LOYALTY AND THE ARMY: A STUDY OF WHY THE CIVIL WAR GENERALS

ROBWT LEE, JOHN PEMBERTON, THaMAS JACKSON, AND

EDWIN ALEXANDER JOINED THE CONFEDERACY

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army

Command and General Staff College in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

GARY SKUBAL, MAJOR, USAR

B.S., U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado, 1979

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

1995

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I Form Approved

OMB NO. 0704-0188

. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 12. REPORT DATE 13. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
12 June 1995 ( Master's The .s,2 Aug 94 - 2 Jun 95
.TITLE A N 0 SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Loyalty and the Army: A Study of Why the Civil

War Generals Robert Lee, John Pemberton, Thomas

Jackson, and Edwin Alexander Joined the Confederacy

. AUTHOR(S)
Major Gary A. Skubal, U.S. Army

. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME($) AND ADDRESS(ES) 3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

ATTN: ATZL-SWD-OD

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-6900

. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADORESS(E5) 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

2a. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILlTV STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release, distribution

is unlimited.

I
3. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This study investigates the concept of loyalty as applied in the U.S. Army. In

light of the fact that the term haabeen dropped from the official definition of

the Army Ethos in the 1994 version of FM 100-1, the study investigates the

implications from a historical perspective. The American Civil War is used as the

only 'appropriateconflict where issues of loyalty were widespread in the existing

U.S. ~ r m y . The choices made by the individuals involved had severe consequences

and were not merely academic in nature. The study defines loyalty and applies the

definition to the analysis of why the subject officers ,chose to fight for the

Confederacy against the object of'theirformer allegiance--theU.S. Constitution.

Each officer is summarized and subjective rationale is offered for the specific

reasons underlying each of their decisions. The study concludes that an Army Ethos

may be useful for providing a framework of discussion for matters of professional

conduct.'. However, due to the numerous and diverse objects competing for one's

loyalty, the Army Ethos has only marginal effect in influencing decisions of great

importance.

1. SUBIECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Thomas Jackson, Edwin Alexander, Confederacy, 125

Loyalty, Civil War, Robert E. Lee, John Pemberton, 16. PRICE CODE

 MASTER GF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

THESIS APPRCVAL PAGE

Name of Candidate: Major Gary Skubal

Tltle of Thesis: Loyalty and the Army: A Study of Why the Civil War

Generals Robert Lee, John Pemberton, Thomas Jackson, and Edwin Alexander

Joined the Confederacy

Approved by:

, Thesis Committee Chairman

Major Tom Dreilinger, M.A.

, Member, Graduate Faculty

Robert Baumann, Ph.D.

Accepted this 2d day of June 1995 by:

, Director, Graduate Degree Programs

Philip J. Brookes, Ph.D.

The opinlons and conclusions expressed herem are those of the student

author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army

Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency.

(References to thls study should include the foregoing statement.)

 ABSTRACT

LOYALTY AND THE ARMY: A STUDY OF WHY THE CIVIL WAR GENERALS ROBERT
LEE, JOHN PEMBERTON, THOMAS JACKSON, AND W I N ALEXANDER JOINED
THE CONFEDERACY by Major Gary A. Skubal, USAR, 105 pages.
This study investigates the concept of loyalty as applied in the U. S.

Army. In light of the fact that the term has been dropped from the

official definition of the Army ethos in the 1994 version of FM 100-1,

the study investigates the implications from a historical perspective.

The American Civil War is used as the only appropriate conflict where

issues of loyalty were widespread in the existing U.S. Army. The

choices made by the individuals involved had severe consequences and

were not merely academic in nature.

The study defines loyalty and applies the definition to the analysis of

why the subject officers chose to fight for the Confederacy against the

object of their former allegiance--the U.S. Constitution. Each officer

is summarized and subjective rationale is offered for the specific

reasons underlying each of their decisions.

The study concludes that an Army Ethos may by useful for providing a

framework of discussion for matters of professional conduct. However,

due to the numerous and diverse objects competing for one's loyalty, the

Army ethos has only marginal effect in influencing decisions of great

importance.

iii

 - ,TABLE OF CONTENTS

.
APPROVAL PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
li

KESTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

1. -.
J
.- .. *
."
-- ->, :
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . &

2. LOYiiLTY: THECONCEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. THE GmEFPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. .WALYSiS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 91

5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

APPENDIX

A. CADET OATH OF A L M A N D W - - i 8 5 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1C6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .10$

B. C A D E T O A T I i O F J A W O N - - 1 8 4 3 .
C . iiEGiMENTALOATHOFLZ3--1855 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii3

B I B L I K X W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lii

I N i T i A L DISTRIECJTIONLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i 5

 Smce manhnd flrst took up a m to settle thelr disputes, the

loyalty of the warriors involved has been a matter of great concern.

Often throughout recorded hstory, fates of entlre natlons have changed

dramatically due to disloyalty of their soldiers. Absolom rebelled

against King David and led an entire army of Israel agalnst the crown.

He died hanging in an oak tree while twenty thousand of his soldiers

perlshed by the sw0rd.l To prevent such sltuatrons, sovereigns try

resorting to soiemn oaths of allegiance--with our own earliest version

being most thorough:

I . . . do acknowledge the United States of America to be Free,

independent and Sovereign States, and declare that the people
thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of
Great Britain; and i renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or
obedience to him; and I do swear that i will to the utmost of my
power, support, maintain and defend the said United States against
the said King George the Third, his heirs and successors, and his or
their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said
United States in the office of . . . which I now hold, with
fidelity, according to the best of my skill and ~nderstanding.~
Unfortunately, the blank spaces of one such oath were filled in with the

words, "Benedict Arnold, Major General." Even in the face of tyrants,

with an army of men committed to a cormnon cause, a traitor can arrse

with shocklng boldness and do untold harm.

The U.S. Army recently released its newest version of the manual

which, in the words of the Chief of Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan,

"is the foundation for all Army doctrine. From our doctrine flows how

we think about the world and how we train, equip, and organize our

forces to serve the Nation." This manual, FM 100-1, entitled The.

Army, "expresses the Army's fundamental purpose, roles,

responsibilities, and functions, as established by the Constitution,

Congress, and the Department of ~efense."4 It is the "cornerstone"
document, and defines "the qualities, values, and traditions that guide
the Army in protecting and serving the Nation.'15 Therefore, any
omissions or errors in this manual would logically have serious
cascading effects throughout the Army. What then is the relationship
between loyalty and FM 100-1, The Army?

