"Robert E. Lee and the Question of Loyalty" Topic

Dr. Gary Gallagher lectures on R.E. Lee's various loyalties and his decision to resign from the United States Army. he also addresses the casualty rates in Grant and Lee's commands. If you want to skip the introductions go to 4:39.

YouTube link

Lee could have been an American hero. He chose not to. Then again, his leadership was not the best. He launched offensives that did not have sufficient combat power and a strong and durable logistics tail. And then Pickett's charge…

An hour? tl;dr

Lee is currently considered a traitor because he is on the wrong side of wokism even though he felt slavery was "political and moral evil". He was loyal to his state.

There are plenty of traitors on the "right side". You have the Little Bighorn Indian Memorial, Crazy Horse oh and three for John Brown.

It reminds me how antisemitism was all the rage in the 70's until the Israelis were mean to the Palestinians. Now it's Rashida Tlaib, decrying the "racist policies of the government and state of Israel."

All things considered, Lee was a traitor to his country.

On the other hand, modern Americans simply have little concept of being patriotic to a state – we are so mobile today, that many of us live in multiple states in a lifetime.

There is still a "my state" ethos going on.
We Las Vegans decry the evil Californians coming here, yet we do want their money.
And when that hurricane destroyed New Orleans and vicinity and people had to relocate, other states resented them. Some Arizonians and Nevadans were outright hostile at these "foreigners" taking our jobs.
And Montanans hate the "outsiders" that come to their state and try to take over and buy up everything.
State loyalty is still very strong.

"An hour? tl;dr:"

For a whole hour! That is so long. I keep forgetting that most people nowadays have the attention span of an amoeba. His talk is about where Lee's loyalties lay. I found it interesting and I learned a few things. It would help to view the video before commenting. He is considered the "Dean" of Civil War Historians and is worth listening to.

My father's family were Oregon pioneers; my mother's family were Utah pioneers. My birth father's family came to California from Mexico; my birth mother's family is from Minnesota.

I was born in California, and grew up there as well as Utah and Idaho. Went to college in Utah. Served a mission in Florida. Worked in Texas, Massachusetts, California, and finally New York.

I don't particularly identify with any of those states.

Lee was loyal to his state, which back in those days mattered more than loyalty to a fairly fledgling country.

He was a superb general, leader, and loyal Virginian.

So where does that put the Virginians and other Southerners who fought for the Union? There were plenty of Southern officers who served the Union. They had on morale delima, no soul searching.

link

If you watch the video, Dr. Gallagher speaks of the four loyalties of Lee. One of which is his loyalty to Virginia. I don't think he used the word treason.

Didn't we just go on for some 6 or 7 pages about this?

So where does that put the Virginians and other Southerners who fought for the Union?

Tens of thousands of southerners understood their duty to the United States and fought for the Union cause, either in Regular (Army and Navy) or Volunteer service. The units from the border states are the best known, but many also served in regiments from northern states. Perhaps the most under appreciated fact is that every southern state except South Carolina had at least one unit in Federal service that was predominantly or entirely white.

I think General Lee would have thought long and hard about remaining in the Union army and serving his state. State rights have been a thorn in the side of the US since even before the Revolution! I think Lee was an honourable man, who made the best choice he could.
Even we in the UK are having a 'States Rights' 'crisis' regarding the Scots…who seem to forget that Scotland (sort of) took over the UK when James VI became James the first of England, so shouldn't it be us trying for Independence?

Let it not be forgotten that at the time "states rights" was a racist dog whistle for continuing the practice of slavery despite nearly global opposition.

Pretty sure it remains a dog whistle for keeping some forms of racial oppression (e.g., voter suppression, etc.) in the present day.

That love of Virginia might've been a one way street.

The USA gave Lee a free education. Did VA offer him a free education?

This is worse than Yamamoto turning on the USA after going to Harvard.

Aapsych20 +1 The notion of states' rights was used and continues to be used to this day as camouflage for all kinds of repressive measures against African Americans and other minority groups.

