away slavery and there isn't any other issue that could have brought about secession and the war. No slavery, no war. It's that simple.

I just wish I had a dollar for every time this and similar post have shown up here:) The issue of Lee comes down to opinion. The issue of slavery comes down to the roots.

Hi Scott,
Strong opinions are indeed held with regard to "the cause" of the ACW. The war IMO was a result of a confluence of several factors. The principal cause of the war IMO was the struggle over which faction, north or south, would enjoy control over the federal government and hence the nation's policy and purse-strings.

The Republican party was both established, funded and controlled by and for northern industrial interests. For them, slavery was not particularly a matter of human rights, but a shorthand for how the new states would be economically developed, because upon that question rested the political persuasions of their respective congressional delegations. The industrialists saw an ally in the abolition movement, to whom the institution of slavery was a matter of intense moral concern; but the abolitionists represented only a relatively limited faction of the general voting public – as Horace Greely himself confessed in correspondence. These two factions plus defecting "northern Democrats" altogether managed to deliver Lincoln into the presidency with only forty percent of the vote.

Also, read the Republican 1860 campaign platform: plenty of references to the institution of slavery, but no rush to actually enact emancipation/manumission any time soon.

This is my opinion and I'm happy to leave things at that, since it is pretty unlikely that we will change one another's mind.

B

Blutarsky, you are no doubt right about not changing minds :) As for the rest, however, If the institution of slavery magically disappears (perhaps when the Constitution is ratified) then there is no north and there is no south. The differences between the two also vanish. Eventually major sectional differences might have arisen, but probably between east and west rather than north and south.

@Rusty Balls

Very easy to sit in judgement 158 years later. It's ludicrous to believe that the average confederate soldier was fighting to preserve slavery per se. I believe that a good many of the confederate leaders were. It's the modern equivalent of Billionaires saying they should own yachts. Perhaps they should or should not but it's hardly something that many of us would be willing to lay our lives down for. Please no hate comments – I know yachts are not the same as slavery but just trying to site a concept.

It's even easier to say someone shouldn't judge someone else when it doesn't affect you.

The average confederate soldier, whether wittingly or unwittingly, benefited from an economy and social structure based on slavery. He was fighting to preserve that. Additionally, I understand that large numbers of slaves accompanied Confederate armies to do scut work and that if they tried to escape, they were often shot.

Your analogy isn't quite as on the mark as the very real concern of working poor voters who favor low taxes for the wealthy because they fantasize that if they ever become rich they wouldnt want to pay high taxes.

Frankly, I find our own times as confusing now as it was then. We seem like a very divided nation with little in common if you listen to our leaders. The issues may be different but maybe we are not so far from where they were in 1861. Many of the issues if you boil them down go back to who has money and where it's going.

I have a theory about this. It seems that some elements in the South never really absorbed the concept that they lost the war. Perhaps the peace was too gentle and complete loss of property and citizenship would've gone further to hammer home that the South shouldn't be dreaming of rising again. It has proven over and over to be an enormous social obstacle towards healing and reform.

Minipigs wrote – "Perhaps the peace was too gentle …"

You might want to look a bit more deeply into the experience of the Southern states in the aftermath of the war.

B

@MiniPigs I live in Mississippi, have most my life. Can't get much more "southern" than that. Now, on morale grounds I am glad "we" lost. That being said and I don't speak for me personally I find it is not so much southern's don't admit they were beat or still want independence, separation, etc but it was in fact the painful results of being on the losing side that have caused some, that had family that did fight/survive that time, to still hold on to resentments. As Blutarski said, if you don't think the folks of that generation and the one after suffered enough, you might need to read some more on the numbers of not just rich but poor that lost everything. IMHO folks that didn't have "family" that went through that, did not lose anything have a harder time understanding why some hold onto certain feelings because "they" did not suffer from the war. I think another reason is one simple one all Americans have, Americans don't like to lose, north, south, east, west, don't matter:)
Another point towards the statement, "they did not suffer enough" remember your history concerning Germany. Many experts agree that WW2 only came about because the conditions put on Germany at the end of WW1 WERE so harsh. I have heard several "experts say" to a large extent Germanies part in WW2 was just the continuation of WW1. So, harsher may not have been the correct solution.
Anyway, just my two cents as with most other issues of this type, just comes down to personal opinions that are based on personal life experiences. My parents are not from the south, I have just lived most my life here so I feel like my opinion is at least some what neutral:) Yes, I know the counter arguments, the south got what it deserved, if they didn't want to suffer they shouldn't have started the war, etc, etc. True or not, none of that changes the results and the "fall out" surrounding the decisions made on both sides as to how it affects the here and now.
Happy gaming all.

Read the Articles of Secession for each state, they lay out the specific reasons the states used to leave the United States. Most if not all are posted on the internet. Also, part of the reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was to resolve the issues surrounding all the slaves presenting themselves to the Union army and in conquered territories. In some cases the owners actually came to the army demanding their slaves back. Different generals were reacting differently to the situation and Lincoln needed to give them clear guidance.