The Problem

In an increasingly complex world, nationalistic llnes are

becoming harder to define. One has only to consider the situations in

Bosnia or Moldava to see the emerging desire for self-determination and

the threat to existing governments. The loyalty issue is further

complicated as it becomes more difficult to identify what particular

attributes a sovereign must have to be worthy of an individual's

allegiance. Although it may seem that t h s problem would be confined to

third-world nations, world powers and superpowers are not immune. Most

recently, officers in the former Soviet Union have been forced to deal

with this issue in unforeseen ways as the following 1993 press release

illustrates:

Officers in the Black Sea Fleet Said Persecuted: The press

center of the Ukrainian Navy has reported that in subunits deployed

in Kacha officers who have taken an oath of allegiance to Ukraine

and received Ukrainian citizenship are routinely persecuted. They

 were told to either lobk for employment in the Ukrainian Navy or to

resign.6
As officers of the former Soviet Union, they had undoubtedly taken the

oath common to that regime. When the economy collapsed and politics
began to change the structure cif the superpower, individual officers
were faced with the diiemma of determining just where and to what their
allegiance lay. As one might imagine, this was not simply an academic
exercise. Drastic consequences could and did result from these
decisions.
Officers in the American Army have not been faced with these
types of decisions in over a century. However, as the world continues
to destabilize, the future is certainly open to radical speculation. To
a helicopter pilot patrolling the East-West German border in the late
1980s, the Soviet regime appeared to be as stable as anytime in its
history. Yet in less than five years the entire system had collapsed.
In such times it would make sense that military officers should have a
fairly clear idea of the meaning of loyalty.
Yet the trend in FM 100-1 is otherwise. A cursory reading of

this manual gives one the feeling that all is well in our Army doctrinal
foundations. But when the chapter, "The Profession of Arms," is
compared to the same chapter in the previous edition of FM 100-1, a
significant change in value is evident.
This chapter in the latest version is divided into four parts:
The Army Ethos, Professional Qualities, The American Soldier, and Esprit
de Corps and Pride. The first part is the foundation for the following
three and is described as follows:
 The Army ethos, tKe guiding beliefs, standards and ideals that
characterize a n d motivate the Army is succinctly described in one
word--DUTY. Duty is behavior required by moral obligation, demanded
by custom, or enjoined by feelings of rightness. Contained within
the concept of duty are the values of integrity and selfless
service, which give moral foundation to the qualities the ethos
demands of all soldiers from private to general ~ f f i c e r . ~
This sounds noble enough for a professional military, but the change

over time of this ethos shows a trend away from a broader perspective

and towards a very narrow definition. This change is evident in the

previous edition's definition of the Army Ethos:

The Army ethic consists of four professional values: Duty,

integrity, Loyalty and Selfless Service. Duty and Integrity are

great morai imperatives which are also governed by the Uniform Code

of Military Justice. The values of Selfless Service and Loyalty

are governed by convention, tradition, and the character of the

profession. When internalized and adhered to, these values promote

mut.aal confidence and understanding among all soldiers and inspire

the special trust and confi'dence of the nation.*

Apparently, the authors of the newest version no longer consider ioyalty

to be a part of <he Army Ethos as it is the only value of the previous

four not mentioned. This becomes more obvious in the subsequent

descriptions of integrity and selfless service in the latest version

As implied by the descriptive values of Integrity and Selfless

Service, a soldier's performance of duty is the central measure of

his or her character. While many aspects of these values are

governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, other elements are

governed by convention, tradition, and the very nature of the

profession. When internalized to the point of habit, these values

promote mutual confidence and understanding among all soldiers and

merit the special trust and confidence of the N a t i ~ n . ~

In the place of loyalty, the authors now list only "other elements."

Obviously they do not intend for loyalty to be included. The issue is

further in question when one considers the definition of loyalty in the

older edition.

Loyalty to the nation, to the Army, to the unit and its

individual soldiers is essential. The oath we take requires loyalty

 to the nation and an dbligation to support and defend the

Constitution of the United states.1°

Surely no professional American soldier could argue with this value, yet
it has been deleted in the current Army Ethos. Perhaps the authors
wished to leave less to interpretation in the new version. Indeed, the
taking of the oath is described in the third section--The American
Soldier. ow ever; the meaning given to the purpose of the oath is
rather alarming when viewed in the context of loyalty. "The swearing-in
ceremony is a formal, public conunitment to the Army ~thos."ll The oath,
however, is very clearly to the Constitution of the United States, not
the Army Ethos. Again, the authors apparently wish to focus only on
duty. In the case of the oath, only the phrase "that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to
enter" mentions anything resembling the current Army Ethos.12 Perhaps
the actual intent of the authors is contained in their own description
of duty:

A sense of Duty compels us to do what needs to be done at the right

time despite difficulty or danger. It leads to obedient and

disciplined performance. Duty is a personal act of responsibility

manifested by accomplishing all assigned tasks to the fullest of

one's ability, meeting all commitments, and exploiting opportunities

for the good of the group.13

For whatever reasons, our Army Ethos focuses on one word--Duty. This is

a change from previous ideas which included the concept of loyalty;

specifically and perhaps most important--loyalty to our nation. This

may in fact be expedient to the natlonal command authorrty in ways not

before considered. For example, NATO exlsted for over 45 years to

contaln aggressive acts of the Sovlet Union. Even though the Soviet

Unlon no longer exists, the member nations of NATO have found apparent

usefulness in the continuance of the organization. Regional conflicts

continue to destabilize areas ciose to NATO countries, and it would
presumablybe to the advantage of those countries to have American
military forces (under NATO command) available should the need arise.
Air power has already been used in a very iimited fashion. However,
American military personnel are sworn to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States" and not the edicts of NATO or even
the United Nations. It was fairly easy during the Cold War to fee! the
threat to our security from the Soviet Union. Bosnia, however, is
rather more vague. Perhaps the assumption is that the member nat:ons of
NATO share common values and that American soldiers wlll have no
difficulty serving under French, German, or Italian commanders. But as
international situations become increasingly more clouded, will American
military personnel question the legal authority of their non-American
commanders? Probably not if DUTl is the only byword of the Army ethos.
But if these soldiers are loyal to the Constitution of the United States
and its defense, problems could arise.

The Research Ouestion

The question itself is simple and straightforward. Considering

American historical tradition and experience, should loyalty be a part

of the Army Ethos?

The Scope

The answer to the research question will not be readily provable

by deductive style reasoning nor necessarily limited in scope. This

thesis will not address all the lnherent problems and Issues evoked by
the sublect of loyalty, but, slnce this is & exerclse in investigating
the need (or lack thereof) of loyalty as part of the Army Ethos, will be
confined to the investigation of examples in the history of the American
Army. To find subjects appropriate to this investigation, only
sltuatlons whch requred actual tests of loyalty and not merely
academc rhetorrc can be used. The lndlvlduals chosen needed to have
been faced wlth a declslon to place thelr allegiance wlth one of at
least two dlametrlcally opposed forces. The subject should have been

aware that loss of llfe could result from this declsion and especially,

the decision had to have been made without coercion.

In the military history of the United States, conditions

conducive to these requirements occurred twice: the Revolutionary War
and the Civil War. Since, generally speaking, many of those who took
part in the Revolutionary War were not born in America nor had they
previously sworn an oath of allegiance to either slde, this d~scussion
will be limited to the American Civil War. This war gave rise to many .
loyalty issues which are not generally well known. Although public
education may seem to have given the impression that a soldier fought
for whichever side his home state was on, this was not necessarily the
case. At least one account puts the figure of whte cltizens from
slave-holding states fighting for the Unlon at 296,579 men. This is out
of a total of 1,490,000 Federal troops, or about 20 percent .14 Over

twenty generals born in slave holding states cormnanded at the corps

Each of these individuals must

level or higher ih the Union ~ r m y . l ~

have gone through a personal soul-searching debate as to where his

loyalty should lay. Although a statistical study might yield relevant

facts and figures associated with the topic, thehistorical data is not

sufficient to support such an effort. For this reason this thesis will

concentrate on a field narrow in quantity and increase the quality of

the study by a deeper look at the lives of selected individuals.