Let it not be forgotten that at the time "states rights" was a racist dog whistle for continuing the practice of slavery despite nearly global opposition.

That is a ridiculous claim. "States rights" was a fundamental feature of 18th America and was a foundational matter with respect to the constitutional order that came out of the American Revolution. When the USA went to war against Britain and Canada in 1812 the New England states threatened secession or states rights as a means of self preservation. There has been tension between the federal and state authorities since the founding and the 1787 Constitution was designed to facilitate this kind of tension. States rights is very much feature of the American constitutional order.

"Aapsych20 +1 The notion of states' rights was used and continues to be used to this day as camouflage for all kinds of repressive measures against African Americans and other minority groups."

Odd since the concept of state's rights predated any argument about slavery. All the colonies wanted to have a say in how they were governed. If they chose not to have slavery, they could prohibit it. Saying it is camouflage for repressive measures is just something you're repeating from the television. It has no place in practice but sounds good so you can virtue signal about how much better you believe yourself to be.

As for Robert E. Lee, pigeon holing him as a traitor is a nice way to avoid having to deal with the Constitutional problems of the time. I notice not one person spoke up and named George Washington as a traitor. It would seem the word traitor is being applied only to persons who weren't successful in the endeavor as opposed to any act or belief.

States Rights? What substantial State's Right has really meant anything but something discriminatory?

As for Robert E. Lee, pigeon holing him as a traitor is a nice way to avoid having to deal with the Constitutional problems of the time. I notice not one person spoke up and named George Washington as a traitor. It would seem the word traitor is being applied only to persons who weren't successful in the endeavor as opposed to any act or belief.

I would like to point out that the entire CSA avoided the Constitutional question of the time.

George Washington is considered a hero by both Americans and Neo-Confederates (well, the ones who are Americans) and maybe a traitor by some parties in the UK. Meanwhile, Lee is a hero to some around the country for reasons they cant seem to explain past the fact that he resigned his commission honorably and managed to mangle his own army beyond recognition. As much as the Union appreciates his good works, it hardly merits a statue at West Point.

But you bring up a good point, Lee is a traitor among most people in the North and a hero, less and less, to some in the South. I think he is cool as a military figure and I dont think people dwell on the degree of his treason but there is no reason to honor him in the USA.

Thepeninsularwarin15mm +1

"Odd since the concept of state's rights predated any argument about slavery. All the colonies wanted to have a say in how they were governed. If they chose not to have slavery, they could prohibit it. Saying it is camouflage for repressive measures is just something you're repeating from the television. It has no place in practice but sounds good so you can virtue signal about how much better you believe yourself to be."

Peninsular, difficult as it might be for you to do (based on your statement), but imagine for a moment that other people have values and knowledge that are all their own. Gotten from bitter lived experience and led by aspirations that people might grow to be better and will work to remove the capacity to harm one another.

For example, I carry several aspects of identity that are minoritized and are actively discriminated against in the US and many other places in the world – something I experience on my skin virtually daily, even in some nominally progressive spaces. So when a state arbitrarily gives itself the the right to do whatever it wants regardless of human rights norms and legal protections (as the Confederacy surely did!), this can put my life and the lives of my family literally on the line. I have experienced this in my lifetime

To your point, racist rhetoric (as any kind of justification for oppression) evolves and coopts seemingly legitimate ideas to give itself cover from being seen at face value as a hideous and violent. "States' rights" is is exactly such a cover, and quite a successful one in US history because it shifted the goalposts (another abusive tactic) from values about self-determination, to select groups of folks having an unfettered right to do harm to other people.

