Three points:
1.) The colonists were fighting for independence. The South was fighting for independence. If independence is a right, they were both fighting for the same right.
2.) If the contract is the US Constitution, where in that contract did it say that states could not leave the Union?
3.) Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal government the authority to invade a state?
Yes. People today forget that there was a time when one’s state was the primary focus of loyalty; rather than the Union.
This isn’t a great analogy, but the US is a member of the United Nations. Americans, nevertheless, are loyal to the US, not the UN.
But in another 150 years, who knows? Things change.
Also, while I admire Lee, I also believe that it was - for everyone - a very good thing the secessionists failed. The South would have been worse off, if they’d won.
So how do you feel about people like Winfield Scott and George Thomas? They were both Virginians who fought for the US army during the Civil War. Or Montgomery Meigs, of Georgia, the army’s Quartermaster General? If Lee’s to be praised for his loyalty to his state over the United States as a whole, should we condemn these men for disloyalty?
Lee didnt swear an oath to Virginia, he swore it to the USA.
I actually agree with this, at least to a point. Self-determination is supposed to be a universal right.
The closest you get is the process of admitting new states, which requires Congress to approve. It is an extension, but only an extension, to figure that it also requires Congress to approve the departure of a state. I’m not hanging my hat on that one, but I have heard better-qualified legal scholars than myself make this argument.
Once the state had opened fire on Federal troops, the cat is out of the bag. Don’t shoot at the nice policeman, because he then gets to shoot back. The Constitution allows the Federal Government to protect its property, and Fort Sumter counts.
Nobody’s deceived: war was going to happen anyway. But the South blundered, badly, by providing such a convenient casus. It completely bypassed the Constitutional question.
There are times when you have to make a choice. Sometimes, loyalties are in conflict.
Ideally, such conflicts are resolved by litigation, but this was one of those times when that wasn’t going to work.
It’s a little too facile to say that Lee had to be a traitor or else Scott had to be one. They can each revile the other. It comes down to a question that isn’t formally specified in the Constitution: what is the unit of sovereignty? Before the Civil War, it was understood by many to be the States. Today, we think more of the Individual.
As one of my favorite old jokes goes, the two parties settled out of court.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
The Militia Act of 1792 (revised 1795):
Proclamation by the President of the United States, April 15, 1861:
You may argue that the declarations of secession by several of the states, and the subsequent opening fire upon a military installation of the United States by the self-proclaimed new confederated government of those states, was an act of legitimate “self-determination”, not an “insurrection”–but the above was the constitutional and legal basis of the government of the United States in waging the war.
Independence is not a universal catch-all right. A people have a right to self-determination, but that does not provide any group of people with carte blanche to break up a nation state.
The people of the South HAD self-determination. They had the powers of their states, they had votes proportional (actually, more than proportional) to their population. Unlike the people of the Thirteen Colonies they had a direct and equal say in the governance of the nation state they were citizens of. That’s self-determination.
There are obviously degrees of reason here; while the 13 Colonies has, IMHO, a valid point, occupied France in 1941 had an even better case for independence, and the Confederacy did not have a good case at all. If the people of Sandusky, OH decided to separate from the USA their case would be frankly absurd.
I can think of a large proportion of human beings in the South who weren’t free to exercise this right in the CSA…
I blundered by bringing up the constitutional question. As you say: the war was going to happen anyway. The legalities of it may be interesting, but it’s a topic for a different thread. As far as Lee is concerned, he followed what he thought was his duty: which was allegiance to his state. He resigned his position in the U.S. Army, and declined an offer for command in the Union, while he waited for Virginia to go one way or the other. Which btw, didn’t happen until Lincoln called up troops to invade the South. (Or suppress the insurrection, if you prefer.) The troops would have gone through Virginia, and that was unacceptable, so far as Virginia was concerned. (Except for West Virginia, which seceded from the rest of Virginia, and was promptly recognized by the Northern states.)
FWIW, I also admire Lincoln, though in a different way.
Lee was someone who followed his principles, regardless of the cost. He was also a great leader, and a fascinating tactician and strategist. He was personally brave, and generally self-effacing.
Lincoln, on the other hand, was outcome-oriented, in terms of his ethics and his thinking. He is admirable in his own way: he accomplished something, that at least in the beginning, looked improbable, if not downright impossible. For my own part, I don’t think the outcome of Civil War was pre-determined. But for Lincoln, it could easily have gone the other way. The U.S. owes him a debt of gratitude for accomplishing what he did.
What’s fascinating about the Civil War is it’s not a story about good guys vs. bad guys. There were good guys and bad guys on both sides.
Another way to put it is this (and to try to answer the OP’s question): Lee was a soldier. A high-ranking and widely-admired soldier, but still just a soldier. A soldier’s ethics are not those of a politician: and you don’t want them to be. (Not unless you want a military, rather than civilian government.)
Lee’s decision was not whether to start the war, or when to end it. Jefferson Davis was the Commander-in-Chief, and the President of the Confederacy. He was the civilian authority under whom Lee served. Lee’s duty - as he saw it - was to serve his government, to the best of his ability, for as long as he could. And he did a pretty damn good job of it, all things considered. And he did it with a fair degree of honor: when he marched through Pennsylvania, he did not leave a trail devastation behind him, for example, and went out of his way to avoid civilian casualties.
In any event, Lee’s duty, as a soldier and not a politician, was to fight until (1.) the war was over, or (2.) he was told to quit, by his civilian government, or (3.) he could not fight anymore. He did that. That’s what soldiers do.
Lee didn’t do that. Davis and the civilian government wanted to continue fighting. Other generals were still fighting. Some of the officers and soldiers in Lee’s command wanted to keep fighting. But Lee decided that further fighting was useless and surrendered. So by the standard you just stated, Lee did not do his duty.
I expect you will now come up with a new standard.
No, I just disagree. When Lee surrendered, he had no choice: there was no other option. I don’t think you have to “fight to the last man” to surrender with honor. If he’d sacrificed his last handful of troops for no purpose, I’d have thought less of him.
No, he didn’t. What he did do, was resign his commission and go and fight for the side his government was at war with.
So he’s noble because he chose to surrender. Unless surrendering wasn’t the noble thing to do in which case he only did it because had no other choice.
I’m having a hard time imaging there are any circumstances in which you’d think less of Lee.
In LinusK’s defense, by his own standard Lee’s situation met LinusK’s stated criteria #3. Whatever some fanatics might have thought, the Army of Northern Virginia was surrounded and completely doomed. It was incapable of meaningful resistance or escape. Lee could no longer fight.
If Lee had no choice except to surrender then how was it noble and honorable for him to have surrendered? Were Doenitz and Hirohito being noble and honorable when they surrendered in 1945?