How do you know that? Lincoln tried to make it clear that he had to resupply the federal base at Fort Sumter and this was not an act of war. Notice how Castro has never tried to impose his rule on Guantamo.
I have long wondered what would have happened had the CFA had simply gone on as though they were a sovereign state, not attacking, just ignoring the US. Suppose it had gone on for ten years. Fifty years. The two states would have gone their separate ways and they would have seceded de facto if not de jure. But would the difference have mattered?
The commander, incidentally, was Heinrich “Henry” Wirz, and although some aspects of his trial were a bit shady the evidence that he committed at least several murders is pretty overwhelming.
If the Confederate hotheads had restrained themselves & the Union had not gone to war–slavery would have continued longer. The Emancipation Proclamation did not establish racial equality in the USA (ha!) but, at least, that line was drawn. It mattered to the slaves & their descendants.
I can understand Lincoln’s desire to reunite the country after the War–by avoiding mass hangings. But I find the ongoing reverence for the oh-so-distinguished Lee silly.
Simply put whenever someone brings up Lee as a historical figure and says a,b and c about him a certain percentage of people will just shout “traitor!” Regardless of anything else that is said about him they will come back with, “but traitor!” It’s a simplistic and incomplete look at the man.
As for the letter being stupid, it’s an attempt to shoehorn someone’s current political belief into pseudo historical context. Saying that not executing Lee caused the Teaparty is a freshman high school view of history.
Pick anyone who has committed any sort of heinous act and this statement applies.
It’s silly to say “Oh sure he did X, Y, and Z, but he rationalized it thusly and he was a good son to his dear mother!”
Curious: do you/others believe that fighting to defend slavery was wrong? Or is that fundamental question simply not available due to turbulent times and complexities?
Well if you want to say he was correct in his actions that certainly is an opinion.
My point was that it doesn’t make a ton of sense to acknowledge that he was in the wrong and then try to point out his good points as well. Every single person is a complicated collection of ideas and attributes. We still hold them responsible for their actions.
In 1774 slavery was efffectively abolished in England. In 1775 the Americans rose in armed revolt. In 1776 they issued their UDI. This is not a coincidence.
And it worked, the USA slave state allowed slavery for decades longer than Britain allowed slavery anywhere in the Empire.
Which is true, but conveniently ignores that slavery had been okey-dokey among the Brits since Roman times. So, they had it for, what? A thousand years or so? But they renounced it, completely, maybe 20 years or a little less before our civil war settled the matter here. The Brits aren’t much of a role model in this matter.
The American colonies were not “England.” They were colonies & treated differently than the mother country–taxation without representation, etc. Slavery wasn’t abolished throughout the British Empire until 1843, although it had mostly been abolished in 1833. The King, ministers & Parliament who opposed American independence didn’t give a fuck about slaves–the English abolition movement began after the Revolution.
Most of our Revolutionary firebrands came from New England, where slavery never became as important to the economy as it did in the South. Before the Revolution, many New Englanders & some in the Middle Colonies (beside the Pennsylvania Quakers) were turning against slavery. By 1800, most of the Northern states had ended it.
It’s shameful that the new country was formed without ending slavery Lincoln thought the Civil War was a judgment on the whole country for that sin. Even some Southern Founders felt it was wrong & somehow hoped it might fade away. It didn’t.
I don’t understand why the fact that Lee supported his state over his own conscience and morality is supposed to be a positive thing. Is it admirable to aid a murderer or rapist because you’ve been friends for a long time?
Granted, I’m still not sure execution would have been the best course of action. But there definitely needed to be a large amount of repudiation and not the veneration he has received. You want to honor him as good at what he did, fine, but only after you’ve established that what he did was wrong.
“Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter [proposing negotiations], were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.”
I was JUST about to post that I suppose it’s a “Good thing” the South’s main reason for secession was so vile. A large number of people may blather about ‘state’s rights’, but thanks to the internet, that myth is easily squashed.
A Civil War based on ethnic conflicts or a military coup would make the US a very different place right now.
Edit: and if anything, this thread has got me wanting to watch the Ken Burns mini-series.
Thoughtful and measured. Speaks well of Grant and a commitment to the long-term reconciliation of the states. Not sure it challenges the POV held by the letter-writer in the OP, merely chooses a higher road.
Grant for a long time, and possibly still was held to be one of the worst Presidents. I wonder if deeper analysis would show he was just ****ed by the power hungry around him.
I’m interested in the OP’s reasoning as to how Lee was a “traitor to his oath as an officer in the United States Army.” Lee resigned his commission in the United States Army prior to any belligerent acts. I’m not aware of anyone ever being held to their oath as an officer after their resignation.
What I/others believe today has absolutely no bearing on what happened then. I certainly believe that slavery is wrong and the concentration of melanin in a person’s skin has no bearing on their worth. That is what my parents and grandparents taught me. If I had been raised from birth to belive that this were not the case, as had my parents, grandparents, etc. and I lived in a society where the macroeconomics depended on free labor - what would I believe then? I don’t know, and you can’t know. IOW, context is everything.