And to bring this back to the topic of this thread, all this talk of Lee being any kind of "states' rights" moralist, rather than a highly privileged pragmatic who benefitted from slavery being maintained in his state, wears very thin. He literally did commit treason to keep power and position for himself and those of his own class when other options were foreclosed upon by the rest of his country. And his purported humanism and state patriotism is also a sham because he had no qualms about accepting command of the ANV and frequently exercised the ability to sit comfortably in his headquarters, insulated from harm, while his fellow Virginians of lower economic class (e.g., mostly poor white folks) suffered from limb amputations and gut wounds by high caliber Minie ball, and died all kinds of horrifically on the battlefield.

Funny how we seem to ignore the northern born who moved south and later fought for their new "adoptive" states. The causes and reason folks fought are more complex than most want to acknowledge.

Interestingly, Lee's commanding officer, Winfield Scott, was also a Virginian…

"Let it not be forgotten that at the time "states rights" was a racist dog whistle for continuing the practice of slavery despite nearly global opposition."

A complete fairy tale. The ONLY people opposing slavery in the mid 19th century were western countries. Some countries were still practicing slavery into the 1970s and 80s.

"Pretty sure it remains a dog whistle for keeping some forms of racial oppression (e.g., voter suppression, etc.) in the present day."

Too silly to bother addressing.

"The notion of states' rights was used and continues to be used to this day as camouflage for all kinds of repressive measures against African Americans and other minority groups."

Name one.

"I carry several aspects of identity that are minoritized and are actively discriminated against in the US and many other places in the world"

Such as?

Aapsych20's comment that,
"And his purported humanism and state patriotism is also a sham because he had no qualms about accepting command of the ANV and frequently exercised the ability to sit comfortably in his headquarters, insulated from harm, while his fellow Virginians of lower economic class (e.g., mostly poor white folks) suffered from limb amputations and gut wounds by high caliber Minie ball, and died all kinds of horrifically on the battlefield."
could be applied to any commander who does not lead men into battle in person, gun or sword in hand, like Alexander the Great – just substitute another group identity for Virginians and replace 'high caliber Minie ball' by 'high velocity rifle bullets and explosive shells'.

Criticise Lee for his political beliefs, but not for commanding like any other senior officer of his time and since.

In the USA generals were/are officers that survived the front lines as lieutenants. In Lee's case I believe that meant the Mexican-American War. Considering that the mortality rate among junior officers is higher than the average grunt I'd say that excuses the generals to a certain extent.

Aapsych20 said: "The notion of states' rights was used and continues to be used to this day as camouflage for all kinds of repressive measures against African Americans and other minority groups."

dn jackson said: Name one.

There are quite a few examples of this. One of the most famous is the case that upheld Jim Crow laws and allowed them to promulgate across the South (and get copied unofficially in the North):

link

link

link

link

On the subject of R E Lee's patriotism and command rank, I think it's not a stretch to see how his social class could make it easier for him to become a lieutenant (and later a general) and remain relatively insulated from harm throughout, compared to some poor sod from Appalachian Virginia. If your country is its people, and patriotism is sharing their fate in hardship, then Lee's actions ain't it. What it is, is privilege, which, unlike many other field commanders, he conveniently decided to not forego all his life.

P.S. Au pas de Charge, thank you for enumerating how "states rights" was and remains a racist dig whistle.

States rights is an inevitable feature of our federal system. I say IS. One has only to consider sanctuary cities etc, which exist on both the right (guns) and the left (abortion, illegal immigrants. The south was no more about states rights than New England with its personal liberty laws, trying to nullify the fugitive slave act.

The political problem with the sr doctrine is that it tends to be appealed to by those out oof power at the national level. E.g. Jefferson and Madison in the Va and Ky Resolutions. Then when that party regains control of national power they tend to forget states rights. So it is a loser's argument, not based on logic, or right or wrong, but on political incentives.

APDC – as you quoted:

"The notion of states' rights was used and continues to be used to this day as camouflage for all kinds of repressive measures against African Americans and other minority groups."

Your example is related to a court decision from 1896 which was overturned in Brown v Board. The original quote that I disagree with states that it is used to this day to justify descrimination. Well, as I said, name one. Name how it is used today to justify discrimination.

