"Unlike many Southerners who expected a glorious war, Lee correctly predicted it as protracted and devastating.[97] He privately opposed the new Confederate States of America in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "nothing but revolution" and an unconstitutional betrayal of the efforts of the Founding Fathers. Writing to George Washington Custis in January, Lee stated: The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.[98]"
If the Constitution had provided a way for a state to exit the union, then exiting with one's state would not have been treason. In 1861, it appeared that the 10thA might have permitted it. Today, we know no such method exists. Lee accepted the outcome of the war and urged everyone to respect the civil authorities.
The 10th Amendment is often thrown up as a means for secession. In fact, is just constrains the Federal constitution to those things enumerated and leaves all others to the states. The right to secede was in two other locations. First is the ratifications of the States, in which case five states particularly stated in their documents the right to secede. The New England states had repeatedly threatened to secede previously and Jefferson had indeed encouraged it. Secondly, the Constitution has the "equipoise clause" which imports that if one state has a particular right then all the other states have equal rights in the same manner. Thus, if even one state had a right to secede, due to its ratification documents, all the other states had the same right. These are the true legal justifications for a secession. The South did not rebel, and its citizens were not rebels. Likewise, the first to fire a shot by international law is not the party that starts a war, rather it is the party that caused the belligerent action. At Ft. Sumpter there was a truce in effect between the United States and South Carolina, and Lincoln sureptesiously sent a flotella to SC and FL to capture the fortifications at Charleston and Pensacola. The first person killed was not at Charleston, but at Pensacola when a US soldier killed a Florida militiaman when he knocked on the door of the fortification to discuss their surrender. Sumpter was permitted to receive humanitarian aid, under the proviso that the ship would not be armed or transport arms and weapons. That ship opened fire showing it was armed and this is the incident that provoked an ultimatum from Gen. Baurogard to Major Anderson to withdraw his troops from South Carolina or be fired upon. Buchanan did not want war. Most of the country did not want a war and Virginia certainly did not. She led a peace delegation to Washington to prevent a war, but Lincoln misled this delegation. Lincoln invaded Maryland, and Virginia, crossing into these states with troops in violation of the Constitution. He arrested half the legislators of Maryland, violating the Federal Constitution which requires that all States and Territories have republican governments. He seized the government of Missouri, not for seceding, but for declaring itself neutral, and set up a puppet government there. He invaded Virginia unconstitutionally and was met with "fire and steel" as Governor Letcher promised. Dr. Guelzo knows perfectly well how wealthy the South was and how much it contributed to the Federal Government, but fails to mention here and in other lectures, the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, which first caused SC to threaten secession, and the Morell Tariff passed under Buchanan which was even more onerous that was the real nexus of SC secession and the other deep South cotton states. Nor does he ever mention that Jefferson Davis and Lee both considered and proposed that if the issue was slavery then the South would give up its slaves if the Yankees just leave. Moreover, he always fails to mention that Lincoln and Congress stated and declared that the war was not over slavery, and Lincoln stated he didn't know how he could run his government without the South. The writer and publisher Charles Dickens, who had traveled in the United States, stated his opinion that the war was a "humbug" drummed up by the Yankees to steal the Southern wealth. He was right.
@@cliffpage7677 Well said. Life is boring when everyone rushes to the defense of the victorious. The only casualty at Sumter was the Union's wounded pride.
@@cliffpage7677 Lincoln failed miserably to provide a diplomatic solution to both finance freeing the slaves and then provide a proper place for them as free men. To get a productive tax paying citizen one must properly provide for them.
Fantastic talk. Would love to see a talk by him on Lincoln, another incredible person from our history. Gary Gallagher is another great Civil War historian and speaker.
I am a Cardiac nurse. I think General Lee’s heart disease caused him to make some poor decisions. What comes to mind is “Pickett’s Charge” Was that a decision made by a General who was able to reason and think clearly? As a nurse, I would say no!
