Advertisement

160 years later, U.S. still fighting over Civil War

By Harlan Ullman, Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist
A statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee stands in the U.S. Capitol in 2017. The New York Times accused Lee of treason in 1865.  File Photo by Pete Marovich/UPI
A statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee stands in the U.S. Capitol in 2017. The New York Times accused Lee of treason in 1865.  File Photo by Pete Marovich/UPI | License Photo

One hundred and sixty years ago, Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston, S.C., starting the American Civil War.

Between 600,000 and 800,000 soldiers on both sides died over the next four years, and perhaps another 200,000 to 300,000 non-combatants perished from starvation, disease or friendly fire -- a total far greater than those who have perished from COVID-19 to date. Ultimately, the North prevailed over the 11 states of the Confederacy. In the process, much of the South was devastated, and Reconstruction did little to heal the wounds of the war.

Advertisement

Many of the horrors of that dark period have resurfaced today in the form of debate over reparations to the current survivors of the some 4 million souls who were held in slavery in1861, and more recently, declaring officers in the Confederacy traitors. The renaming of U.S. military bases, largely Army forts recognizing Confederate generals, has gained momentum. Even West Point's Lee Hall, honoring Confederate commanding Gen. Robert E. Lee, revered for decades across the United States, is likely to change.

Advertisement

The causes and conditions of that era are too often forgotten and discounted by today's politics and culture. The constitutional flaws that would crack were over the powers of the federal government superseding those of the states and the unresolved issue of slavery. Slavery was not formally abolished until the 13th Amendment in 1865 and existed in the North, as well, although a tiny percentage compared with the South.

The New York Times accused Lee of treason, writing in a June 4, 1865, editorial: "He has 'levied war against the United States' more strenuously than any other man in the land, and thereby has been specially guilty of the crime of treason, as defined in the Constitution of the United States," and "whether Gen. Lee should be hung or not, is a minor question."

President Andrew Johnson, who took office after Lincoln's assassination, agreed with the Times, arguing for harsh treatment for Lee and his generals. However, Johnson ran afoul of the North's war hero, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who promised in the Appomattox terms of surrender, that "...each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States authority, so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." Grant had wanted peace and included this line to ensure there would be no future reprisals against the Confederates.

Advertisement

On June 7, 1865, however, U.S. District Judge John C. Underwood in Norfolk, Va., indicted Gens. Lee, James Longstreet, Jubal Early and others for treason on the basis that the terms of parole agreed upon were "a mere military arrangement and can have no influence upon civil rights or the status of the persons interested." Lee wrote Grant seeking amnesty.

Nine days later, in response to Lee's request, Grant wrote to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton:

"In my opinion, the officers and men paroled at Appomattox courthouse, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed, they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the president at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them."

Advertisement

One wonders what Grant would say if he magically reappeared? Clearly, many of today's generals have markedly different views. And one wonders if in today's hyper-charged and polarized political environment, any minds would be changed.

Slavery was horrific. But can we resolve the issue and end the Civil War once and for all? A truly civilized state could. Can we?

Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council and author of the upcoming book, "The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: The Tragic History of How Massive Attacks of Disruption Are Endangering, Infecting, Engulfing and Disuniting a 51% Nation."

Latest Headlines