"Did Robert E Lee Commit Treason?" by Dr. Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College 

A quick compliment to the editor. SOOOO many college lectures on RU-vid fail to show the slides and only show the speaker. Thank you for doing both.

At every history lecture, there's always at least one person in the audience who takes six minutes to give a mini-lecture instead of asking a question.

Lee's resignation from the US Army was to his mind immediate. That the bureaucratic red tape took 5 days is a technicality.At that point in time there was a certain level of honor, dignity, and decency among men. This technicality would have been ignored by any reasonable jury or judge.

“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in he Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.” - Robert E. Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861

This was very interesting. A great presentation with a legal level-headed approach. Thank you

Robert Lee had a cousin, Samuel Phillips Lee, who stayed loyal to the Union and served in the navy as an Admiral. When asked why he stayed in the Union, Samuel Lee said _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy."_

What an enjoyable and illuminating lecture from Dr Guelzo.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ~Thomas Jefferson

I would argue that until secession was declared by the courts as null and void, that secession legally wasn't treason. Holding Lee legally responsible for violating a legal transgression that has not been defined would be akin to an ex post facto law.

If they actually considered Lee a member of the US army since his resignation wasn't accepted until later, then they surely would have charged and pursued him for abandoning his post long before the end of the war. If the colonies had to choose to opt in to the United States, then they certainly had the choice to not be a part of it. Does the constitution say that it is an everlasting contract? Also, West Virgina was allowed to "secede" from Virginia even though creating new states by taking from an existing state, without the consent of all parties involved, is illegal. Is West Virginia therefore illegitimate?

In light of today's political calisthenics it's interesting that nothing seems to have changed in the course of human events. Interesting lecture and Q and A.

Unapologetically American.

i procrastinated so much on watching this video because i was afraid of a boring lengthy speech but i heard his introduction and i was like: i am ready to be educated by this man

Thank you for posting this very entertaining and informative lecture.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln, First inaugural Address, March 4th, 1861

Outstanding presentation. The only disagreement I have is in the questioning whether or not the Founding Fathers had a revolution. Professor Guelzo stated it was a revolution because of discontinuity, and that we were abolishing the monarchy. I disagree here because our intent was never to overthrow the monarchy, but instead, to break away (or secede) from the Crown. I acknowledge our system of government was revolutionary, and I agree with Dr. Guelzo on this, but I contend that our so-called Revolutionary War was in fact a War of Independence, not a revolution. We had no intent to overthrow the monarchy in London, hang King George III and the Parliament, and rule by decree. And yes, had we lost, George Washington and the Founding Fathers would have all lined up for the High Jump (the gibbet) for treason. I think Lee was correct in that assertion to Lord Acton. We can't simply say the Founding Fathers were right in their actions simply because they prevailed. They were all British subjects at the time.

We need to educate the modern historians on what actually happened during the Civil War.

It comes down to a single, simple issue: If people agree to participate in a democracy, do they then have the right to back out when it doesn't go their way? Do they have the right to say "We'll participate in this government. We'll abide by the Rule of Law as determined by our elected representatives. But _only if WE always win!_ If we don't get our way then we'll take our ball and go home! We'll tolerate you 'others' voting for your people, but at the end of the day, we're only going to abide if we get our way!" No! That ain't how a democracy works! The correct, _constitutional_ response of the southern states to Lincoln's election should have been, in so many words "He won. We lost. We don't like it, but that's how it is. We'll try again in 1864."

A little confused by the very end of this video. Can somebody please explain because it seems to run in contrast with the rest of what he is saying?

Excellent presentation.

