Did Robert E. Lee Hate the Union Army?

The question of whether Robert E. Lee, the renowned Confederate general, hated the Union Army is a complex one that has been widely debated. Historians and students of history often explore this query to better understand the motivations and decisions made during the American Civil War.

Understanding Robert E. Lee's Enlistment

Robert E. Lee did not hate the Union Army. His hatred instead stemmed from his personal and familial experiences. Prior to the Civil War, Lee served a significant portion of his life in the Union Army, loyal to what he believed was his duty to his home state of Virginia. When the Civil War erupted, Lee's decision to join the Confederate side was clouded by his personal and familial traumas, rather than a general disdain for the Union forces.

In the pre-Civil War era, military men were often bound to their home states, and the Union was seen more as a collection of states than a central authority. The Western territories were largely unorganized, such as "The Colorado Territory" and "The Utah Territory." Before the Civil War, the federal army was relatively weak, as states held more local power and control. The federal army's influence was seen in events like the Harper's Ferry raid and the Mexican-American War.

Lee's Early Military Career and Decision Making

Before the Civil War, Robert E. Lee had a distinguished career as an instructor at West Point. Upon the outbreak of the war, he was offered command of the Union Army by President Lincoln. Reflecting on his decision long and hard, Lee ultimately chose to stay loyal to his home state of Virginia, rather than accepting the position. This decision showcased his ability to make decisions based on his principles rather than emotions. As Lee once famously remarked at Fredericksburg, “It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow fond of it.”

Lee's decision to command the Confederate forces was a result of his love and loyalty to Virginia, which he regarded as his home, and not a hatred for the Union. His reluctance to take command of the Union Army demonstrated his commitment to his state and the values he held dear.

Stonewall Jackson's Perspective

It is often pointed out that Stonewall Jackson, another prominent Confederate general, saw the Civil War as a religious crusade. Jackson's approach to warfare differed significantly from Lee's. At the Battle of Fredericksburg, when the Union V Corps briefly breached his lines and withdrew for lack of support, Jackson expressed a desire for his men to be “dead” rather than merely brave. This stark contrast in voice and action highlights the different motivations and philosophies driving the Confederate generals.

Lee as a Traitor

Some argue that Lee should be viewed as a traitor for not holding the American Constitution sacred and for his decisions during the Civil War. The Confederate surrender at Appomattox Court House marked the end of organized resistance, but the South continued to fight for several years, a period known as the Reconstruction era. The leniency shown to the Confederate leaders during this time was seen as a missed opportunity to address systemic issues of the time.

Indeed, weakening the Confederacy and redistributing land might have led to a better outcome for the nation. However, the complexity of Lee's character and the historical context of the Civil War make it challenging to label him solely as a traitor or to view him as purely evil. The nuanced portrayal of Lee as a deeply conflicted figure who made difficult decisions based on his principles provides a more accurate historical understanding of the era.

Conclusion

The relationship between Robert E. Lee and the Union Army was far more complex than a simple act of hatred. Lee's decisions were deeply rooted in his personal and familial experiences, as well as his allegiance to Virginia. While some argue that he should have refused to fight for the Confederacy, his actions reflect the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by many during the Civil War. Understanding Lee's character and motivations contributes to a more holistic view of this pivotal era in American history.