170 years ago today Lee resigned after 25 years in the U.S. Army, to assume command of the Army of Northern Virginia
Walter Donway
Timeline
Recent
Status
Photo / Video
Life Event
Status
Photo / Video
Life Event
News Feed
Walter Donway added 3 new photos.
15 mins · Edited ·
I am about half-way through "The Great Democracies," the fourth and final volume of Winston S. Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples." That puts me at precisely the end of his account of the American Civil War (I kept reading till I got there), which by any standard is a brief account in terms of essentials. I note, then, that today is the 170th anniversary of the day that Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army. He did so to take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, a name in American history never to be forgotten.
It was a bitter decision for Lee. His father a colonel in the Revolution, a descendant of Mrs. George Washington, a graduate of West Point, a rising star for more than 25 years in the United States Army, he was called to Washington, D.C., and offered by Winfield Scott (who led the Mexican War) command of the Union Army then being formed. Scott, who had Lincoln's blessings in offering the command, argued earnestly for three hours.
Lee hated slavery and thought "secession would do no good." But he was a son of Virginia and there lay his final allegiance. He wrote, "If Virginia stands by the Old Union, so will I." After the firing on Fort Sumter, six of the Southern states had seceded, creating the Confederacy with its own Constitution, much like that of the United States Constitution, but (if this makes any sense at all) making the institution of slavery an essential feature. Virginia hesitated, declared that it would not secede or fight over slavery, but over the sovereign rights of the states. When Lincoln summoned the states to arms, Virginia refused to send troops; by a split vote, it left the Union. And took with it its noblest son.
Lee had written, after the above statement, "But if she secedes (and I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life."
Historians who love a good story take pleasure in recording that so and so great man "was in tears" at some occasion. Churchill believes that accounts are accurate that, a day after Virginia's secession, Lee was on a train from Washington to Richmond, and, in days that followed, he was said to shed tears never seen in any gain or loss in great battles. However that may be, he was offered and immediately accepted command of all military and naval forces of Virginia. It was the legendary, glorious Army of Northern Virginia.
Lee, perhaps alone among top Confederate leaders, saw that the South had no chance in any prolonged conflict. Population, industry, naval power, and international support ensured that the Union, if it could withstand politically a long, bloody, bankrupting conflict, would prevail. As Churchill says, it was the Seventeenth Century (South) against the Nineteenth Century (North). Lee saw that only a quick, overwhelming victory that would demoralize the North, deprive Lincoln of political support, and bring in European powers on the side of Confederacy could save the Southern cause.
Lee constantly strove for such victories, seeking to take huge risks, brilliantly planned. But the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, seeing the same long odds as Lee, concluded that the South's great strength was in defense. The South wanted to be left alone; the North wanted to force it back into the Union. Let the Northern armies come and force the whole Confederacy into surrender. In the end, as Lee was prevented again and again from that decisive battle, the strategy of the North was exactly what Davis said it must be. It invaded the South, conquering it step by step, until Sherman marched through George, one of the richest, most productive Confederate states--its bread basket--and, on Grant's explicit orders, destroyed its war-making powers and took Atlanta.
Davis and the Southern politicians, in fact, did not make Lee commander in chief of the Confederate forces until early 1865, when the South had been defeated irreversibly (that occurred in 1863) and even Robert E. Lee could not save it.
Timeline
Recent
Status
Photo / Video
Life Event
Status
Photo / Video
Life Event
News Feed
Walter Donway added 3 new photos.
15 mins · Edited ·
I am about half-way through "The Great Democracies," the fourth and final volume of Winston S. Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples." That puts me at precisely the end of his account of the American Civil War (I kept reading till I got there), which by any standard is a brief account in terms of essentials. I note, then, that today is the 170th anniversary of the day that Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army. He did so to take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, a name in American history never to be forgotten.
It was a bitter decision for Lee. His father a colonel in the Revolution, a descendant of Mrs. George Washington, a graduate of West Point, a rising star for more than 25 years in the United States Army, he was called to Washington, D.C., and offered by Winfield Scott (who led the Mexican War) command of the Union Army then being formed. Scott, who had Lincoln's blessings in offering the command, argued earnestly for three hours.