I think our understanding of loyalty to the United States and Lee's understanding in 1860 are very different. The question of the superiority of the Federal government over the States, particularly in the realm of citizen loyalty, had not been settled by 1860. Its silly to use a post WWII mindset of patriotism and loyalty to the Federal government to analyze the actions of Lee and others who chose to be apart of the rebellion. I'll accept the idea that Lee committed treason as long as the one proclaiming that idea will agree that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, and all the other Founding Fathers also committed treason. I suspect that most who are willing to claim that Lee committed treason are unwilling to submit to the idea that Americans should still be subjects of the Queen. "“True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them the desire to do right is precisely the same.” -Robert E. Lee
" We will all hang together or we will all hang separately" Benjamin Franklin. The founding fathers were well aware that breaking from the mother country and king was a treasonous act. Lee himself expected to be arrested when he met Grant at Appomattox . You make an oath to serve the country and then take up arms against that same country then you commit treason (unless you win). 30 percent of the military men in Virginia stayed loyal to the US. Lee did have options.
George Washington in his farewell speech warned all citizens to be suspicious of anyone who seeks to abandon the union,to secede a portion of the country from the rest, or weaken the bonds that hold the constitutional union. To promote the strength of Union, he urged them the people to place their identities as Americans above their identities of a state, city or region, and to focus their efforts and affection on the country above all local interests. This letters authors were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Seems that all three of these founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of regionalism. In Washington's speech he clearly states their opposition this course of action. Robert E Lee would have been well aware of George Washington warning! Lee knew his actions were one of a traitor to his country and he knew it because he expected to be arrest and possibly hung by for his service to the confederacy when he went to surrender to Grant.
Lee was defending an economic way of life that would have eventually destroyed our country. As one person replied to your comments, Lee did have other options. It’s hard to look at his decision in a positive light. The comparison to our founding fathers war for independence from Britain is weak.
Yes, treason cannot be proved because secession cannot be proved as illegal. On these grounds, Jefferson Davis was released from Federal prison without a trial. Secession was prevented by force of arms, not by legal argument. Eleven states, including 4 of the original 13, seceded through a democratic process by passage of an ordinance of secession in each state. It was well understood by the original states of their individual right to leave the union; however, it wasn't put in writing (a gentleman's agreement). Franklin Roosevelt called Lee one our greatest commanders and a Christian. I wonder if the good professor would want to really shoot Lee if he had the chance? A bit too dramatic.
I suspect you haven’t read Guelzo’s Lee biography given the extent to which you’ve completely missed point here, Carol, about Lee’s shortcomings, his myopia as the the larger historical-political-moral issues at play then.
@Jeannie Seibert Lincoln has quite a few more places that one can poke holes in his character. For example, he presided over war crimes in the south, such as depriving civilians of food and shelter; ordering the entire population of Atlanta to leave the city as winter was about to set in, without making an provisions for them; having soldiers systematically steal or destroy property of no military significance, etc. He also supported a constitutional amendment that would have protected slavery where it already existed forever, in his first inaugural address. His home state had a constitutional ban on black people moving into the state -- which Lincoln never expressed any concerns about. But Guelzo excuses all of those things.
Treason is a funny word. One has to wonder if Obama committed treason when his administration illegally spied on a rival campaign and transition period after an election. What did Obama know and when did he know it concerning the illegal FISA abuses? The Constitution was shredded during his time in office (IRS scandal, DACA, etc...).
@@lukewarme9121 Oh please. I thought this was a serious forum for an exchange of viewpoints concerning the highly complex character of Gen. Robert E Lee as revealed by the brilliant Prof. Allen Guelzo.
I extremely bulk at defining General Lee as a traitor in light of the fact that this criteria indicates every person who fought against Briton in the American Revolutionary war including George Washington as a traitor and in the idea of the American Deceleration of Independence which instructs and recommends that a government not responsive to its citizenry are compelled to put off that offensive government by pledge , deed of force if necessary
That's why all charges of treason against President Jefferson Davis were dropped after he languished in declining health in Fortress Monroe. To charge any Confederate with treason undermined the entire foundation of the United States and our Declaration of Independence.
