Would George Washington have seen Robert E. Lee as a traitor to the Union?

[SolitarySolace]

After watching Young Washington, I became curious about George Washington’s family and learned something remarkable: Robert E. Lee married Mary Anna Randolph Custis, George Washington’s step-great-granddaughter through Martha Washington’s first marriage.

Washington had no biological children, but he helped raise Martha’s children and grandchildren, and his influence continued through the Custis family. Lee later lived at Arlington House, which had been built as a memorial to Washington and contained many of Washington’s belongings.

I believe Washington likely would have condemned Lee’s decision to fight against the Union. Washington was deeply loyal to Virginia and had served Virginia during the French and Indian War, but his later life was devoted to creating and preserving the United States. In his Farewell Address, he warned against sectional division, and during the Whiskey Rebellion he demonstrated that armed resistance to federal authority could not simply be tolerated.

Lee did not merely disagree with the federal government. He resigned from the United States Army and accepted command of forces fighting against the country Washington helped create.

Of course, no one can know with absolute certainty what Washington would have thought. Still, based on his writings, actions, and commitment to national unity, I believe he would have seen Lee’s choice to place Virginia above the Union as a tragic betrayal of the republic.

Yes

No

[canamlusciouslad73]

D**N SKIPPY !!!

[Cidknee]

Yes!

[strateguy632]

definitely a traitor. i used to distinguish civil war from revolution. but the only difference is: revolution was against tyranny as colony. but civil war was rebellion WHILE REPRESENTED in senate. that is not justified.

that is a pattern in bangledesh rebel like south. but israel bombing British office was without representation in parliament like revolution.

no 'history written by winner' does not mean if south won they were justice. they had representation not tyrrany.

@Jersey2

[Jersey2]

Fair point. But of one feels decisions are unjust, as the South did, then being able to withdrawl should be an option.

[strateguy632]

@Jersey2 then they need their state senators in congress to negotiate a compromise. they had representation.

[Jersey2]

Lee did what he thought was right. So did Washington. You are only a traitor if you lose. Both men defied their country and their leader to break away. One was successful. Washington may have had deep differences of opinion and argued against succession but ultimately that is an individual call. I think they both would have fought on the same side in the Revolution.

I will see Young Washington before it leaves theaters. I just read that when he died some British ships lowered their flags to half mast at Brest I believe. And Napoleon ordered 10 days of mourning and black cloth to be put around their flags.

[SolitarySolace]

@Jersey2, I appreciate the thoughtful answer, and I hope you enjoy Young Washington. I agree that both men believed they were acting honorably, and Lee probably would have fought beside Washington during the Revolution. But I do not think that means Washington would have approved of Lee’s actions in 1861.

A person’s cause does not become legitimate merely because he wins, nor treasonous merely because he loses. Washington rebelled against a British imperial government before the United States existed and then devoted the remainder of his public life to creating and preserving a constitutional American Union. Lee, by contrast, had served the United States for decades, resigned his commission, and accepted command of forces waging war against that established Union.

Washington also repeatedly warned that sectional and state loyalties must not tear the country apart. His Farewell Address treated the Union as essential to American independence and security, and his response to the Whiskey Rebellion showed that he believed armed resistance to federal authority could not simply be treated as an individual choice.

Lee may sincerely have believed loyalty to Virginia came first, but Washington’s mature political legacy rested on the opposite principle: that the United States had to become more than a temporary alliance of separate states. That is why I believe Washington could have respected Lee’s courage while still condemning his decision to fight against the Union Washington helped create.

And yes, Washington’s international reputation at his death was extraordinary. Even former enemies recognized the historic stature he had attained.

[Jersey2]

It all comes down to Federalism vs States Rights. We still fight about that balance today. I think Washington would be appalled by the amount of power and span that the Federal government has today.

[Jersey2]

This very topic was discussed in earnest before and shortly after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It split even those who fought. It is still at issue today in many way. If you think about it, it is in the news most years even if not called out explicitly as it is embedded in key issues of contention or Supreme Court cases.

[SolitarySolace]

@Jersey2, I agree with you that the balance between federal and state authority has been one of America’s central constitutional debates from the beginning, and I also agree Washington would probably be surprised by how large and far-reaching the modern federal government has become.

Where I think we differ is the conclusion. Washington certainly believed in limited federal power, but he also believed the Union itself had to endure. His response to the Whiskey Rebellion and his Farewell Address both show that, once the Constitution was ratified, he viewed preserving the Union as essential. I think he would have sought constitutional reforms to limit federal overreach rather than supporting a state’s decision to dissolve the Union by force.

In other words, I think Washington could have criticized the modern federal government while still opposing secession. Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

[Jersey2]

I haven’t brushed up on history but I thought the north was being unfair and hurting the south on purpose. That you can’t negotiate when there is bad faith and you are out numbered.

[Twalli]

Most Union soldiers originally were not abolitionists. They joined the army because they felt that seceding because your candidate lost the election was wrong. It was only after they started winning and realized that there was going to be a war about slavery eventually, possibly in their kid's lifetime, did it switch to a war about slavery and ending it for them. Even Lincoln didn't want to end slavery at the start of his presidency, he didn't like it, but he wasn't trying to end it. So, Lee leaving because he supported the southern states and was against our elected leader would be condemned by Washington.

[SolitarySolace]

I agree with much of what you said about Union soldiers’ original motives and Lincoln’s early priority of preserving the Union. My central point, though, was the personal and family connection between Washington and Lee. Lee married Washington’s step-great-granddaughter, lived at Arlington House surrounded by Washington’s legacy, and belonged to a family that treated Washington’s memory with extraordinary reverence.

That makes Lee’s choice especially tragic. Washington had devoted the latter part of his life to creating and preserving the Union, warned against sectional division, and used federal authority against armed resistance during the Whiskey Rebellion. Even though Lee was connected to Washington’s family through marriage and shared his loyalty to Virginia, I believe Washington would still have condemned Lee for placing Virginia above the United States and commanding an army against the republic Washington helped create.

The family relationship does not excuse Lee’s decision. It makes the contrast between Washington’s national legacy and Lee’s choice to serve secession even more striking.

[msc545]

Yes, everyone who fought against the union was a traitor. In the places where those people came from, some of the descendants of those original Confederates are still traitors.

[SolitarySolace]

Confederates were regarded as having participated in rebellion against the United States, but most were pardoned and reintegrated rather than prosecuted and permanently branded as traitors. Robert E. Lee himself was indicted for treason, but he was never tried or convicted. The federal government ultimately prioritized reunion over mass treason prosecutions.

Those who refused reconciliation or loyalty to the United States remained individually responsible for their own choices during their lifetimes. That status did not pass to their children or later descendants. The Constitution expressly rejects inherited punishment for treason: an attainder of treason cannot create “corruption of blood,” meaning guilt and legal disability cannot be imposed on a person’s heirs merely because of an ancestor’s conduct.

So whatever judgment someone makes about those who personally fought for the Confederacy, their modern descendants are not traitors by ancestry. Americans are responsible for their own actions and loyalties, not those of people who lived generations before them.