The investigation will cover four Confederate Generals who had

been in the Federal (Union) Army before the war. The results will then

be applied to the research question in the form. of

.
inductive reasoning.

Each of these persons had sworn an oath of allegiance (see appendix) to

the Constitution of the United States that is very similar to that

required for service today. However, each chose to disregard their oath

and subsequently caused considerable harm to the United States. These

officers were Generals John C. Pemberton, E. P. Alexander, Thomas J.

Jackson, and Robert E. Lee. Each had a comon background in military

ethics as they all attended West Point, an institution known for its

dedication to the motto: Duty, Honor, Country. Other than this,

however, their personal backgrounds were markedly dissimilar. These

officers could only draw upon their accumulated knowledge and

experiences, so the research will pertain to their histories up to the

point when they actually decided to fight for the Confederacy. Somehow

these men decided that their loyalty was not in accordance with the oath

they had once taken.

A study of this nature has certain imposing limitations. The

historical figures and anyone who knew them prior to 1861 are all
deceased thereby leaving only written historical accounts in finite
numbers available for research. Biographers and others who have since
published written accounts all have particular biases of some sort

Some attempt to convey these personal feelings, such as thls exerpt from

a preface by M;chael B. Ballard, author of Pemberton: A Biography:

most of the battle sites we walked over were scenes of major battles

during the Vicksburg campaign. Our reading of the available books

on that pivotal event convinced us that the Confederacy might have

saved Vicksburg and won the war if only a competent commander had

been on hand to lead Rebel defenders. We had a very low opinion of

John C. Pemberton, that despicable Pennsylvania-born Confederate

general whose incompetence lost Vicksburg. I am sure no one would

be more surprised . . . to see my name as author on the cover of a
Pemberton biography, . . . an in-depth study of history,
complemented by excellent graduate training, gave me the maturity to
look beyond personal prejudices.l6
Although most authors probably believes that they are unbiased, a reader

can really only rely on critical evaluations by others competent in the

field. This means that a wider variety of authors will increase the

probability that an overall accurate picture of the topic is presented.

Unfortunately, materials tend to be produced in direct reLationshlp to

the interests showed by the readers. Not surprisingly, materials on

Robert E. Lee are numerous whereas those on John C. Pemberton are

considerably more scarce. For example, Ballard states:

I decided to do a biography of Pemberton. After all, the only book

ever written about him was ublished In 1942 and had been wrltten by

his namesake and grandson.l?

Lack of complete materials has a tendency to cloud the exact picture but

then this is the case with virtually any historical study.

Assumptions

The first assumption is that the extant historical material

available allows for a fairly accurate rendition of the subject until

the spring of 1861. Second, the relative ablility to see through biases

of the authors alongwith limiting those of the writer is assumed.

Third, the nature of this paper presapposes that there is indeed a

relationship between the personal ethics and ideas on loyalty of the

subjects to the particular choices they made. This includes the

experiences of their upbringing, formal and informal schooling, and

other character developing situations (such as participation in the

Semnole and/or Mexican wars) before the secession of the southern

states. The valldity of these assumptions is necessary for the

credibility of the answer to the research question.

The Extant Literature

The most preferable type of evidence would be statements by the

individual officers directly concerning the topic. Naturally these are

quite rare. Autobiographies should be the most informative since they

are written in the hand of the subject. Unfortunately (for the

historian) no one wants to be remembered in a negative light so an

autobiography is always suspect on the account of presenting a picture

of the person only as they wish to be remembered. Of the four subjects,

only General Alexander had written a true autobiography, but his memoirs

begin with duty 'in Utah in the late 1850s.I8 This tentatively addresses

only a very short 'periodof which this study is concerned, although

insight may be gained from Alexander's occasional comments referencing

his younger days.

Biographies are themost comprehensive sources available on the

four generals but still contain obvious prejudices. Some can provide

evidence of a more objective view by the nature of their disassociation

with the war itself. Concerning the British author G . F. R. Henderson

writing of General Jackson, "there was the advantage of his own
attitude--that of a foreign observer not personally, emotionally or
politically involved in the issues of the c ~ n f l i c t . " Each
~ ~ of the four

officers has at least one biography currently available with those of

Lee and Jackson being more numerous.

Perhaps the most revealing resources available are personal

letters written by the subjects, their families, and their
acquaintances. These offer undistorted word pictures (contextual, at
least) of the feelingsand thoughts of the writers through their own
eyes. However, the use of letters involves inherent problems. They
seldom contain negative information concerning the writer and the
historian is often unable to decipher the writer's motives. Some appear
to be obvious when the facts of the time are known as in this exerpt of
a letter from General Lee to hls daughter-in-law:
I received, last night, my darling daughter, your letter of the 18th
from "Hickory Hill." . . . You must not be sick while Fitzhugh is
away, or he will be more restless under his separation. Get strong
and hearty by his return, that he may the more rejoice at the sight
of you. . . . Nothzng would do him more harm than for him to learn
that you were sick and sad. How could he get well? So cheer up and
prove your fortitude and patri~tism.~~
These lines were written shortly after his son had been wounded and

captured by Union troops and with little doubt were intended to provide

courage and hope to his son's wife. Another possible problem can be

illustrated by a letter wrltten by an earlier soldier, General Charles

Lee of the Arnerlcan Revolution. General Lee had been a prisoner of the

Britlsh and provided them a wrltten plan by which he felt they could

defeat the Americans. Later he clalmed:

 that he had not committed an act of treachery, indeed, that he had

saved America when he was a prisoner, that.is, he had deliberately

persuaded Howe to waste much time by taking a southern sea route to

Philadelphia while Burgoyne marched to his doom at Saratoga.21

If one only had the first document without Lee's later explanation, his

treason would seem absolute. The explanation casts doubt upon the

matter and renders it inconclusive. This sort of situation is possible

in a wide variety of historic anecdotes. Again, the quantity and

quality of evidence available to the researcher is the best insurance

against such problems.

In general, the topic of loyalty has been addressed for quite

some time but rarely in a manner fitting to the needs of the military.

Loyalty is frequently referred to yet seldom described. This requires

almost a study of its own and for this reason the general area of

military ethics must be researched. Much of what could be considered

American military ethics is based in the Judeo-Christian Bible. It is

one of the oldest manuscripts available and figured prominantly in the

lives of at least two of the four subject officers.22 Other books are

compilations of short essays dealing with various military ethical

issues and many have items relating to loyalty. The Air Force Academy

seems to be in the forefront in this area with a forum entitled the

Alice McDermott Memorial Lecture in Applled ~ t h i c sand

~ ~the
well-

publi-shed Colonel Malham M. Wakin, Professor and Head of the Department

of Philosophy and Fine Arts. Many treatises appear to have been'written

during the Vietnam War era and contain material centered around civil

obedience as related to military service. One essay deals with problems

of German officers in the Wehrmacht during Hitler's rise to power and

the inherent loyalty problems of this regime. Much has been written and

this issue will be more thoroughly analyzed and discussed in chapter 2.