Good topic to entertain whether R.E. Lee's actions could be considered treasonous when taking into account his oath of service. Was Lee's military oath to the Constitution, as it is for today's service members? I cannot say definitively, but I believe not. The great experiment of our Republic, at that time, was not yet a full generation beyond the Articles of Confederation. I believe the oath of Lee's day still possessed remnants tying back to the concepts/ideas of the Articles of Confederation. (His oath regarded these collective United States, swearing to "serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies.") To what degree did those lingering ideas of state sovereignty, from the Articles of Confederation, still resonate within many of Lee's cohorts, and shape their decision-making? Today, we are roughly four generations detached from embracing/living, first hand, the concepts within the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, I believe it is difficult for many people today to comprehend the thought processes by which Lee, and many like him, made that difficult decision to adhere to the defense of their own state (in Lee's case Virginia), rather than a collective body of unified states.
"Lee justified his decision on the basis of his primary loyalty to Virginia" is a sophistry, to say the least -- not to mention a classic evasion of issues. Not only does the case for state sovereignty (whether Virginia or Mississippi) lie on thin ice but also, Virginia did not just secede from the Union and declare herself a separate, independent nation. She also joined the CONFEDERACY, which had NO legal existence or moral justification whatsoever. That remains the unanswered question: how could Lee defend it? Joining that cause?
West Point commissioned officers recited a simple oath upon graduation: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."
In 1747, a road was laid out from York, Pennsylvania that eventually led to the establishment of the Town of Gettysburg. Three things about Pickett's Charge that never get mentioned. (A) Lee wanted to end the war one way or another. A successful July 3rd would have defeated the Union and forced them to retreat towards Washington. A Rebel defeat would mean that he would have to retreat having exhausted their artillery supply. (B) Lee had the largest number of cannon ever assembled in the Western Hemisphere (and largest ever since). How could he, the other Rebel generals or any little boy not want to see/hear/feel all those cannons fire together?! They could be heard in Harrisburg! After they fired all those cannonbols, Lee had to order the mass infantry charge. (C) Winfield Scott Hancock was in-charge of defending the Union center. He had his artillery and troops hold their fire to after the Rebel bombardment and the infantry charge was too far along to halt. Lee, Longstreet and Pickett were tricked into thinking they had softened the Union center. Hancock then opened up with fire on both their flanks and center. The Federal troops also had a stone wall like the South had at Fredericksburg. Hancock masterfully baited Lee. I don't know if Meade had anything to do with that. The next day was July 4th (7/4) and Lee prepared a defense for a Union attack that never came. A torrential rain started in the afternoon that continued for days while Lee directed his well-organized retreat. On that same day, Vicksburg surrendered to Grant after a 47-day siege. "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers". See GOD=7_4 Theory at 7seals.blogspot.com .
It's always good to listen to historians who present different perspectives and display new tidbits of discovery but it's tedious and tiresome to listen to Yankees attacking the South with claims of treason, trying to blame Mr. Lincoln's tyranny, despotism, and invasion of the Confederate States of America on slavery, and defend his numerous violations of the US Constitution. Guelzo is adroit in his pointed comments and relentless in his attacks, and efforts to malign the South. This speech was nothing less than a smear campaign against Robert E. Lee. His declaration that Lee was a traitor is the kind of stupid high school sophomoric drivel you hear regularly from Yankees and more universally today from the last three generations of public school graduates trained in the Marxist perspective of Howard Zinn. Guelzo is a competent, but biased historian, whose ego and arrogance get in the way of his perspective to the point that it glosses his words and ideas with the sobriquet of "polemicist". One might even characterize him as a "lost cause".
How can one smear a slaver, who fought to keep other humans as slaves? It's not possible. The simple truth of his being a slaver and fighting for a country built on slavery, lays waste to your comments completely. Also, it's well known that Lee's one true love was his horse, that he copulated with often.