This is a very interesting talk, which provides considerable insight into the issue of "Was Robert E. Lee a traitor". Professor Guelzon takes the theoretical position of Abraham Lincoln and lays the groundwork for positions taken by various parties including Gen U. S. Grant, President Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Samuel Chase, and other lesser but very important figures surrounding this issue. He explains well the important distinction of rebellion vs. secession. I very much agree with his logic in this distinction. In one specific, I take objection. I will presume that he is trying to speak for Lincoln historically, but he gives no reason to believe that it is not his position also. I believe that Lincoln was quite wrong in his logic and arguments that the Southern states were in rebellion. Professor Guelzo is certainly aware of the dangerous waters that Lincoln was treading in making such assertions, but fails to fully explain to his audience why this was so. That needs to be understood by all the Sons of Dixie. The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified in 1787 without the agreement and support of Virginia. Virginia ratified the Constitution with provisos and recommendations for both a Bill of Rights and for Amendments which is laid out at length. Particularly it stated in its ratifying agreement that "in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..." This statement was an assertion that spoke to the right of Virginia to secede from the union. The Virginia Article of Secession was a peaceful exit from the Union. Furthermore, the Article also absolved its ratification of the Constitution. The break with the Union was clear and incisive and inclusive. At the time the standing army of the United States was very small and insufficient to carry out any war against anyone. The states all had militias who came under the authority and command of their Governors. The other States also had ratifying statements of rights of secession like Virginia. Texas had been an independent republic, which gained its freedom from Mexico, not Great Britain, and voluntarily joined the Union with a written agreement of secession also. (In the case of Texas v. White, this issue is not addressed and the fact that various states had ratified the Constitution with written provisos of their rights to secession is hardly mentioned by many historians today.) The Constitution requires that all States coming into the Union must do so as republican forms of government. It also guarantees a republican form of national government. Furthermore, all States are guaranteed equal rights, therefore, the rights of secession as expressed in the ratification agreements of the various States are equally guaranteed and protected for all the other States. This is an unwritten guarantee of secession that is not directly addressed in the body of the Constitution itself. Virginia had a right to secede and therefore every other State had an equal right. Virginia twice voted in the referendum regarding secession. First, it voted not to secede and then it changed its mind after the Gosport Naval Shipyard was burned, Federal troops abandoned it and part of Portsmouth was burned in the conflagration. Then-President Lincoln demanded of the Governor's, troops (he wanted to raise a 75,000 man force to march on Charleston) to cross their borders, which Virginia refused. United States troops marched into Virginia and invaded the State without the Governor's permission and were defeated twice at Manassas. Virginia was protecting its own State sovereignty from invasion. The US Constitution prohibited bringing Federal troops into a state without the express permission of the State Legislature or the Governor if the Legislature was not in session. Virginia joined the Confederacy for its own defense. Maryland had been invaded and half of her Legislators arrested by Mr. Lincoln, habeas corpus suspended unconstitutionally by him, and newspapers shut down and editors and publishers arrested. The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia was first flown at the Second Battle of Manassas by Gen Thomas Jackson. It would later become universally recognized as the standard of the Confederacy and this Battle Flag and was adopted as the Confederate Naval ensign, in its elongated form. The Southern States were not in rebellion, nor were they military rebels. The Southern States that removed themselves from the Union did so peacefully. These states formed a new collective confederation of equal standing to their old alliance the United States. The first victim of Mr. Lincoln's War was a Florida Militiaman shot and killed by Federal troops in Pensacola. President Lincoln attempted to land Marines in Charleston after South Carolina seceded, but their Commander refused to land and carry out his orders, knowing that to do so was a violation of the Constitution and that this would have been an act of war against a sovereign state. This action took place while Virginia and other middle-Southern States were in Peace Conference with Congress in Washington, Lincoln and Sen. Corwin were proposing to the South the acceptance of slavery in exchange for no secession. Then Lincoln sent an armed flotilla to South Carolina and the Star of the West exhibited that she was armed (after giving its word that it was only reprovisioning Fort Sumpter with food) by mistakingly firing on a USN vessel. These actions by Lincoln were aggressive acts of war, which precipitated the firing on Fort Sumpter which Lincoln intended to use as a provocation to impose the Morell Tariff upon South Carolina, even after she had seceded. South Carolina seceded as she had threatened to do in 1824 over the Tariff of Abomination. That secession was only avoided by the Great Compromiser Henry Clay. At the same time that South Carolina seceded the Mayor of New York and his Council voted to secede, but reversed themselves when the NY Governor threatened to use the State Militia to invade the City if they did from the State and the Union. Town Line above Buffalo, NY did secede at the same time and was the last community to officially return to the Union during the Truman Administration in 1946. They flew the flag of the Confederacy and its Firemen wore a patch of that flag on their uniforms until that time. They seceded, like Virginia when Lincoln tried to call up his 75,000-man army to invade Dixie. Before the War, most states and citizens understood and believed in the rights of their sovereign states to secede. That right was not specifically noted in the Constitution, but in the ratifying words of various States and in the words of equal protection that indeed were in the Constitution as a guarantee! One additional last caveat. President Buchanan and his Attorney General concluded and stated that the Federal Executive could do nothing to prohibit a state from seceding and to reflect that belief he entered into a military armistice with the Confederate States before Lincoln took office. Lincoln broke this armistice by ordering a blockade and sending a naval force to Charleston and Pensacola to seize the military forts there. Likewise following the capitulation of the Confederacy the advice from the US Attorney General regarding a trial for President Jefferson Davis for treason was strongly opposed and such a trial would undermine the US revolution and the trumped-up reasons for the United States invading and causing war against the Southern States. Davis never asked for pardon or to have his citizenship restored. Instead, he insisted that the United States try him for treason to throw him in the briar patch. Davis has resigned from his position of Senator representing Mississippi when his State withdrew from the Union. The only Senator who did not take such action was Senator Johnson of Tennesee who was a firm Unionist. He was later impeached by the Radical Republican Congress, but acquitted by a single vote.