The Sicinificance

This work has the potential of identifying serious problems with

the concept of loyalty in the United States Army. A nation has the

right to expect loyalty from those entrusted with its defense. American

military merbers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United

States. Allegiance to any other entity, whether to a person in the form

of a commander or to a conglomeration of nation-states, such as NATO,

could ultimately prove disastrous to the continuance of the United

States. This issue is simply too important to be left in obscurity.

 Endnotes
12 Sam. 15-18 RSV (Revised Standard Version)
*J . E. Morpurgo, Treason at Fiest Pomt : The Arnold-Andre '
Conspiracy (New York: Mason / Charter, 1975) 80-81.
3FM 100-1: The Army 1994 (Washington, D.Z.: Separtnent ?f the
Amy, 19943, 1.
%bid., v.

%bid., v.

6~orelgnBureau Informatron Servlce-Sovlet Region, 7 Oct 93, 59.

7EM 100-1: The A m y 1994, 6.

8FM 100-1: The Army 1991, 15.

9EM 100-1: The Army 1994, 6.

1°EM 100-1: The A m y 1991, 16.

llEM 100-1: The A m y 1994, 10.

121bid.,ll.

14~harlesC. Anderson, Fighting by Southern Federals (New York:

'

The Neal Publishing Co., 1912) 10.

~6MichaelB. Bal lard, Pemberton: A Biography (Jackson, MS:

University Press of Mississippi, 1991), ix.

171bld.,ix.

1 8 ~ .P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate (Charles

Scribner's Sons, 1907) 1.

19~eorgeF. R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson and the American Civll

War (Abridged) (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1968) x-xi.

20~aptainRobert E. Lee, Recollections and Letters of General

Robert E. Lee (Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Co., 1924) 100-

101.

 2 1 ~ o h nRlchard Alden, General Charles Lee: Traltor of Patr~ot?

(Baton Rouge, LA: Loulslana State Unlverslty Press, 1951) 174-175.

2 2 ~ e v .J. Wllliam Jones, D.D., Chrlst i n the Camp or Religion i n

the Cmfederate A~my(B. F. Johnson & Co. , 1887) 9.

23~eneralGeorge Lee Butler, Personal Reflections on Integrity

from an Old Grad ( C O : US Air Force Academy, 1993 j ii .
 am?TER 2

LCYALTY: THE CONCEPT

The first step in answering the thesis question is to ensure

that the same standards are being applied to each case. Different

people will attach different meanings to a word or phrase' Therefore, a

working or "operational" definition of loyalty must be constructed.

This operational definition should make sense both in present usage and

in a historical context. it would be irrelevant to judge a historical

figure against a standard known only to modem-day readers. Once an

operational definition is constructed, the implications of the decisions

of the four subjects should become obvious. This will provide the

standard needed to compare their individual actions and relate those

actions to the current Army Ethic.

Word definitions may combine to give a good generalization of

the concept of loyalty from a modern viewpoint, but they are useless

unless the idea can be conveyed in real terms. For instance, it is one

thing to talk about marriage; but quite another to marry. In like

manner, simply providing word definitions of loyalty fall far short of

what the concept must mean for someone faced with choosing sides in a

war. Just as a person is the sum of his experiences, so a concept (such

as loyalty) is the summation of the historical ideas on which it is

based. For this reason, the word will be defind first, followed by

some older.thoughtson the concept.

Lovaltv: A Modem Definition of the Word

Loyalty is synonymous with such words as allegiance,

faithfulness, fidelity, and fealty. One dictionary defines the word

loyaity and loyal as foliows:

Loyalty 1. the quality or state of being loyal 2. that binding a

person to something to which he is loyal

Loyal 1. unswerving in allegiance: as a. faithful in allegiance to

one's lawful sovereign or government b. faithful to a private

person to whom fidelity is due c. faithful to a cause, ideal, or

custom 2. showing loyalty1

The editors further clarify the concept as follows:

syn FIDELITY, ALLEGIANCE, FEALTY, LOYALTY,...mean faithfulness to

something to which one is bound by pledge or duty. FIDELITY implies
strict and continuing faithfulness to an obiigation, trust, or duty;
ALLEGIANCE suggests an adherence like that of a citizen to his
country; FEALTY implies a fidelity acknowledged by the individual
and as compelling as a sworn vow; LOYALTY implies a faithfulness
that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert,
or betray2
To complete the concept, the idea of faithfulness must also be defined;

syn FAITHFUL, LOYAL, CONSTANT, STAUNCH, STEADFAST, RESOLUTE meat.

firm in adherence to whatever one owes allegiance. FAITHEWL lmplles
unswerving adherence to a person or thlng or to the oath or promise
by whch a tie was contracted3
The foregoing provides a framework for the modern idea of loyalty.

Historical thought and examples provide a better understanding of the

term.

Lovaltv: The Judeo-Christian Perspective

One of the earliest incidents in the Bible leading to a cause

for loyalty was the covenant between God and Noah. The idea of a

covenant was a type of unilateral agreement instigated by God. After

destroying all life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the ark

full of animals, God said,

 I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after
you and with every living creature that was with you. . . . Never
again will the waters become a flood to destroy the earth4
This first covenant required no action by Noah or anyone else. The next

covenant was not nearly so simple nor lenient. God said to Abram (soon

to become Abraham),

As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of
many nations. . . . I will establish my covenant as an everlasting
covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the
generations to come, tobe your God and the God of your descendants
after you . . . you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants
. . . the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be
circumcised . . . it will be the sign of the covenant between me and
you. . . . Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in
the flesh will be cut off from his people: he has broken my
covenant.5
This covenant established a formal relationship between God and the

people of Abraham. Obedience was the byword of this association.

Initially the main impact this had on Abraham's clan was the painful

process of circumcision (Abraham was 94 years old at the time)

However, he was soon to learn exactly what was required to complete his

part of the covenant. God said to Abraham,

Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love and go to the
reglon of Morlah. Sacrlflce him there as a burnt offerlng on one of
the mountams I wlll tell you about . . . Abraham bullt an altar
there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and lald
hlm on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out h s hand
and took the knlfe to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord
called out to him from heaven. . . . Do not lay a hand on the boy. .
. . Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from
me your son, your only son . . . I swear by myself, declares the
Lord, that because you have done this and not withheld your son,
your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky . . . all nations on earth wlll be
blessed, because you have obeyed me.6
So far, only obedience (admittedly rather extreme obedience) is required

in this budding nation-state with a divine ruler. In the modern

definition, "loyalty implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the

face of any temptation to renounce, desert or betray." Abraham could

renounce or desert God rather than kiil his only son. in Abraham's

mlnd, he had to choose between two conflicting loyalties; obey God and

kill his son or, save his son and disobey God. Zis actions with isaac

formed a very early idea of loyalty to a sovereign (in this case devine)

and the rudimentary elements of a hierarchy of loyalty.