Dr Guelzo's talk was, unfortunately, unpalatable. I only listened to the first 40 minutes. My impressions: He seemed to have much disdain for Gen. Lee. His speech and diction seemed pompous. His treatment of Gen. Lee seemed unbalanced. It seemed overly focused on faults and flaws, and I suspect they are exaggerated.
Lee’s Oath “And I ____________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR [emphasis original], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them, HONESTLY and FAITHFULLY “ “THEM”….plural. So Lee broke his allegiance to an entity that no longer existed. And of those “states united” how many were Southern? So his betrayal was not to all the states, not to the united states which no longer existed, but only to the northern states. He was not a Benedict Arnold, giving aid to the enemy while still at his post, Lee had resigned in broad daylight. To confirm, West Point changed their oath in the early 1860s to clarify. Lee’s connection with slavery was due to his being named executor of his father in law’s estate. It was a legal arrangement of which he could not alter. VA, as did NY and RI reserved the right to resume powers delegated to the federal experiment, ie secede, if felt harmed by the arrangement when they ratified the Constitution. It is a fact that those reservations were accepted fully and without debate. Because of this, and the fact the Constitution was an equal arrangement, these reservations emanated out to all the States. VA was firmly AGAINST secession as late as the first week in April of 61, despite the Deep South’s exit over slavery. This is a clear delineation of the motives for secession between VA (and TN AR NC) and the Deep South. Not until asked to provide troops to fight the Deep South States, embargo the Deep South, and allow federal troops to traverse their state and use their ports to make war on the Deep South did VA TN AR and NC secede.
You make it sound like Lee wasn't a slaver. That's odd. Almost obtuse to the record. He beat his slaves horrifically, so much so his overseer wouldn't do it. You know, the slaver who's job it was to beat slaves. That guy thought Lee's punishment was too barbaric, so Lee took a break from time with Traveler and got to whipping.
@@bjohnson515 Who to believe, a slaver who fought to keep others as slaves, or someone who didn't sully their honor in such a way. Other parts of Norris's account are verifiable and Lee was a strict disciplinarian. Yep, I'll believe the non traitorous non slaver.
This condescending bastard should be barred from ever speaking in public to students ever again! He started out with an agenda to destroy the character of Lee and did quite a good job of it, especially using sarcasm and his "witless" sneering attitude towards someone who is considered by most historians as one of the greatest military geniuses in all of history.
Blake, you're not it seems, as polished as you thought when you came to introduce this lecture. As you said, you are sophomoric. Cut out all this phony attitude.
With such a lovely voice he captivates and enthralled the audience! Thank you sir!
Dr. Guelzo is a real gem as an educator. Enjoy his lectures.
Thank you Dr Guelzo for yet another masterpiece of scholarship. Your word is as law for me.
I think he's Frasier Crane's long lost older brother.
He's actually a brilliant civil War historian.
Yes. Absolutely.
I’ve always referred to him as the Frazier Crane of Civil War history.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to think so!
I am so glad that I read your comment , as I was sitting thinking that he was pompous but I like good ole Fraiser so now I like this guy!
Kelsey Grammer is set to play him in the movie.
Fresh and insightful summary of R.E. Lee and a complex period of history.
"Unlike many Southerners who expected a glorious war, Lee correctly predicted it as protracted and devastating.[97] He privately opposed the new Confederate States of America in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "nothing but revolution" and an unconstitutional betrayal of the efforts of the Founding Fathers. Writing to George Washington Custis in January, Lee stated:
The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.[98]"
How could he write/say that, and then do what he did. The two don’t square.
Read it again, Carefully, and there's your answer.
Never knew that Lee had a heart attack. Excellent presentation.
If the Constitution had provided a way for a state to exit the union, then exiting with one's state would not have been treason. In 1861, it appeared that the 10thA might have permitted it. Today, we know no such method exists. Lee accepted the outcome of the war and urged everyone to respect the civil authorities.