I had several ancestors in the Rockbridge County Artillery

This man's vocal and narrative style is impeccable! His diction and expression are as good as, if not better than, the great Alexander Scourby.

This is very interesting. I've never explored the details of this subject before.

And yet they executed John Brown for treason.

Dr. Barton Myers is a friend and excellent historian, Your lucky to have him on your staff! this gentlemen that teachers at W&L politics seems very smart too!

According to a History channel video on West Point Classmates and Civil War enemies cadets at West Point took an oath of loyalty to their home state. Apparently that changed to an oath of loyalty to the Union after secession. Since Lee graduated well before the Mexican-American War his loyalty should have been to the state of Virginia. Unlike the Articles of Confederation the Constitution had no provision precluding secession. The Southern states were well within their rights to secede. For example, Massachusetts had previously threatened to secede, and Jefferson told them to go ahead. Even today some Californians threaten secession. As Lincoln invaded the South he was clearly the aggressor prosecuting an illegal war. While Abolitionists saw the war as their opportunity to end slavery Lincoln would come to use slavery as a "moral" excuse for his immoral war. When Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter the Union was reinforcing the fort with munitions and men. Since this was technically Confederate soil they were within their rights to seize Fort Sumter. I have not watched this video. Maybe I will.

That’s a vagueness in citizenship that George Thomas didn’t seem to be confused by

It's not that complicated. Yes.

A great speaker in terms of knowledge and delivery.

I think Lees defense strategy was actually brilliant, arguing that a a citizen of the State of Virginia, he had no choice and had a divided loyalty.

When Prof. Guelzo talks, I hear Kelsey Grammer.

"Secession is a Constitutional and legal impossibility". Nonsense, by his own admission, secession is not addressed in the Constitution. During the ratification of the Constitution, the states did not grant, nor delegate, the authority nor power to the United States to prohibit state secession. In 1860-1861, the secession of the southern states was a right of the state in accordance with the 10th Amendment, which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Secession was neither a Constitutional nor legal impossibility. It was, in fact, a right granted to the states by the 10th amendment.

Treason is basically defined as “The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.” The Civil War itself was in the mind of Lincoln anyway , initially about secession based on him saying ,” if keeping slavery held the union together he’d do that and if abolishing slavery would keep it together he’d do that . Therefore Lincoln’s goal was to keep the US together Secession although not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution either prohibiting or permitting it unless of course you consider the 10th Amendment, was dealt with by Thomas Jefferson , an actual Founding Father who wrote concerning secession of new western territories in a letter to John C Breckinridge. “That should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede from the Union at some point in the future, he was perfectly fine with that…” I don’t agree with the underlying cause for this secession which was cattle slavery but secession is something we as individuals do in our daily lives. Such as going to a party and not liking it so you leave or in other words secede, to simply walk away from . Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis or any other Confederate did not commit treason by following the decision of their respective States Legislatures deciding to secede and form a new Country. Furthermore We didn’t consider ourselves Americans at this point in our history but rather identified by our respective States. What happened after Robert E.Lee resigned his commission as did Jefferson Davis from his Mississippi Senate Seat and returned to their respective States, they basically gave up their US Citizenship ( The Union)and become citizens of a new Country . Simply leaving the party is not treason ! That Country we know as the Confederacy then went to war with the United States and lost . However how does fighting for their new country, now the Confederacy , make Robert E. Lee and Davis a traitor / guilty of treason against a country they initially and peacefully left ? Jefferson Davis was actually charged with treason and there’s a variety of circumstances surrounding litigation. However the biggest problem in trying Davis would be the chance the SC ruling secession is Constitutional, a chance the prosecution wasn't willing to take . Smart move actuality, they let it rest and 157 years later, maybe we should ?