As the descendants of Abraham multiply in number, their

relationship with God continues to develop to include the beginnings of

non-devine government. The covenant process continues when Moses is

chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. God says to Moses,

Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all
nations you will be my treasured possession ... you will be for me
a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'l
Shortly afterward God gives Moses the Ten Comandments. Three of these
commandments deal with loyalty:
You shall have no other gods before me. . . . You shall not make for
yourself an idol in the form of ,anything in heaven above or on the
earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to
them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. .
. . Honor your father and your mother8
Interestingly, God refers to the subsequent breaking of the first two of
these commandments in the context of sexual faithlessness. God speaks
to Moses, "these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign
gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the
covenant I made with them."$ During the reign of King Josiah, God
exclaim to the prophet Jeremiah,
Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She . . . has
committed adultery. . . . I thought . . . she would return to me but
she did not . she defiled the land and committed adultery with
stone and wood:lb
 Adultery and abandonment are significant events to the aggrieved human.

God apparently 'uses these metaphors to emphasize the seriousness of lack

of falthfulness or loyalty (of mortals to thelr delty) In famlllar

terms.

In the New Testament, the object of falthfulness and loyalty

expands to include more than deltles or people. Jesus responds to a

questioning disciple, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching."ll

The disciples were already in a superior/subordinate relationship with

. Jesus. This statement says that if they actually love Him then they
must also obey his teachings. Since the teachings of Jesus can easlly
be considered an entire philosophy, He is saying that they must be true
(loyal) to a doctrine which will become known as Christianity. Instead
of simple loyalty to a deity or person, the concept now includes loyalty
to an ideal.

hqllsh Ideas: Locke and Hobbes

Modem western democracies can trace political theory through

two hglishmen--John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Both of these men

formulated political theory based upon the nature of man (competitive

and self-centered) and how the idea of a "social contract" is the basis

for government. They differed slightly in detail, but the ideas were

largely the same. Locke felt strongly that one of the purposes of

government should'be the protection of personal property. In his

Treatise 11 he states,

Polltical power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with

penalties of death and, consequently, all less penalties for the

regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of

the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of

 the commonwealth from Xoreign injury, and a1 1 this only for the

public good.12

Thomas Hobbes approaches the subject from a more basic point of view.

Malham Wakin succinctly describes the contract as follows:

His [Hobbes] view of man in the Leviathan begins with the assumption
that all men are equal in the state of nature; that is, as they
appear in the world considered apart from any fonnal social or
political structure. In the primal condition, every man has a
equal right to everything and moral terms have no meaning. . . .
This natural condition of man is chaotic, savage, and marked by
violence. . . . Life for man in such conditions is "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short." But man is also endowed with reason
which ultimately leads him to conclude that if he is to survive, he
must seek peace with other men. He must give up his right to harm
other if he can persuade them to do likewise and enter into an
agreement, a social contract with them. However, the mere fact of
the existence of an agreement does not change human nature. It is
still the case that "of the voluntary acts of every man, the object
is some good to himself." So to guarantee that men will abide by
their agreements, tremendous powers must be granted to government
(the real leviathan) so that men will live up to their social
contact outof fear of punishment. . .. All laws passed by the
agreed-upon government become moral obligations; morality itself
rests on the agreement--it is man-made and not found either in
nature or in accordance with nature. Moral rules are legi~lated.~~
Loyalty in this sense, would be in obedience to the government.

However, the government is one which is agreed upon. Although it can be

argued that all governments exist at the express or implied consent of

the governed, the implication here is that the contract is freely

entered into, thereby establishing moral authority and, hence, loyalty.

The West Point Persuective

West point was the single common experience of the four subject

officers. This would not be so significant except that the school was

unlike that of any other in the world at the time. Unllke its

contemporaries of Ecole Polytechnique or Sandhurst, West Point had a

four-year program of instruction. President Andrew Jackson referred to

the Military Academy as "the best school in the world."14 There were

basically three reasons for such assertions. First, the Military

Academy had a strong emphasis on mathematics and engineering. This is

evident in the statistic that 78 percent of all academic failures from

1833 to 1854 were due to deficlencies in math. Second, admissions were

based on passing rigorous entrance exams. Each prospective candidate

took a battery of oral tests at a blackboard in front of thirteen Army

officers and the representative professor. The class of 1846 lost

thlrty of their 122 members to these exams in their first week at West

Point.15 Thlrd, the school had a reputation for bul lding character.

The Board of Visitors to the Academy in 1820 remarked: "The situation

at West Point is so favorable that there exists but few of the usual

temptatlons to vxce and dissipation."16 Under the system Instituted by

Sylvanus Thayer from 1817 to 1833, the Academy developed a program of

combined Spartan and Athenian values. Recognizing that the Athenian

ideal of knowledge was virtuous, the Academy also leaned heavily on

Spartan living conditions and discipline. The cadet's character was not

only developed through rigid adherence to regulations, but also through

mandatory attendance at chapel and classes in ethics.l7 The Board of

Visitors concluded in 1820 that:

In all ages, military seminaries have been nurseries from which have

issued the highest elements of character, and some of the most

conspicuous agents in the operation of society .I8

In this environment there were three frameworks of ethical

training taking place. Each of these filled a role in the development

of the cadet's personal ethics and ideas of loyalty.

 First, formal training came in the way of chapel services and

courses in moral science and moral philosophy.19 In the institution's

earller years (1821) the course content was proscribed generally as to

include natural a d political law.20 Later (l857), the detail was

expanded so as to read:

Ethics will include, lst, in its practical division, the duties,

vices, and passions: 2d, in moral science, the pursuit ,of the

highest good for each and all; the realization of excellence by

virtue, the fulfillment of obligations to God, the country, to

oneself and others; 3rd, in its applications, the connection of

ethical principles with the higher exercises in rhetoric, and with

the common basis of all law.21

Second, less formal trainlng took place by the interaction of

cadets with authorities in the system and compliance with written and

unwritten rules--a sort of ethical laboratory in which the officers and

instructors performed as role models and mentors. There was no written

honor c d e in existence at the time, but adherence to a professions:

code of honor was expected.

The cadet of that day, like his offlcer counterpart, was expected
not to steal or make false official statements and, if found guilty
of elther of these offenses, could be dismissed . . . the
authorities trusted cadets, and the later, for their part, upheld
that trust.22
At the time lying was considered an act of moral cowardice and an

inappropriate trait for a future Army officer.

The informal training occurring in the daily life of a cadet

gave rise indirectly to the third and perhaps most powerful agent in the

development of a loyalty concept. The comradeship of undergoing common

hardsiups is a tremendous factor in developing personal bonds. The

plebe (flrst) year at the Military Academy was purposely severe and

produced the side effect of strong devotlon between classmates. A

particularly illustrative example of this class loyalty was the system

of protecting a cadet who had been caught drinking. if the entire class

pledged to abstain from alcohol until graduation, the offender would

usually be retained. There is no recorded instance of a class faiiing

to save one of its classmates under this system.23 Over the course of

four years, such feelings could only become firmly ingrained in the

character of these young men. However, conflicting loyalties would

cause 3 0 4 ~of~ these

officers to resign their commissions and fight

against their former classmates in the coming Civil War.

Modem Thoushts on Military Loyalty

Several modem authors have specifically addressed matters

relating to loyalty in the military. Some of their ideas directly

correspond to this thesis.