The 10th Amendment is often thrown up as a means for secession. In fact, is just constrains the Federal constitution to those things enumerated and leaves all others to the states. The right to secede was in two other locations. First is the ratifications of the States, in which case five states particularly stated in their documents the right to secede. The New England states had repeatedly threatened to secede previously and Jefferson had indeed encouraged it. Secondly, the Constitution has the "equipoise clause" which imports that if one state has a particular right then all the other states have equal rights in the same manner. Thus, if even one state had a right to secede, due to its ratification documents, all the other states had the same right. These are the true legal justifications for a secession. The South did not rebel, and its citizens were not rebels. Likewise, the first to fire a shot by international law is not the party that starts a war, rather it is the party that caused the belligerent action. At Ft. Sumpter there was a truce in effect between the United States and South Carolina, and Lincoln sureptesiously sent a flotella to SC and FL to capture the fortifications at Charleston and Pensacola. The first person killed was not at Charleston, but at Pensacola when a US soldier killed a Florida militiaman when he knocked on the door of the fortification to discuss their surrender. Sumpter was permitted to receive humanitarian aid, under the proviso that the ship would not be armed or transport arms and weapons. That ship opened fire showing it was armed and this is the incident that provoked an ultimatum from Gen. Baurogard to Major Anderson to withdraw his troops from South Carolina or be fired upon.
Buchanan did not want war. Most of the country did not want a war and Virginia certainly did not. She led a peace delegation to Washington to prevent a war, but Lincoln misled this delegation. Lincoln invaded Maryland, and Virginia, crossing into these states with troops in violation of the Constitution. He arrested half the legislators of Maryland, violating the Federal Constitution which requires that all States and Territories have republican governments. He seized the government of Missouri, not for seceding, but for declaring itself neutral, and set up a puppet government there. He invaded Virginia unconstitutionally and was met with "fire and steel" as Governor Letcher promised.
Dr. Guelzo knows perfectly well how wealthy the South was and how much it contributed to the Federal Government, but fails to mention here and in other lectures, the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, which first caused SC to threaten secession, and the Morell Tariff passed under Buchanan which was even more onerous that was the real nexus of SC secession and the other deep South cotton states. Nor does he ever mention that Jefferson Davis and Lee both considered and proposed that if the issue was slavery then the South would give up its slaves if the Yankees just leave. Moreover, he always fails to mention that Lincoln and Congress stated and declared that the war was not over slavery, and Lincoln stated he didn't know how he could run his government without the South. The writer and publisher Charles Dickens, who had traveled in the United States, stated his opinion that the war was a "humbug" drummed up by the Yankees to steal the Southern wealth. He was right.
@@cliffpage7677 Well said. Life is boring when everyone rushes to the defense of the victorious. The only casualty at Sumter was the Union's wounded pride.
@@cliffpage7677 I think it fair to say that
Looking at the past mistakes of our forefathers it becomes quite clear. That certitude leads to violence.
@@cliffpage7677 Lincoln failed miserably to provide a diplomatic solution to both finance freeing the slaves and then provide a proper place for them as free men. To get a productive tax paying citizen one must properly provide for them.
He is a wonderful orator
Fantastic talk. Would love to see a talk by him on Lincoln, another incredible person from our history. Gary Gallagher is another great Civil War historian and speaker.
I am a Cardiac nurse. I think General Lee’s heart disease caused him to make some poor decisions. What comes to mind is “Pickett’s Charge” Was that a decision made by a General who was able to reason and think clearly? As a nurse, I would say no!
I think our understanding of loyalty to the United States and Lee's understanding in 1860 are very different. The question of the superiority of the Federal government over the States, particularly in the realm of citizen loyalty, had not been settled by 1860. Its silly to use a post WWII mindset of patriotism and loyalty to the Federal government to analyze the actions of Lee and others who chose to be apart of the rebellion. I'll accept the idea that Lee committed treason as long as the one proclaiming that idea will agree that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, and all the other Founding Fathers also committed treason. I suspect that most who are willing to claim that Lee committed treason are unwilling to submit to the idea that Americans should still be subjects of the Queen.
"“True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them the desire to do right is precisely the same.” -Robert E. Lee
Ad M
Very well put sir.
