Robert E. Lee and surrender reconsidered
Chris Eichenberger
Recently I came across a comment that Robert E. Lee expressed regret for
surrendering - in hindsight choosing to fight a guerrilla war instead, i
guess - after witnessing the implementation of Reconstruction. Is that
true? If so, where were those thoughts put down? In his memoirs?
Cheers.
Robert Willett
"Chris Eichenberger" <leva...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E2DD50C...@hotmail.com...
Lee did not write his Memoirs.
Mark Behrendt
CHRISTIANA BOND. "Memories of General Robert E. Lee."
Cash
It's a fabrication.
Regards,
Cash
Caldwell Ryan
While Lee was plainly appalled at the spectacle of Rconstruction, it
must be remembered that Lee died in 1870 and so he was spared much of
the extremism and many of the illegalities of Reconstruction. As far
as "The Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" are concerned, they only address his
strong opposition to carrying on a guerilla war.
James F. Epperson
> Recently I came across a comment that Robert E. Lee expressed regret for
First, Lee never wrote his memoirs. Second, I think what
you are talking about here is what he supposedly told
Texas Governor Stockdale after the war. The quote in
question goes as follows: "Governor, if I had foreseen the
use these people designed to make of their victory, there
would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no
sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men,
my sword in my right hand."
Most modern Lee biographers (including Douglas Southall Freeman)
do not accept this as accurate. Freeman says, "There is nothing
in Lee's own writings and nothing in direct quotation by first-hand
witness that accords with such an expression on his part."
(R.E. Lee, vol. IV, p. 374). If you track down this tale, it is
at best third-hand, and this IMO diminishes its credibility
greatly.
JFE
Brad Meyer
wrote:
> The quote in
>question goes as follows: "Governor, if I had foreseen the
>use these people designed to make of their victory, there
>would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no
>sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
>I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men,
>my sword in my right hand."
I spent a few days trying to track this down, and found it just in
time to see your post ;-).
>Most modern Lee biographers (including Douglas Southall Freeman)
>do not accept this as accurate. Freeman says, "There is nothing
>in Lee's own writings and nothing in direct quotation by first-hand
>witness that accords with such an expression on his part."
Being interested in Lee's post war life, and having access to
numerious items not known to Freeman, I can say his comment above is
still valid. The quote is wholly at odds with everything Lee is known
to have said or done after the woah.
Ed Frank
I agree with both Brad and Jim, and furthermore--
even if the quote was genuine it would take some
major spin to be seen as a preference for guerilla
war. It doesn't say, "I wish we had gone to the
hills," it says "I wish I had died at Appomattox."
Ed Frank
Dave Smith
wrote:
I think it should be duly noted that the "Memoirs of Robert E. Lee"
were *not* written by Lee, were written after his death, and written
by Lost Cause (and blind) apologist A.L. Long.
Nothing in there reflects anything that Lee said or felt.
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith Deja Moo -- That funny little feeling that
Villa Hills, Ky you've heard this line of bullshit before
http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/
----------------------------------------------------------
James F. Epperson
efr...@memphis.edu (Ed Frank) writes:
>I agree with both Brad and Jim, and furthermore--
>even if the quote was genuine it would take some
>major spin to be seen as a preference for guerilla
>war. It doesn't say, "I wish we had gone to the
>hills," it says "I wish I had died at Appomattox."
And, of course, this is something he said at the time, in 1865:
"Then I must go and see General Grant, and I would rather die
a thousand deaths."
JFE
James F. Epperson
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
A student who changes the course of history is usually taking an exam
Caldwell Ryan
> were *not* written by Lee, were written after his death, and written
> by Lost Cause (and blind) apologist A.L. Long.
>
> Nothing in there reflects anything that Lee said or felt.
It is indeed worth noting that "Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" was most
certainly written by Confederate General A.L. Long. It is also worth
noting that because Long served with Lee throughout the War and also
manintained a close personal friendship with him after the War, he was
uniquely qualified to write a Biography. To that end, "Memoirs of
Robert E. Lee" faithfully and carefully records an adundance of what
Lee said and felt. The "Memoirs" contain copious documents, including
copies of personal letters, military reports to Jefferson Davis,
orders, announcements, recounstructed dialogues, and direct quotes.
While "Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" may be slightly difficult to obtain
(I believe a copy is for sale on e-bay), it is a must read
nevertheless.
-Caldwell
Robert Willett
"Caldwell Ryan" <Dowbul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8a0ba8c4.03012...@posting.google.com...
Long became chief of Second Corps Artillery in 1863 and from that time on
was not on Lee's staff.
James F. Epperson
Dowbul...@aol.com (Caldwell Ryan) writes:
>It is indeed worth noting that "Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" was most
>certainly written by Confederate General A.L. Long. It is also worth
>noting that because Long served with Lee throughout the War and also
>manintained a close personal friendship with him after the War, he was
>uniquely qualified to write a Biography. To that end, "Memoirs of
>Robert E. Lee" faithfully and carefully records an adundance of what
>Lee said and felt.