By international law the original 13 states were Recognized as independent states or nations by the world in the treaty of Paris 1783. This was reinforced in the articles of confederation where it stated “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Later the states would ratify the current constitution with the premise that the states maintain their sovereignty remained in place. The idea of succession is seen throughout early history.

“The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly 2000 years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! I can only say that I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation.” -General Robert E. Lee

If an officer of the United States Army can resign and the men take up arms against the country to whom he had pledged allegiance cannot be found guilty of treason than who can?

wonderful presentation very very important history lesson for me.

It would be interesting to hear what Professor Guelzo has to say about the Hartford Convention 1814. Northern secession against the assertion of the slave power is seldom discussed by historians, but it was obviously a right that many Federalists seemed to endorse or consider....

I love how this "professor" of history glosses over a key exchange between Grant and Johnson. Johnson asked Grant, "If we cannot try them now, when can we?" To which Grant replied, "Never". Making a case for treason and leaving out key details means this man has an agenda and an axe to grind.

You can hear the animosity. As he started his mission is to bring Lincoln to Washington and Lee U.

Lovely

Very good presentation. Unfortunately it shows why so many people have little respect for our legal system which consists of lawyers parsing language with their unique theories decided by other lawyers and force the rest of us to have to live with their theories.

For me, what muddies the waters is the use, at that time, of the term 'my country'. It could have many meanings.

Spoiler alert: I just finished the biography. As it turns out in the book, the traitor is the good professor. He throws around anti-American cultural Marxist tropes like “white supremacy”, “anti-racism”, “anti-racist”, etc. He even seems to promote our cultural commissars’ iconoclasm. What a disappointing way to end an otherwise engaging read.

Amazing how a non lawyer making subtle legal arguments, which franky he has no abilty to make, is being praised.

Central to the Fouding Fathers was a VOLUNTARY union. They felt that the threat of secession would force compromise between competing factions. in 1814-15, when three yankee states threatened to seceed, Jefferson said, "It is but the younger brother differing from the older. By all means, let them go". Hamilton said: "It would be unthinkable for the general government to coerce a State". After Lincoln and the 14th amendment, that freedom is gone. We now have a union held together by the force of the bayonette, just like the Soviet Union.

A major point of contention from this dr. guelzo, is that the trial for treason must be held in Virginia, and that it was exceedingly unlikely that Virginians would find Lee guilty of treason. That argument falls apart by simply bringing the lawsuit from Pennsylvania, where Lee most assuredly waged war against, and aided & abetted enemies of, the United States. There were many many jurisdictions in that state that had standing.

Brilliant lecture. Fascinating.

lol, Dr Guelzo always reminds me a little bit of Frasier Crane.

Lee's citizenship argument is hollow because Virginia did not forcebly conscript him into it's army, he was essentially a volunteer. Their is no compelling force exerted by Virginia on him to take the moral decision out of his hands. If Lee is a dual citizen of both Virginia and the US his only choice is to be a non-combatant as then he will not be committing treason on either of his citizenship statusus. As a legal argument only the removal of his US citizenship would free him the crime of treason, but this implies that Virginia's sucession can unilaterally strip a person of their US citizenship, which is clearly impossible.

If you were offered an army for the purpose of invading your own state, killing your own people, what would you do? All the people passing judgement are ignorant and arrogant. Most of them aren’t even worthy of touching the ground Lee walked on. He was an amazing person and soldier. What he did, he did out of honor and a sense of duty.

The Preamble states 'We the people...' It does not say 'We the States...' A phrasing some of the founders considered but never pushed. Hence when a State agreed to this contract it surrendered the right to act as a separate sovereignty.

Grant and Sherman understood better than anyone that it was time to put the country back together again and reconcile. Lee was no traitor, and he was another instrument of ensuring peace.

