I always heard Lee was a good and patriotic man. Anti-Federalist to say the least and many of us are. There is much disparagement of Southern figures today and truth is the war was about much more than slavery. Slaves were an expense most people couldn't afford and certainly that was not an institution worth sacrificing a life for.
Lee resigned his commission, which nullified his oath. This was commented upon by Sir Fredrick Maurice (A Major-General in the British Army during WW1 and respected military historian). Lee was absolved of his oath upon his resignation.
In addition to that, the oath he would have taken in the 1800s was such:
“I do solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiant to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies and oppressors”
The emphasis is on “them.” Meaning that his oath was to protect the whole of the Union as it was when he took the oath. When Lincoln called for 75,000 soldiers to march on South, thus pitting some states against other states, the Union was no longer whole, and his oath no longer binding.
Thankyou for pointing out racism was and still is in the north and south of our country
Lee held 189 humans in bondage
That is fact
Kind empathetic, evil hateful towards these people is not relevant
That he backed the wrong “horse” in advocating for slavery and turning towards a country “south” he hoped would prevail in owning people for economic advantages over northern states is Lees truth
Lee “owned” slaves that were left to his wife via inheritance. He never purchased a slave, and per the request of his late father-in-law, after a five year term they would have been released by Lee, however the War started before that could be done.
The only Lost Cause here is trying to get through to you. I would recommend you read more primary sources.
It is well documented that Lee was not in favor of the perpetuation of slavery and hoped it would come to a gradual end as it had in the Northern states, but tolerated it as a fact of the day, as everyone else born in the early 1800s would have. Your reading of events is heavily biased and lacks rigorous analysis of the primary sources.
I will not be replying further. I hope you have a blessed day.
I find it worth pointing out to you that slavery was legal in multiple northern states until December 6th, 1865, and at the outbreak of the war, slave holders were assured that their slaves wouldn’t be set free. Even Lincoln’s so-called “Emancipation Proclamation” didn’t free a single slave, as it only “freed” slaves in the Southern, that is to say Confederate States. All slaves holders in the North and Union occupied regions (like Missouri), were allowed to continue the practice until the ratification of the 13th amendment (which was ratified on the above date).
Both governments were furthering “the cause of slavery.” Each just wanted to do it on their terms, with general emancipation not being seriously considered until the war was well under way.
That is to say, no, Lee didn’t resign to further “the cause of slavery.” For either government he had the opportunity to serve both had legal protections for the practice.
I am incredulous at the time and effort put into discrediting a lie about Lee flogging slaves instead of being ashamed that he owned slaves at all and that he betrayed his country, broke his oath and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands American soldiers and sailors. Good and patriotic indeed.
Complex. Lee may indeed have been an officer and a gentleman. He is on record as coming to believe that slavery and secession were wrong. But in the end he wouldn’t take arms against his Virginia family and neighbors.
But slavery was brutal. By state, local and even some federal law, slaves couldn’t even be considered human beings because if they were, slave owners and others would be considered performing highly unchristian acts to their fellow man. Meanwhile a whole economy depended upon slave labor. Slaves were bred for profit.
Writings by combatants of the period definitely underline the cessation of slavery as the main cause of the war. The first secessionist states point to leaving the Union because their economy and way of life were being threatened by their northern neighbors, an economy predominantly depending on slave labor.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, but your points have nothing to do with our article on Elizabeth Pryor’s accusations against Lee.
This article wasn’t about slavery. It was about a biased “academic” lying about a man who was innocent of the libel she leveled against him. It just so happens that her accusations are directly tied to the institution of chattel slavery.
In regard to slavery and the war, we at the magazine prefer to take a more nuanced view of the causes of the conflict and the divisive era leading up to it. We try to take the whole picture into account as it were.
I would recommend “When In The Course Of Human Events” by Charles Adams. It is a great book on the Southern secession.
I always heard Lee was a good and patriotic man. Anti-Federalist to say the least and many of us are. There is much disparagement of Southern figures today and truth is the war was about much more than slavery. Slaves were an expense most people couldn't afford and certainly that was not an institution worth sacrificing a life for.
Good article, we must remember there is much yankee propaganda and lies that have been recorded as “history “.
Great work!