Samuel P. Huntington

Huntington believes that "the supreme military virtue is

obedience."*5 A n officer is to be judged by the efficiency of carrying

out an order and by no other criteria. Concerning loyalty he states;

An officer corps is professional only to the extent to which its

loyalty is to the military ideal. Other loyalties are transient and
divisive. What appeals politically one day will be forgotten the
.
next. . . Within the military forces only military loyalty to the
ideal of professional competence is constant and unifying: loyalty
of the individual to the ideal of the Good Soldier, loyalty of the
unit to the traditions and spirit of the Best Regiment. . . . Only
if they are motivated by military ideals will the armed forces be
the obedient servants of the state26
Huntington does allow for conditions of disobedience, but only in cases

of clear immorality or violation of the law. He does not see the option

of a military professional disagreeing with natlonal policy as in the

following situation:

The commanding generals of the German army in the late 19301s,for

instance, almost unanimously believed that Hitler's foreign policies
would lead to national ruin. Military duty, however, required them
to carry out his orders: some followed this course, others forsook
.
the professional code to push their political goals. . . the
German officers who joined the resistance to Hitler . . . forgot
that it is not the function of military officers to decide questions
of war and peace.27
Samuel Huntington takes what could be termed a "black and white" view of

military loyalty and leaves very little room for conflict.

Sir John Winthrop Hackett

In a lecture at the U. S. Air Force Academy, Iiackett addressed

several issues which reflect directly upon defining the concept of

loyalty.

But in a constitutional monarchy, or a republic, precisely where

does the loyalty of the fighting man lie? In Ireland just before
the outbreak of World War I, there was a distinct possibility that
opponents of the British government's policy for the introduction
of home rule in Ireland would take up arms to assert their right to
remain united with England under the crown. But if the British army
were ordered to coerce the Ulster Unionists, would it obey? Doubts
apon this score were widespread and they steadily increased. As it
turned out, there was no mutiny, though the Curragh incident has
sometimes been erroneously described as such. The officers in a
cavalry brigade standing by on the Curragh ready to move into the
north of Ireland all followed their brigade commander's example in
offering their resignations from the service. The Curragh episode,
all the same, formed an unusually dramatic element in,an intrusion
by the military into politics which seriously weakened the British
government of the day and forced a change in its policy . . .it also
raised the question of where personal allegiance lay and raised it
more sharply than at any time since 1641, when the hard choice
between allegiance to the king and adherence to Parliament, in the
days of Thomas Hobbes, split the country in the mglish Civil War.28
Hackett contends that the ethical correctness of any disloyalty is

judged primarily by the consequences of the act and concludes the topic

with an appropriate quote from Sir John Harrington in the days of Queen

Elizabeth I, "Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it

prosper none dare call it treason."29

Michaei 0. Wheeler
Wheeler postulates that loyalty is a type of relationship

between entities and uses the illustration of the military superior to a

subordinate.

Like many other abstractions, loyalty is an often confusing, much

abused concept. . . . Whenever we speak of loyalty, we are speaking
of a two-object context: a context in which one gives loyalty and
another receives loyalty. Now, given this rather simple conceptual
picture, what we might focus our attention on is neither the giving
nor the receiving of loyalty but instead the inspiring of loyalty.
That is to say, put yourself in a commander's position aqd ask,
"What inspires men to be loyal to me?" Once the semantical issues
are sifted through, there will remain, I would suggest, a single
theme which forms the answer to that question. The theme is
"trust."30

Malham M. Wakin

Wakin alludes to loyalty as a form of making obligations and

also addresses the problem of conflicting obligations. He states,

. . . a freely given commitment generates one of the strongest moral

claims against the person who gives it whether that commitment be to
private individuals or to a larger segment of society. ...One
easily sees that promise-keeping is the kind of human act that can
be universalized andthat keeping one's word involves treating other
human beings as ends-in-themselves, beings with dignity whose worth
is recognized when our commitments to them are honored. . . . If one
is morally bound to keep his promises, then he takes on a moral
codtment to obey ... when he takes the military oath of office .
. . we are justifiedin violating one of our moral obligations just
when that obligation is in conflict with another, higher obligation
and the circumstances are such that we cannot fulfill both.31
Wakin continues to expound upon the problem of conflicting obligations

and provides the basis for making a decision in such circumstances.

 Our rule of action is ihat we are justified in violating our

universal moral obligations only when they conflict wjth a higher
obligation and we cannot fulfill both at once. Thus if one is t o m
between obedience to an order and fulfillment of another moral
obligation, he or she must judge which is the higher obligation in
those circumstances. Universal obligations are neither absolute nor
relative. They bind all human beings in analogous sets of
circumstances,.but they may conflict .32

The Basis for Loyalty in the Military

The U. S military's current foundation for loyalty is based on
the oath officers take upon commissioning. This oath reads:

I, , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the

United States, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support ind
defend the Constitutions of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reserve or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the'duties of the office upon which I am about to enter;
SO HELP ME GOD.33
Although loyalty is not expressly stated in the oath, it is ev~dentin
the phrase ". . . I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States . . . that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same" The terms support, defend, faith, and allegiance combine to give
a practicable meaning to the word loyalty. The very last words of the
oath, "SO HELP ME GOD," appeal to the highest possible authority to
oversee this commitment and in so doing, emphasize the gravity of the
statement. The implication is that the loyalty expressed in this oath
is binding in such a way as to make a violation a matter of divine
importance. In the recent past (1991), the Army has named loyalty as
being one of the four professional values of the Army ethic (the other
three being duty, integrity, and selfless service). This Army ethic is
described as "the informal bond of trust between the nations and its
soldiers." Further, "it sets standards by which we and those we serve
wi 11 judge our character and our performance." (italics added)34 The
Anny goes on to include in the definition of this standard such phrases
as ". . . an obligation to support and defend the Constitution . . .
suppoztingthe military and civilian chain of command . . . an
expression of the obligation between those who lea6, those who are led,
and those who serve alongside the soldier ... devotion to the welfare
of one's comrades .. ."(italics added). A1 though not defining, loyalty
to the nation, to the Anny, to the unit, and to the individual soldier
is spoken of as being essential.35

Lovaltv - An Operational Definition

For the purposes of this paper, the operational definition of

loyalty must consist of four components. The first is that loyalty is a

moral obligation based upon trust between two entities. This can range

.from the mutual trust felt between a superior and subordinate all the
way to a citizen's trust that the government will function as it should.
The second component is that there are a number of different objects to
which one can be loyal, such as self, people, ideals, governments, etc..
Third, there is a hierarchy of these objects which will determine which
takes precedence when two or more are in competition. And last, how an
individual sets up the hierarchy will almost automatically determine the
answer to (or actions associated with) any loyalty question.
This definition will be applied to the analysis of the four

subject officers and in the answer to the thesis question.

 . --

Endnotes
l ~ e b s t e r ' sNmth New Coileglate D l c.tionary, 1984 ed., s.v.
"Loyalty, Loyal ," 708.
2~bld.,460.

3~bld.,
446.

4~enesls9:9-19,

5~enesls17:4-14.
6~enesls22:2-18.

7~xodusi9:5-6.

S~xodus20 :3-12.
S~euteronomy31:16.

lCJeremiah 3 : 5-9.
ll~ohn14:23.