Will mention this. If secession is not defined in the Constitution then it goes by the individuals of the state that vote for it. Because it’s not defined in the constitution or Bill of Rights. So forth is a state issue. And was dealt as a state issue. Which makes secession legal in that retrospect.

I really did appreciate Dr. Guelzo shutting down the 10th amendment argument

45:00 Robert E Lee himself showing up to defend himself

I don’t think General Lee was a traitor or at least I wouldn’t charge him with it because I served 5 years in the military and was ALWAYS very proud to be New Yorker first. And I think most ppl felt that way about their home state (especially Texans) if my New York had tried to break away from America, I believe I would have followed my home state. I would have found it very impossible to take up arms against my home state especially since a lot of that war was fought in his home state (Virginia). The only way I might have turned on my home state is if my state was fighting for a horrible institution like slavery. But in those days the southerners were taught black ppl were inferior to white ppl. I don’t understand that belief, I would have to be raised that way and I wasn’t. But if I was I would like to think I would take the moral stand and stand by my country over my home state. But again I wasn’t raised that way, but I do understand how it might be almost impossible to take up arms against my home state. I wouldn’t call him a traitor just a man in a really shitty position. If I was on that jury I wouldn’t find him guilty of being a traitor.

This man, as a Lincoln admirer, gives a surprisingly balanced and fair summation of Lee's actions and the circumstances of the era. For this, he deserves credit. I find one logical flaw with his argument, asserting that by definition, Lee committed treason. Though the speaker understands the fact that state vs. national citizenship obligations were far from settled at the beginning of the Civil War. Despite this, he accuses Lee, by definition of treason. How can such a verdict be reached when the term's definition was unsettled? Perhaps he felt compelled to give a definite yes or no answer, so he had to come down somewhere. But which definition of treason is he using? The unsettled, debated, and ill-defined definition of 1861? Or the settled-by-military-force understanding of 1865? But, once again to his credit, he finishes the speech by saying no historian is qualified to settle the issue. To the speaker, well done, sir.

If your property, possessions, friends and family live in one area, what would you pick? Let's not get too sentimental here.

The loyalty question was simple: Lee upheld his oath to defend the Constitution while Lincoln and every Union soldier did not. We were a federal republic and a voluntary union of free and independent States. Lincoln got it all wrong. The founders would be appalled that any State would be coerced to stay in the Union. The founders' writings, the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federal Papers, James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc., etc., made this crystal clear! Thank God an unintended consequence of the War was that the slaves were set free. It was an egregious evil. However, Lincoln and Congress emphatically and repeatedly made the point the War wasn't about slavery, but suppressing secession. In doing so, Lincoln destroyed the founders' voluntary Union and the Constitution. Lee fought to preserve the Constitution's principles. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the federal republic that was created. If you find any of what I've written objectionable, I encourage you to learn about our "wonderful" 16th president in The Real Lincoln, by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo. It will certainly leave you wondering why you weren't told the truth about him, our history, and the Constitution. To the victors shamefully went the writing of the history.

No, he didn't. They decided not to try him bc the question of "Was succession illegal?" was feared that it would be found that it was not. Many law historians have had lectures on this.

YES. VIDEO ENDED

ok, so a revolution is different than a secession --- but he sill does not explain why a 'revolution' - à la the American revolution - would be more ''legal'' than a 'secession.'

Yes. Next question

Yes. For next week's lecture...

Strange that the Trail would not be in Washington, DC; capital of the United States; having it in the States and Districts actually supports Lee argument. Did not States entering the Union agree they could not leave with sanction for the other States? Why do things have to be mentioned directly, and not simply implied by the circumstance and meaning of an agreement; especially at such high levels of governance?

I thought Washington and Lee Univ. was named after Richard Henry Lee?

Dr Guelzo is very interesting but makes great logical leaps.

The whole lecture did mean that the Confederates (Davis, Lee, Longstreeet, etc.) did commit treason and that it wasn't punished fit as such because of Grant's surrender terms at Appomattox and reluctance by Grant himself, Salmon P. Chase and others to indict the confederates fearing it might hamper the reconstruction.

Robert E. Lee could not wage war against his own country, and his own country was Virginia. So therefore, no he did not!

this guy can really do a lecture.