" We will all hang together or we will all hang separately" Benjamin Franklin. The founding fathers were well aware that breaking from the mother country and king was a treasonous act. Lee himself expected to be arrested when he met Grant at Appomattox . You make an oath to serve the country and then take up arms against that same country then you commit treason (unless you win). 30 percent of the military men in Virginia stayed loyal to the US. Lee did have options.
George Washington in his farewell speech warned all citizens to be suspicious of anyone who seeks to abandon the union,to secede a portion of the country from the rest, or weaken the bonds that hold the constitutional union. To promote the strength of Union, he urged them the people to place their identities as Americans above their identities of a state, city or region, and to focus their efforts and affection on the country above all local interests. This letters authors were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Seems that all three of these founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of regionalism. In Washington's speech he clearly states their opposition this course of action. Robert E Lee would have been well aware of George Washington warning! Lee knew his actions were one of a traitor to his country and he knew it because he expected to be arrest and possibly hung by for his service to the confederacy when he went to surrender to Grant.
Lee was defending an economic way of life that would have eventually destroyed our country. As one person replied to your comments, Lee did have other options. It’s hard to look at his decision in a positive light. The comparison to our founding fathers war for independence from Britain is weak.
@@khedsz1976 Lee did the exact same thing that Washington did.
How much of Robert E. Lee’s persona and being was the effect of his father’s desertion and his closeness to his mother?
This was fantastic
I thought that the duke of edinborouh died.
Excellent
In both New York State and Virginia their Constitutional Ratifying Documents retained the right to leave the Union just as easy as they joined it.
Yes, treason cannot be proved because secession cannot be proved as illegal. On these grounds, Jefferson Davis was released from Federal prison without a trial. Secession was prevented by force of arms, not by legal argument. Eleven states, including 4 of the original 13, seceded through a democratic process by passage of an ordinance of secession in each state. It was well understood by the original states of their individual right to leave the union; however, it wasn't put in writing (a gentleman's agreement).
Franklin Roosevelt called Lee one our greatest commanders and a Christian. I wonder if the good professor would want to really shoot Lee if he had the chance? A bit too dramatic.
Interesting claim. Do you have any documentation for it?
Wow, this is great!
انا في حاجة ماسة الى محاضرات allen guelzo من جامعة بنسلفينيا حول تاريخ امريكا
R.E. Lee is totally awesome in every way, he is the marble model of a great man , soldier and scholar, son, husband and father. 🌺
I suspect you haven’t read Guelzo’s Lee biography given the extent to which you’ve completely missed point here, Carol, about Lee’s shortcomings, his myopia as the the larger historical-political-moral issues at play then.
@@timothymeehan181 George H. Thomas understood the situation in 1861.
Contrast his highlighting of every real or alleged shortcoming of Lee with the way he excuses every actual shortcoming of Lincoln.
@Jeannie Seibert Lincoln has quite a few more places that one can poke holes in his character. For example, he presided over war crimes in the south, such as depriving civilians of food and shelter; ordering the entire population of Atlanta to leave the city as winter was about to set in, without making an provisions for them; having soldiers systematically steal or destroy property of no military significance, etc. He also supported a constitutional amendment that would have protected slavery where it already existed forever, in his first inaugural address. His home state had a constitutional ban on black people moving into the state -- which Lincoln never expressed any concerns about. But Guelzo excuses all of those things.
Did Lee personally whip the returned slaves?
Treason is a funny word. One has to wonder if Obama committed treason when his administration illegally spied on a rival campaign and transition period after an election. What did Obama know and when did he know it concerning the illegal FISA abuses? The Constitution was shredded during his time in office (IRS scandal, DACA, etc...).
Hi Luke, one hundred percent agreed!! A real constitutional law breaker.
@@lukewarme9121 Oh please. I thought this was a serious forum for an exchange of viewpoints concerning the highly complex character of Gen. Robert E Lee as revealed by the brilliant Prof. Allen Guelzo.