Lee hated slavery and thought "secession would do no good." But he was a son of Virginia and there lay his final allegiance. He wrote, "If Virginia stands by the Old Union, so will I." After the firing on Fort Sumter, six of the Southern states had seceded, creating the Confederacy with its own Constitution, much like that of the United States Constitution, but (if this makes any sense at all) making the institution of slavery an essential feature. Virginia hesitated, declared that it would not secede or fight over slavery, but over the sovereign rights of the states. When Lincoln summoned the states to arms, Virginia refused to send troops; by a split vote, it left the Union. And took with it its noblest son.
Lee had written, after the above statement, "But if she secedes (and I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life."
Historians who love a good story take pleasure in recording that so and so great man "was in tears" at some occasion. Churchill believes that accounts are accurate that, a day after Virginia's secession, Lee was on a train from Washington to Richmond, and, in days that followed, he was said to shed tears never seen in any gain or loss in great battles. However that may be, he was offered and immediately accepted command of all military and naval forces of Virginia. It was the legendary, glorious Army of Northern Virginia.
Lee, perhaps alone among top Confederate leaders, saw that the South had no chance in any prolonged conflict. Population, industry, naval power, and international support ensured that the Union, if it could withstand politically a long, bloody, bankrupting conflict, would prevail. As Churchill says, it was the Seventeenth Century (South) against the Nineteenth Century (North). Lee saw that only a quick, overwhelming victory that would demoralize the North, deprive Lincoln of political support, and bring in European powers on the side of Confederacy could save the Southern cause.
Lee constantly strove for such victories, seeking to take huge risks, brilliantly planned. But the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, seeing the same long odds as Lee, concluded that the South's great strength was in defense. The South wanted to be left alone; the North wanted to force it back into the Union. Let the Northern armies come and force the whole Confederacy into surrender. In the end, as Lee was prevented again and again from that decisive battle, the strategy of the North was exactly what Davis said it must be. It invaded the South, conquering it step by step, until Sherman marched through George, one of the richest, most productive Confederate states--its bread basket--and, on Grant's explicit orders, destroyed its war-making powers and took Atlanta.
Davis and the Southern politicians, in fact, did not make Lee commander in chief of the Confederate forces until early 1865, when the South had been defeated irreversibly (that occurred in 1863) and even Robert E. Lee could not save it.
1. One party rule. No, astonishingly, during the agony of the war in 1864, a full-scale election was held nationwide in orderly fashion--when Lincoln ran against McClellan--an astounding commitment to freedom.
2. Execution without trial for political crimes. No, certainly not. Nor, in fact, after the war were the leaders of the Southern rebellion executed, although there would have been justification for that. Instead, Jefferson Davis served a few years and was left alone.
3. Nationalization of industry. No, Lincoln left it entirely free and, as expected, the great industrial machine of the free North helped to destroy the feudalism and slavery of the South.
4. Above all, says, Rand: censorship. The criticism of Lincoln and the war effort was brutal, often unfair, destructive of morale--and left free throughout.
Lincoln's greatness as a leader of a great free people was that he prosecuted this suppression of rebellion with the absolute minimum of limitations on freedom. But this was more than a national emergency: it was a national crisis of life and death urgency, so that some steps such as the draft, and limits on habeas corpus, are easily justified if only we KEEP CONTEXT. No leader less committed than Lincoln to freedom, and to do the right thing, could have brought the Union through this crisis while sustaining overwhelmingly American ideals. I imagine some may actually disagree with this assessment.
It certainly enthralled me and changed several of my opinions.
WD's comment about Sherman's war of attrition quotes inadequately
-conquered Georgia step by step, the bread basket of the Confederate states,
and, on Grant's explicit orders,
destroyed its war-making powers-
Instead, I learn from Churchill, it was scorched earth.
As WD, describes, the conflict between Lee and Jefferson Davis went beyond personalities, the strategies of either quick victory or passive defense are irreconcilable. There are close parallels with situations today, the lesson has not been learned.