Long's book contains much of questionable accuracy, including
many conversations which modern scholarship indicates are
complete fabrications.
Kyri
As you've been told, never happened. I think I know where the
misperception may have come from, though. In Porter Alexander's
memoirs, he mentions suggesting to Lee at Appomattox that the men
scatter and undertake guerrilla warfare. He says that Lee pointed out
the uselessness of this, and that he then felt abashed and as if Lee
had spoken from a higher moral plane. And that's a wild-ass
paraphrase, so go read Porter's memoirs--two volumes, one more
personal, one less. They're top-notch primary sources in any case.
--Kyri
Caldwell Ryan
> was not on Lee's staff.
Unfortunately, a woefully incomplete characterization of the
relationship between Lee and Long. Let's see what Lee said and how he
felt about A.L. Long by referencing a testimonial written by Lee on
Long's behalf. The letter is found, of course, in "Memoirs of Robert
E. Lee";
"...General A.L. Long entered the Confederate service in 1861, and
has served continuously till the surrender of the Army of Northern
Virginia, 9th April, 1865. His conduct during that time has been
marked by zeak and gallantry..."
Now then, for his part, Long states the following;
"...the acceptance by General Long began an acquaintance and service
which closed only with the close of the war..."
-Caldwell
Robert Willett
As can be seen Ryan's statements do not contradict the fact that Long's
assignment from 1863 onward put him out of contact with Lee for extended
periods.
Dave Gorski
Caldwell Ryan
> assignment from 1863 onward put him out of contact with Lee for extended
> periods.
Clearly, the statements made by Willet do absolutely nothing to refute
the obvious fact that Long served with Lee throughout the war.
-Caldwell
Chris Eichenberger
"Gradually I came to see that the conservative challenge to liberalism's jurisprudence of 'loose
construction' was far too narrow. Nearly everything liberals wanted the Federal Government to
do was unconstitutional. The key to it all, I thought, was the Tenth Amendment, which forbids
the Federal Government to exercise any powers not specifically assigned to it in the
Constitution. But the Tenth Amendment had been comatose since the New Deal, when
Roosevelt's Court virtually excised it."
[...]
"In a way I had transferred my patriotism from America as it then was to America as it had been
when it still honored the Constitution. And when had it crossed the line? At first I thought the
great corruption had occurred when Franklin Roosevelt subverted the Federal judiciary; later I
came to see that the decisive event had been the Civil War, which had effectively destroyed the
right of the states to secede from the Union. But this was a very much a minority view among
conservatives, particularly at National Review, where I was the only one who held it."
[...]
"What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from
the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was 'indissoluble' unless all the states agreed to
dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were
really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of 'it' rather than 'them.'
So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to
uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not
our rights but the state that is 'unalienable.' And he made it stick by force of arms. No
transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union's inherited legitimacy. Once established
on specific and limited terms, the US Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by
those terms."
As I mentioned, other writers have described, and more directly than Sobran does, the effect of the Civil War transforming the pre-existing collection of states into essentially provinces controlled by and subservient to a central power. I'm curious what Civil War buffs think about that sentiment.
Cheers.
Rich Rostrom
>As I mentioned, other writers have described, and more directly than
>Sobran does, the effect of the Civil War transforming the pre-existing
>collection of states into essentially provinces controlled by and
>subservient to a central power. I'm curious what Civil War buffs think
>about that sentiment.
Confederate apologists echo it night and day.
The rest of us note that the War did expand the activity
of the Federal government, and that the 14th and 15th
Amendments established Federal power to oversee the
activities of state governments in detail, including
conformity to the Bill of Rights per the doctrine of
"incorporation".
But the states remained in full exercise of their
traditional authority over local affairs.
The vast relative growth in the last century of Federal
power had little to do with usurpations by Lincoln in
the 1860s. But it had much to do with improvements in
transportation and communication that made many common
activities intrinsically interstate.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
Pbwalther
>you are talking about here is what he supposedly told
>Texas Governor Stockdale after the war. The quote in
>question goes as follows: "Governor, if I had foreseen the
>use these people designed to make of their victory, there
>would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no
>sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
>I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men,
>my sword in my right hand."
>
>Most modern Lee biographers (including Douglas Southall Freeman)
>do not accept this as accurate. Freeman says, "There is nothing
>in Lee's own writings and nothing in direct quotation by first-hand
>witness that accords with such an expression on his part."
>(R.E. Lee, vol. IV, p. 374). If you track down this tale, it is
>at best third-hand, and this IMO diminishes its credibility
>greatly.
>
>JFE
>
people, I get the distinct impression that Lee followed the rule that "if you
can not say something nice about someone, you should say nothing at all". And
Lee tended to say things that were constructive.
Lee also tended to avoid getting involved in politics.
Lee's postwar career seemed to center on encouraging other southerners to be
good citizens of the USA and rebuild their battered country by example.
The above quote sounds positively cranky, impotent and petulant. It would have
also run counter to Lee's desire to restore good terms between the south and
the north. I suppose that Lee might have said something like that if he was
having a really bad hair day, but I very, much doubt it.