I extremely bulk at defining General Lee as a traitor in light of the fact that this criteria indicates every person who fought against Briton in the American Revolutionary war including George Washington as a traitor and in the idea of the American Deceleration of Independence which instructs and recommends that a government not responsive to its citizenry are compelled to put off that offensive government by pledge , deed of force if necessary
Yes, those who fought for independence from Britain were traitors to Britain and patriots to the USA. God bless them all.
That's why all charges of treason against President Jefferson Davis were dropped after he languished in declining health in Fortress Monroe. To charge any Confederate with treason undermined the entire foundation of the United States and our Declaration of Independence.
Good topic to entertain whether R.E. Lee's actions could be considered treasonous when taking into account his oath of service. Was Lee's military oath to the Constitution, as it is for today's service members? I cannot say definitively, but I believe not. The great experiment of our Republic, at that time, was not yet a full generation beyond the Articles of Confederation. I believe the oath of Lee's day still possessed remnants tying back to the concepts/ideas of the Articles of Confederation. (His oath regarded these collective United States, swearing to "serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies.") To what degree did those lingering ideas of state sovereignty, from the Articles of Confederation, still resonate within many of Lee's cohorts, and shape their decision-making? Today, we are roughly four generations detached from embracing/living, first hand, the concepts within the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, I believe it is difficult for many people today to comprehend the thought processes by which Lee, and many like him, made that difficult decision to adhere to the defense of their own state (in Lee's case Virginia), rather than a collective body of unified states.
Lexngton Green Hi, yes, I am a believer in that, Lee only went to Penn. for the horses and soldiers to eat!
"Lee justified his decision on the basis of his primary loyalty to Virginia" is a sophistry, to say the least -- not to mention a classic evasion of issues. Not only does the case for state sovereignty (whether Virginia or Mississippi) lie on thin ice but also, Virginia did not just secede from the Union and declare herself a separate, independent nation. She also joined the CONFEDERACY, which had NO legal existence or moral justification whatsoever. That remains the unanswered question: how could Lee defend it? Joining that cause?
Great point. Thanks for the perspective
@@carolbell8008 lmao🤣
West Point commissioned officers recited a simple oath upon graduation:
"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."
In 1747, a road was laid out from York, Pennsylvania that eventually led to the establishment of the Town of Gettysburg.
Three things about Pickett's Charge that never get mentioned. (A) Lee wanted to end the war one way or another. A successful July 3rd would have defeated the Union and forced them to retreat towards Washington. A Rebel defeat would mean that he would have to retreat having exhausted their artillery supply. (B) Lee had the largest number of cannon ever assembled in the Western Hemisphere (and largest ever since). How could he, the other Rebel generals or any little boy not want to see/hear/feel all those cannons fire together?! They could be heard in Harrisburg! After they fired all those cannonbols, Lee had to order the mass infantry charge. (C) Winfield Scott Hancock was in-charge of defending the Union center. He had his artillery and troops hold their fire to after the Rebel bombardment and the infantry charge was too far along to halt. Lee, Longstreet and Pickett were tricked into thinking they had softened the Union center. Hancock then opened up with fire on both their flanks and center. The Federal troops also had a stone wall like the South had at Fredericksburg. Hancock masterfully baited Lee. I don't know if Meade had anything to do with that.
The next day was July 4th (7/4) and Lee prepared a defense for a Union attack that never came. A torrential rain started in the afternoon that continued for days while Lee directed his well-organized retreat. On that same day, Vicksburg surrendered to Grant after a 47-day siege. "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers". See GOD=7_4 Theory at 7seals.blogspot.com .
It's always good to listen to historians who present different perspectives and display new tidbits of discovery but it's tedious and tiresome to listen to Yankees attacking the South with claims of treason, trying to blame Mr. Lincoln's tyranny, despotism, and invasion of the Confederate States of America on slavery, and defend his numerous violations of the US Constitution. Guelzo is adroit in his pointed comments and relentless in his attacks, and efforts to malign the South. This speech was nothing less than a smear campaign against Robert E. Lee. His declaration that Lee was a traitor is the kind of stupid high school sophomoric drivel you hear regularly from Yankees and more universally today from the last three generations of public school graduates trained in the Marxist perspective of Howard Zinn. Guelzo is a competent, but biased historian, whose ego and arrogance get in the way of his perspective to the point that it glosses his words and ideas with the sobriquet of "polemicist". One might even characterize him as a "lost cause".