Every unjust war depends on propaganda
Lots of things are like this. For instance, I see no compelling evidence of the supposed relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally hemmings
Is it a lie that Lee chose to fight against the country he swore to defend at West Point?
Lee resigned his commission, which nullified his oath. This was commented upon by Sir Fredrick Maurice (A Major-General in the British Army during WW1 and respected military historian). Lee was absolved of his oath upon his resignation.
In addition to that, the oath he would have taken in the 1800s was such:
“I do solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiant to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies and oppressors”
The emphasis is on “them.” Meaning that his oath was to protect the whole of the Union as it was when he took the oath. When Lincoln called for 75,000 soldiers to march on South, thus pitting some states against other states, the Union was no longer whole, and his oath no longer binding.
Thankyou for pointing out racism was and still is in the north and south of our country
Lee held 189 humans in bondage
That is fact
Kind empathetic, evil hateful towards these people is not relevant
That he backed the wrong “horse” in advocating for slavery and turning towards a country “south” he hoped would prevail in owning people for economic advantages over northern states is Lees truth
Lee “owned” slaves that were left to his wife via inheritance. He never purchased a slave, and per the request of his late father-in-law, after a five year term they would have been released by Lee, however the War started before that could be done.
The only Lost Cause here is trying to get through to you. I would recommend you read more primary sources.
It is well documented that Lee was not in favor of the perpetuation of slavery and hoped it would come to a gradual end as it had in the Northern states, but tolerated it as a fact of the day, as everyone else born in the early 1800s would have. Your reading of events is heavily biased and lacks rigorous analysis of the primary sources.
I will not be replying further. I hope you have a blessed day.
Ignorance is curable,
Stupidity is terminal.
Lee could have set his humans in bondage free despite the civil war
Due to economics and his KKK buddy’s he got free labor another 5 years
Oh yeah and I’m not lost
I’m not lost I know who I am Lee could of set his humans in bondage
man of honor could only have been done with great import
Income lost , lost oath to what measure?
I find it worth pointing out to you that slavery was legal in multiple northern states until December 6th, 1865, and at the outbreak of the war, slave holders were assured that their slaves wouldn’t be set free. Even Lincoln’s so-called “Emancipation Proclamation” didn’t free a single slave, as it only “freed” slaves in the Southern, that is to say Confederate States. All slaves holders in the North and Union occupied regions (like Missouri), were allowed to continue the practice until the ratification of the 13th amendment (which was ratified on the above date).
Both governments were furthering “the cause of slavery.” Each just wanted to do it on their terms, with general emancipation not being seriously considered until the war was well under way.
That is to say, no, Lee didn’t resign to further “the cause of slavery.” For either government he had the opportunity to serve both had legal protections for the practice.
Since Lee resigned his commission to take up the cause for slavery, the absolution of his oath was replaced by the oath to a secessionist cause
Giving up his oath as a true military
I am incredulous at the time and effort put into discrediting a lie about Lee flogging slaves instead of being ashamed that he owned slaves at all and that he betrayed his country, broke his oath and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands American soldiers and sailors. Good and patriotic indeed.
Complex. Lee may indeed have been an officer and a gentleman. He is on record as coming to believe that slavery and secession were wrong. But in the end he wouldn’t take arms against his Virginia family and neighbors.
But slavery was brutal. By state, local and even some federal law, slaves couldn’t even be considered human beings because if they were, slave owners and others would be considered performing highly unchristian acts to their fellow man. Meanwhile a whole economy depended upon slave labor. Slaves were bred for profit.
Writings by combatants of the period definitely underline the cessation of slavery as the main cause of the war. The first secessionist states point to leaving the Union because their economy and way of life were being threatened by their northern neighbors, an economy predominantly depending on slave labor.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, but your points have nothing to do with our article on Elizabeth Pryor’s accusations against Lee.
This article wasn’t about slavery. It was about a biased “academic” lying about a man who was innocent of the libel she leveled against him. It just so happens that her accusations are directly tied to the institution of chattel slavery.
In regard to slavery and the war, we at the magazine prefer to take a more nuanced view of the causes of the conflict and the divisive era leading up to it. We try to take the whole picture into account as it were.
I would recommend “When In The Course Of Human Events” by Charles Adams. It is a great book on the Southern secession.