I can't wait for Guelzo's next book!!!

In one sense (the legal sense) Lee was not a traitor, because he was neither convicted of treason nor probably ever could have been convicted of that crime. As Dr. Guelzo says, the definition of treason in the Constitution was very narrow, a trial of Lee would have had to be held in Richmond, the document agreed on at Appomattox protected CSA soldiers from prosecution, and Salmon P Chase (Supreme Court) would likely have been against the conviction of it had been appealed. That may be the legal status. But in the more popular sense, he committed treason against the US in order to not be a traitor to Virginia and the southern states.

Virginia was Lee's Home, Family, & his Country! He stayed Loyal to his Beloved Country, Virginia? Had Virginia remained in the Union, then Lee may have led the Union Army?

Yes. Next question.

On July 22, 1975 the House restored U.S. citizenship to Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate Army during the Civil War and became an enduring icon of the South’s “lost cause.” The 407-10 vote came after a campaign spearheaded by Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr. (D-Va.). Though President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation of amnesty and pardon to the Southern rebels in 1865, it required Lee to apply separately. On Oct. 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Va., he signed the required amnesty oath and filed an application through Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. Nonetheless, neither was Lee pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. After receiving it, Secretary of State William Seward gave Lee’s application to a friend as a souvenir. Meanwhile, State Department officials, apparently with Seward’s approval, pigeonholed the oath. In 1970, an archivist, examining State Department records at the National Archives, found Lee’s lost oath. That discovery helped set in motion a five-year congressional effort to restore citizenship to the general, who had died stateless in 1870. President Gerald Ford signed the congressional resolution on July 24, 1975, correcting what he said was a 110-year oversight. The signing ceremony took place at Arlington House in Virginia, the former Lee family home. Several Lee descendants, including Robert E. Lee V, his great-great-grandson, attended. “As a soldier, Gen. Lee left his mark on military strategy,” Ford said. “As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox

So many comparisons here of Lee to George Washington. But their circumstances are not the same. The colonists left Britain because the British government had largely stripped away their autonomy and ability to self-govern themselves. The colonists had no representation in the British government, yet they had to submit to laws passed by British parliment. Not so for the Confederates. The South had full self-governance and autonomy at the state and local level. Furthermore, the idea that they were suffering under the federal government is absurd. The South held a massively disproportionate influence over the federal government for the nation's entire existence leading up to the war. Look at how many Southerners were presidents. Look at how many Southerners were supreme court justices. In summary, the South was fully represented at the local, state, and federal level. In fact, for most of the nation's history the South dominated federal politics. They left the Union because they lost one election and were upset they would have to give up some of their disproportionate federal power for a span of 4 to possibly 8 years. That is not a valid cause for secession at all.

All rights not given to the Federal Govt. are retained by the states which would include succession. Not one of the states would have joined the original Confederacy or the following United States if they had any idea that they could never leave the Union.

Explain , Indiana, Ohio and Illinos?

Great talk! The answer is complicated. It comes down to the question, can you convict? If not, then don't. In 2021 the board voted 22 to 6 to not change the University name. W&L is a private liberal arts university in Lexington, Virginia. I suspect a name change will take place by 2030.

@41:19 This is the short answer for this 40 minute lecture. Yes, he did commit treason. End of story.

Abraham Lincoln ask Robert E Lee to head up the Union Army. Lee declined citing his loyalty to his state. Robert E Lee didn't own any slaves he was generally against slavery but he was not willing to force people to put their slaves out with no job no food no housing no nothing. The Confederate Army was not trying to overthrow the federal government. The Confederate Army was trying to defend itself from the northern attacks that started when the South try to tried to succeed. In other words they wanted to quit the union, they wanted to do withdrawal in which they had every right to do. By the way, there are several States out in the West, Oregon, Eastern Oregon, being one of them, that want to succeed today so not only did Robert E Lee not come close to treason, none of the So. States did either. The crimes that were committed were committed by Abraham Lincoln the war criminal, and his Generals, that willingly followed his instructions to wreck havoc on what little was left of the southerners survivability meaning farm animals, corn, cotton, crops, vegetables, gardens, Hogs, and etc. Lincoln ordered the scorched earth and destroyed all of it that he could. That was the war crime of the Civil War.