"Dn Jackson, judging from your response to my openness about experience of discrimination which compels me to see that social conditions which perpetuate racist harm are very much real, I think you're one of the category of folks that Aldo Raine famously said would be totally unsusceptible to lessons in humanity."

As you know nothing about me, I'll ignore that part. However, you used a fairly standard tactic for 'winning' arguments used by many people today. You claim to be a victim of discrimination. If you want to expand on that and give actual actions, I'm happy to listen.

"The political problem with the sr doctrine is that it tends to be appealed to by those out oof power at the national level. E.g. Jefferson and Madison in the Va and Ky Resolutions. Then when that party regains control of national power they tend to forget states rights. So it is a loser's argument, not based on logic, or right or wrong, but on political incentives."

I can agree with this, but only to a certain extent. On some issues I'd agree, especially big ones and those that one side or the other see as vital. However, states rights still have a major impact on the daily lives of Americans. For example hard drugs are now legal in Orgegon, but still illegal in most other states. I can buy a gun in my state after passing a background check, but someone in California or New York has to jump through all sorts of hoops and get an ownership license.

I believe that SR are one of the massive strengths of this country. California might institute a policy that turns into a massive failure. Other states can see that failure and choose not to try the same policy.

Where SR are being eroded is down to two things; political power grabs in Washington DC and federal money. For example the Affordable Healthcare Act took a lot of control of healthcare away from the states and put it in the hands of the federal government. That was a political power grab. All states except Utah have a DUI limit of .08 BAC, (my understanding is that Utah lowered their's to .05 a few years ago). That came about because the Regan administration threatened to withhold federal highway funds unless states lowered it to .08.

Just my opinion

"On the subject of R E Lee's patriotism and command rank, I think it's not a stretch to see how his social class could make it easier for him to become a lieutenant (and later a general) and remain relatively insulated from harm throughout, compared to some poor sod from Appalachian Virginia. If your country is its people, and patriotism is sharing their fate in hardship, then Lee's actions ain't it. What it is, is privilege, which, unlike many other field commanders, he conveniently decided to not forego all his life."
Lee was injured at Chapultapec. Being a junior officer doesn't insulate you from harm, in fact in US army tradition JO's were expected to set an example for their men and would be found in the thick of battle. Further, in US military tradition most officers were of the middle class, not upper class. The privilege of wealth was that the rich didn't have to serve at all.
The vast majority of generals in the US army were under fire as JO's, Eisenhower being a notable exception. Other countries may have had other experiences.

Dn J, yes to all of that.

Dn Jackson, here's a logical summary of the points you're arguing during this discussion:

"States' rights" rhetoric has not been coopted to prop up racist discrimination. It's actually super aspirational, innocent, and legit in all its forms. Really, the US Civil War was fought for these ennobled ideals, and not because of rich white folks in the South, to whom having "states' rights" meant that they could get even richer through owning and exploiting other human beings – including when the rest of the country decided to begin addressing that "hideous blot", in the words of another Virginian.

P.S. I really don't understand why it's so difficult to imagine that social class can insulate a person from harm over a lifetime in comparison to their peers of lower social class, and generally regardless of situational factors. Or that some people will absolutely use that class privilege in ways that undermine claims about their patriotism.

Aapsych20, is it your contention that the north was less racist than the south? or even is today? Slavery is a distinct thing from racism. Slavery was confined t the south; racism was everywhere. Surely that should be evident to anyone who knows history. Racism (between 1890 and 1970 or so) did take different forms in north and south, of course.

And yes, it was racialized slavery. Would NON-racialized slavery have been better? If so, why?

I do not think your analytical framework works very well here. If you insist on seeing everything through a lens of racism, you miss quite a lot.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue or what historical harms you seem to want to equivocate about in your own defense.

My historical perspective is just fine, thank you very much. What exactly does one accomplish by omitting a lens of racisms when it comes (of all things!) to examining the US Civil War? You mean the racism and racist violence that caused it?