12~ichardB. Cox, Locke on War m d Peace (Oxford, G . B . : Ciarendon

Press, 1960), 82.
13aiham M. Wakin, gar, Morality, and the Profession of Arms,
Second ed., S.V. "The Ethics of Leadership 11," 202-203.
14~amesL. Morrison, Jr. , he Best School i n the World" (Kent,
Ohlo: The Kent State University Press, 1986), 27.
l5:ohn C. Waugh, The Class o f 1846 (New York: Warner Books, 1994),
13.

1630hn P. Lovell, Neither Athens nor Sparta? (Bioomington,

Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1979), 19.

20~eneralRegulations, General Regulations for the Army; or

Military Institutes (Philadelphia: M. Carey and Sons, 1821), 330.

21~eneralRegulations, Regulations for the U. S. Military Academy

(New York John F. Trow, 1857), 17.
 2 4 ~ 1lsworth Eliot, Jr., West Pomt i n the Confederacy (New York:
G. A. Baker & Co., 1941), x u .
25~amuelP. Huntington, The Soldier and the State (New York:
Vintage Books, 1957), 74.

28~irJohn Winthrop Hackett, War, Morality. and the Military

Profession, Second ed., 5.v. "The Military in the Service of the State,"
114.

30Michael 0. Wheeler, War, Morality, and the Profession o f Arms,

Second ed., 5.v. "Loyalty, Honor, and'the Modem Military," 174.
31~alhamM. Wakin, War, Morality, and the Profession o f Arms,
Second ed., 5.v. "The Ethics of Leadership I ," 189.

33FM 100-1, June, 1994 ed., 5.v. "Chapter 1 The Profession of

Arms," 11.
341N100-1, December 1991 ed. , s .v. "Chapter 4 The Profession of
Arms," 15.
 CHAPTER 3

THE GElERALS

This purpose of this chapter is to investigate the conditions

leading to the decision of John C. Pemberton, Robert E. Lee, Thomas J.

Jackson, and E. P. Alexander to fight for the Confederacy. The

ancestry, early life, West Point years, service experience, and the

events surrounding the decision of each officer will be addressed in

order.

John Clifford Pemberton

Ancestry

Ralph Pemberton departed Radcliffe Bridge, Lancaster County,

England with his son Phineas and family to escape religious persecution

and arrived in America in the year 1682 They were devoted £01 lowers

of William Penn the Quaker (Pennsylvania's namesaire), frequently

traveling in his company. In those times Quakers were distinguished by

their non-violent lifestyle, simple dress, and communal discipline.

Phineas' only suniiving son Israel eventually moved to Philadelphia and

became a successful merchant and community leader. Although an

acclaimed leader in the Quaker church, he began what was to become a

gradual religious liberalization of the Pemberton family by his purchase

of Clarke Hall, a mansion that would become known for its lavish

grounds. His son Israel Jr. was born in 1715 and carried on the family

31

business as well as continuing in the Quaker faith. He especially

embraced the pacifist doctrine while promoting peace with the local

Indians. This attitude continued with his opposition to the American

Revolution when he was jailed and then exiled from Pennsylvania. Israel
Jr.'s third son joseph was born in 1745, later marrying Sarah nrkbride
and further liberalizing the family with the introduction of social
dancing.* Their youngest son John (one of eight children and the future
father of the subject) was born in 1783. John married Rebecca Clifford,
the only child from a wealthy family of British and Dutch descent.
Rebecca was a practicing Quaker although of a decidedly liberal
persuasion. John, a Christian in principle, did not entirely embrace
Quaker doctrine and became the first of the American Pembertons to see
military service. He enlisted in the Pennsylvania volunteers during the
war of 1812 but saw little, if =y, combat action. After the war John
traveLed widely while earning his living as a land speculator. During
his journeys he met and befriended Andrew Jackson from whom he later
received an appointment as naval officer for the district of
~hiladel~hia.3

Early Life

John ~lif£ordPemberton was born on August 10, 1814, the second

son o f thirteen children.4 He was a typical boy of the times--active,

rowdy, and tended to behave impulsively. He spent much time with his

older brother (by fifteen months) Israel and their friendship continued

throughout their lives. Their fathers' frequent absences led to

numerous admonitions by mil that were taken to heart by both boys.

They were advised to be kind, obedient, and polite, especially to their

mother, and urged to read thelr Blbles. Soon the boys needed a proper

education. Their mother enrolled them in a private academy where John

excelled in exposition, Latin, and French, but complained about grammar

and geography. As John grew older he thrived in the environment of

Philadelphia, a city well known for its ties with the southern states.

The populace of the city had strong patriotic feelings and John

occasionally reenacted battles with his friends. The sentiments of

slavery excited and polarized strong emotions in the city. White

resistance to the antislavery movement resulted in the burnlng of an

abolitionist headquarters in 1838. John, meanwhile, concerned hlmself

with the more immediate issue of his own education. He prepared for and

entered the University of Pennsylvania in 1831 after some difficulties

with the entrance exams (he was deficient in Greek). During this time

John began to consider the possibilities of entering West Point. Some

influential friends of the family recommended him to the Secretary of

War Lewis Cass, but John eventually asked for and received an
appointment directly from President Andrew Jackson. After completmg
two years at the University of Pennsylvania, John, the "flve-foot, ten-
and-a-half-inch tall . . . handsome boy wlth black curly hair; genial,
companionable . . . with a decided talent for drawing and painting,"
departed for the U. S. Military Academy at West Point on the Hudson
river.5

 West Polnt

Malor Rene de Russy was the supermtendent in 1833, the year

John entered the Academy. Malor de Russy was considered a somewhat lax

dlsclplinarian, a factor that may have contributed to John's pleasure m

his new surroundings. However, the academic rigors of West Point proved

challenging to young John as he managed to maintain a standing only

slightly above average. He excelled in drawing and French, but his math

classes left much to be desired. Dennis Hart Mahan taught math and

engineering at the time and was not too popular with the cadets.fi

John's parents constantly critiqued his grades and his accumulated

demerits. Thls family friction was cause for numerous heated exchanges

(by mail) and hls mother even suggested he quit if he could not improve.

John showed his tenacity by hls reply,

I would rather have my hand cut off tomorrow and I beg you wlll not

speak to me of it again. i would not resign wlth my own wlll if you

could glve me twenty thousand dollars for doing so.

Perhaps John's parents had correctly assumed that his soclal llfe and

frequent attendance at parties were having a negative influence on his

grades. Although blckerlng was frequent, John was very close to the

rest of the Pemberton fanuly, especially his brother Israel and slster

Anna. During thls time the territory of Texas rebelled against Mexico

and several cadets' left to fight in the conflict. John might have gone

also but he deferred to the wishes of his family. He wrote to his

sister "I would not be doing my duty to my parents or properly returning

their affection." Not surprisingly, John's thoughts often centered on

women. He entertained them whenever possible and in the summer of 1836

(between his junior and senior years) met an attractive sixteen-year-old

from New york City, Angeline Stebbins. After only a three-day

acquaintance they determined to make their relationshp permanent as

soon as practicable after John graduated. Both of thelr familles

disapproved, but they were young and in love and detemned to have

their way. John, however, incurred professional difficulties that

nearly ended his military career. While on duty as orderly,-liquorwas

discovered in the barracks and John was arrested for violating

regulations. He professed innocence and refused to testlfy against

other classmates who were also charged. John's father naturally

chastised him for not doing his duty to which he replied,

I am sorry, very sorry, you think me wrong--but I repeat that I

would suffer any disgrace that a court-martial could inflict on me
before I would commit an action which has far more disgrace to it in
my opinion than if I were twenty times dismissed from this .
institution8

John's loyalty to his friends took precedence over the form all cadets

signed promising to obey regulations. The entire class signed a

petition vowing not to drink for the remainder of their cadet days and

(recently promoted) Colonel de Russy dropped all charges. This incident

was not atypical of cadet friendships at the Academy. During his cadet

days John's best friend was another Philadelphia youth, George Meade.