Prior to 1861, every officers oath of allegiance was to there state. No Officer swore allegiance to a collective "United States". Your more than welcome to research officers commission documents prior to the war. Needless to say, oath of commission changed when the states decided to leave.

I disagree with the speaker on the legality of secession. It would have been spelled out clearly in the Constitution if the people of the State who ratified the Constitution could not later choose to unratify it. Those people would not be any less authoritative to speak for their state after ratifying the Constitution.

“Why did Lee choose to fight against his country?” is a loaded question. His country was Virginia.

The simple answer is no, he did not.

An argument that still rings today and the speaker did an excellent job in presenting

A) King George III recognized the independence of the 13 colonies individually as sovereign states. B) As sovereign states they united under the Articles of Confederation. C) As sovereign states they seceded from the Union as it existed under the Articles to join a new Union under the current Constitution. D) No one involved in the Hartford Convention was prosecuted for conspiracy to commit treason. E) When the Republic of Texas, recognized by the USA as a sovereign state, joined the Union by popular vote there was no constitutional provision that they could not withdraw by popular vote as they later did. By this professor’s argument, a law cannot be made retroactive to change the terms of a treaty (and the Republic of Texas joined the Union by treaty) already agreed to. F) Lee didn’t commit treason if for no other reason than that he was never convicted of such and thus the presumption of innocence applies. Simple.

41:14 If Lee believed that the 10th Amendment granted a state the right to secede, then his state left the United States through a power defined in the Constitution, and therefore he based his exit on the Constitution, not in defiance of it. Lee never sought to end the United States. States that wanted to stay, could. Today we all agree that states cannot secede, because of the Civil War.

Then you have George Thomas, who said if they need me to take the oath of enlistment everyday I will. He gave uo every thing family, his home in South VA. Because he made a oath ti the United States.

There was only one federal court district in Virginia in 1865 so the place of trial is not a problem constitutionally. It is the state Lee reasoned that pulled him out with it even if he thought 💭 personally secession was not power states had it was accepted widely enough that it was ambiguous. He felt he was following the laws of a sovereign entity. People needed to hate on someone for the suffering the war had caused.

Mr. we could use a man like Robert E. Lee today.

Sophistry. He is the greatest single killer of U.S. troops in the 19th century and, while he had many noble and admirable qualities, that doesn't absolve him of moral responsibility for the deaths...certainly mere legalisms and loopholes do not change the ethical or moral calculus. You can of course find technicalities to suggest he wouldn't be *convicted* of treason by a jury in the proper jurisdiction (the killers of Medger Evers were not convicted of murder due to jury bias and that doesn't make them "not murderers," and similarly OJ Simpson...not a murderer by this argument since he was acquitted in the criminal trial). In my mind, that doesn't fundamentally get to the underlying question. The pardon by President Johnson is better evidence (in fact, conclusive evidence) that he couldn't have been convicted in a hypothetical court, far better than the venue of the hypothetical trial and the beliefs of a hypothetical and partial jury itself likely filled with his fellow potential "traitors." (Even if the hypothetical Virginian jurors despised him, as likely Confederate supporters themselves they were likely equally guilty of the same offense as Lee under the law, and that probably would bias their decisions. In fact, that kind of bias is usually grounds to dismiss a juror, at least in modern times.) More practically, from a moral standpoint, Lee is a fascinating individual who seems to have never expressed any remorse for the mass deaths he caused. So arguably he's more sociopath than hero, and a sociopath who definitely helped to aid and abet an open and violent rebellion against the U.S. government, killing "many thousands" (to be generous) of U.S. troops in the process. The moniker "traitor" is perfectly good to describe that aspect of the man.

Dr. Guelzo's conclusion is incorrect. The Constitution does not define treason. In fact, the word "treason" cannot be found in the Constitution.

The speaker you can tell had a rope in one hand while speaking of Lee.

This man gave a terribly thin lecture then lost his debates afterwards.

The Chase court in White v. Texas in 1869 held that secession couldn't happen and didn't happen.

Although I think of W&L as "the other school in town", when observing the statue of Lee's horse there, Traveller, that his ass faces North.

There is a word for when a commissioned officer in the United States Army bears arms against his own country and that word is "Treason". Period, end of discussion,. And, all I can say to those Southerners who disagree is, you are wrong.