All of these threads continue to lead us to the same places, although there are detours. FYI Oregon has decriminalized possession of several hard drugs in amounts for individual use. Penalties now include fines and mandatory treatment.

Marijuana is prohibited by federal law while it has become legal and a source of jobs and tax revenue in many states. Driving under the influence includes marijuana. So states and the federal government exercise many powers, sometimes in conflict.

But secession is in a class by itself IMO and opposing a more perfect Union is not in the interest or the will of most Americans, (depending on party affiliation, it seems). And slavery was a doomed practice the moment the ink dried on the Declaration. Self-evident truths…

Yes, the Declaration killed slavery, even though it took many decades and a bloody war.

As the section abolishing slavery was taken out of the draft, the Declaration hardly could be characterized as having 'killed slavery.' The system actually grew between the Revolution and 1860, in part because of the invention of the cotton gin:

'The South had become a cotton empire, and slavery looked like an absolutely essential element in Southern prosperity.'-Bruce Catton, The Civil War, 10.

From a practical point of view, of course you are right Brechtel. But if the intent of the founders was that we fulfill the promise of the Declaration, then it was the beginning of the end for slavery. We are not perfect, but we could not truly be free while we enslaved a race of people for profit and failed to live up to our own fine words. The double standard may not have been obvious to some.

The South believed slavery was essential. This is what I think Catton is saying. Was it really?

To the southern slave holders it was. The slaves were worth 2 billion dollars in 1860 dollars. And they were cheap labor to pick the cash crop-cotton.

Slavery WAS dying before the cotton gin, and was still under great internal pressure in 1830. A program of gradual emancipation was debated in the Va legislature, and might have passed, absent Nat Turner. Much of the planter class well understood that they were straddle a tiger with a firm grip on his ears. NOT where you want to be, but no way to get off safely. FEAR was the main motivator, not greed.

They were not exactly cheap labor, they were slaves and a commodity themselves. The war ended up costing us 7 billion. Would have been better to free them and subsidize their pay for a while until the economy there adjusted.

Most people in the South had little to fear. The aristocratic ruling class had most of the capital and drove the agenda. They were not afraid enough to stop raking in the profits.

Gees, this again?

Lee was Loyal to Virginia, but not to his Officer's oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the U.S. You can say he disliked slavery, but he owned a good many up until the Civil War, slavery being the 'cornerstone' reason for secession. Believe Lee and many other rebels were honest in their beliefs, good soldiers and moral men. Your choice.

Lee and all the rest still fought to end the Union. I see no reason why our Federal and State governments should honor him or anyone for that effort. Those who do display some mixed loyalties themselves.

The original U.S. Articles of Confederation had a clause that said states could choose to leave the Confederation if they wished. The Constitution purposely did not grant that power to states. The Confederate Articles copied the original articles and included that clause and several other states' rights over the CSA Federal Government. It worked about as well as the original articles--i.e. it didn't.

The friction between the federal government and the states was built into the Constitution, even with the federal government being dominant. That friction is alive today and a positive dynamic as long as both are seen as essential.

Tort, have you read TIME ON THE CROSS? The profitability of slavery is a complex and tricky issue, because capitalized labor represents a huge investment with some serious drawbacks. The Chesnut diary remarks on the inefficiency of having to maintain all of those people many of whom were not productive. So the opportunity cost of slavery was very high. Again, this was a trap the south had built for itself and was stuck in.

"The original U.S. Articles of Confederation had a clause that said states could choose to leave the Confederation if they wished. The Constitution purposely did not grant that power to states. The Confederate Articles copied the original articles and included that clause and several other states' rights over the CSA Federal Government. It worked about as well as the original articles--i.e. it didn't."
If that's true then West Virginia seceding from the CSA has legal cover in the CSA articles but not in the USA constitution. Bizarre…

Might makes right. Decide what you want to do and then find a justification for it.