How can one smear a slaver, who fought to keep other humans as slaves? It's not possible. The simple truth of his being a slaver and fighting for a country built on slavery, lays waste to your comments completely.
Also, it's well known that Lee's one true love was his horse, that he copulated with often.
Dr Guelzo's talk was, unfortunately, unpalatable.
I only listened to the first 40 minutes.
My impressions:
He seemed to have much disdain for Gen. Lee.
His speech and diction seemed pompous.
His treatment of Gen. Lee seemed unbalanced.
It seemed overly focused on faults and flaws, and I suspect they are exaggerated.
But he's a Princeton man!
Was not impressed at all.
Lee’s Oath
“And I ____________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR [emphasis original], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them, HONESTLY and FAITHFULLY “
“THEM”….plural. So Lee broke his allegiance to an entity that no longer existed. And of those “states united” how many were Southern? So his betrayal was not to all the states, not to the united states which no longer existed, but only to the northern states. He was not a Benedict Arnold, giving aid to the enemy while still at his post, Lee had resigned in broad daylight.
To confirm, West Point changed their oath in the early 1860s to clarify.
Lee’s connection with slavery was due to his being named executor of his father in law’s estate. It was a legal arrangement of which he could not alter.
VA, as did NY and RI reserved the right to resume powers delegated to the federal experiment, ie secede, if felt harmed by the arrangement when they ratified the Constitution. It is a fact that those reservations were accepted fully and without debate. Because of this, and the fact the Constitution was an equal arrangement, these reservations emanated out to all the States.
VA was firmly AGAINST secession as late as the first week in April of 61, despite the Deep South’s exit over slavery. This is a clear delineation of the motives for secession between VA (and TN AR NC) and the Deep South. Not until asked to provide troops to fight the Deep South States, embargo the Deep South, and allow federal troops to traverse their state and use their ports to make war on the Deep South did VA TN AR and NC secede.
You make it sound like Lee wasn't a slaver. That's odd. Almost obtuse to the record. He beat his slaves horrifically, so much so his overseer wouldn't do it. You know, the slaver who's job it was to beat slaves. That guy thought Lee's punishment was too barbaric, so Lee took a break from time with Traveler and got to whipping.
@@mcgibblets78 Proof? The Norris "story" is unsubstantiated but good publishing for abolitionists.
@@bjohnson515 Who to believe, a slaver who fought to keep others as slaves, or someone who didn't sully their honor in such a way.
Other parts of Norris's account are verifiable and Lee was a strict disciplinarian. Yep, I'll believe the non traitorous non slaver.
@@mcgibblets78 Curious such a man would be offered the command of the Union Army....as you portray it.
@@mcgibblets78 So Lincoln offers Lee the Union command.
Lee not a traitor his loyalty was with Virginia that was his country
His only loyalty was to his true love and partner, Traveler. That poor horse.
A new look at Lee. I don’t consider Lee to be a traitor. His country had changed from when he took his oath
Chip Spencer...Yea, the country changed->the shift of power was heading towards Free States
He was a traitor.
This condescending bastard should be barred from ever speaking in public to students ever again! He started out with an agenda to destroy the character of Lee and did quite a good job of it, especially using sarcasm and his "witless" sneering attitude towards someone who is considered by most historians as one of the greatest military geniuses in all of history.
I do not support the confederacy to seceed from the Union but I highly respect Lee for the military genious that he was
Well said!
@@alanaadams7440 He wasn't even the best General in the USA in the war he lost. I can only imagine your adulation of Grant and Sherman.
The worst speaker from Hillsdale I have heard thus far.
Blake, you're not it seems, as polished as you thought when you came to introduce this lecture. As you said, you are sophomoric. Cut out all this phony attitude.
Marty McFly's dad needs a haircut.