George was two years his senior and John would never again have such a

close friend. John Pemberton graduated from West Point in 1837, twenty-

seventh out of a class of fifty. He never lost his affection for this

school on the Hudson river.

 Service Years

Second Lieutenant 2oi-n Pemberton was comissioned into the

Fourth Regiment of the U. S. Artillery and assigned to Fort Hamilton on
Governor's Island, New york.1° This allowed him to continue his
courtship of Angeline and arouse further displeasure from his mother
over the issue. The problem soon fell victim to national events as John
was transferred to Florida to participate in the Seminole wars. He saw
considerable activity and became quite homesick, but his interest in
Angeline began to wane. John managed a short visit home where Angeline
expressed her displeasure with his absence and pushed for his
resignation from the Army. John contended that the Army was his
profession and he had no intention of leaving it.11 On his return to
Florida he was given the command of an ordnance depot. During this time
he became very interested in his fankly's plans to buy property in
Virginia. He even told them that he would like to become a Virginian by
adoption. His relationship with Angeline continued to decline when he
met another woman and rapidly decided that he would like to marry her
instead. John attempted to get his father to break his engagement with
Angeline, but John flnally wrote and told her that they should annul the
engagement for reasons other than his affection for her. T h s nearly
caused her brother to challenge John to a duel. Meanwhle the new
girlCs father, an Army captain, threatened to dlsown her if they
continued to see each other and the affalr died. Fortunately for John,
he was transferred to Fort Washington, New Jersey, where he would be
much closer to the stabilizing in£luence of his family . I 2 He spent a
considerable amount of time with his family and obtained a new, although
less serious, girlfriend. His hcmecoming was relatively short lived and

he received a new posting to Mackinac Island, near Detroit, on the

Canadian border. Frontier life did not agree with John and he slipped

into financial troubles while entertaining more ladyfriends (presumably

from the Detroit area). In a letter home to hls mother he states,

I am extravagant to excess, even when i know I ought not to spend a

cent beyond the absolute necessities I require, & yet at this moment
I have not even a decent suit of clothes to show for my money. I
throw away In a moment without thinking all that i owe & should send
to you. I am disgusted with myself . I 3
At this time he did not think very highly of the opposite sex and spoke

of them to his sister, "the more I see of women generally, the less I

think of them. Marriage seems to be the sole object of their

thoughts."14 Relief came in 1842 when he was transferred to Fort

Monroe, Virginia. He was again close to home and became involved in the

social life of the region. Here he met Martha Thompson (nicknamed

Pattie) the daughter of a wealthy Norfolk shipping family. She easily

captivated John and (even though she was aware of his fonner female

liaisons) they were soon engaged. However marriage would not come

quickly.

Troubles with Mexico brought orders to Texas and John departed

for Corpus Crlsti. The political maneuvers between the U, S . and
Mexico took much time and John earnestly wrote his family encouraging
them to make Pattle feel welcome. When war came he accompanied the m a m
force to Matamoros and fought in the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de
la Palma. Even though surrounded by the horrors of war, he was
exiularated by the experience. He wrote to h s father, "I really llke
t h s part of my profession better than any other. I would not have
missed the two fights for the world, nor will I any more that are to

come if I can help it ."15 He was breveted to :he rank of captain for

gallantry at Monterrey, but as the war began to drag on he became

homesick and wished for the war to end. His anxiety worsened with the

prolonged illness and death of his father inearly 1847. General

Winfield Scott launched his campaign for Mexico City in the spring and

John served as aide-de-camp to division commander General William Worth.

Perhaps he was still upset over his father's death or maybe the pressure

of his job was weighing heavily for he had several confrontations with

his commander and submitted his resignation. Things improved, however,

and he withdrew his resignation. Sometime during this campaign, a story

concerning John reached another young officer, Ulysses S. Grant. Many

years later he recalled the episode:

A more conscientious, honorable man never lived. I remenber when a

general order was issued that none of the junior officers should be
allowed horses during the marches, Mexico is not an easy country to
march in. Young officers not accustomed to it soon got foot-sore.
This was quickly discovered, and they were found lagging behind.
But the order was not revoked, yet a verbal permit was accepted, and
nearly all of them remounted. Pemberton alone said, 'No,'he would '

walk, as the order was still extant not to ride, and he did walk,
though suffering intensely the while. . . . Yes, he was scrupulously
particular in matters of honor and integrity.16
John was breveted to major for his actions around Molino del Rey. About

this time he leamed that his youngest sister Sarah had dled of

consumption--the same illness which took his father. As the war again

wound down he became despondent and feared that it would never end. He

was arrested as part of a letter writing scandal (several generals had

written various letters, each making claims as to their roles during the

war) but later released. He finally returned to the east coast in

December of 1847 .17

John promptly married Pattie in January of1848 hut none of his

family attended the wedding. Pattie later said that perhaps the in-laws
were hesitant about having a southern girl in the family. However the
Penbertons soon grew to appreciate the good influence Pattie was having
on John. She insisted on responsible money management and her mother-
in-law wrote to son Israel, "She is the very woman for him aid we all
love her more every time we have her here."18 John meanwhile remained
as General Worth's aide, traveling often and incurring numerous
expenses. Pattie quick1y became pregnant &d experienced a difficult
delivery. She was ill for several weeks before delivery and went into a
coma. The baby died before Pattie regained consciousness. Shortly
thereafter John's sister Mary also died. John did not have long to
dwell on these things as he was ordered to the frontier post of San
Antonio, Texas. Upon arrival he decided that he could not bring Pattie
to such an austere environment and so requested w d received a transfer
back to Norfolk, Virginia enroute to Florida. John and Pattie lived in
several locations and their daughter Martha was born at Fort Brooke in
Tampa Bay on January 14, 1850. Next they were sent to New Orleans where
John was put in command of Jackson Barracks and subsequently promoted to
captain. During this time John had the opportunity to observe slavery
first hand and made comments of the institution in several letters home,
referring to slaves as "lazy plantation negroes" and stating "the more I
see of slavery the better I think of it."19 Transfers came again, first
to Fort Hamilton, New York, and then to Fort Washington on the Potomac.
 There they had servants, mcluding a black cook glven to Pattle by her

father as a glft. Pattle often attended church while John baby-sat and

soon another daughter, Mary (named after John's deceased sister) was

born. John heard much of polltlcs-inWashington and commented in

particular on a tour by Hungarian rebel Louis Kossuth--" I have never

been more disgusted in my life with the impudence of this country than I

have since his presence in it."20 John considered him a traitor to the

legitimate government of Hungary and felt the U. S. was wrongly

. supporting him. The family was transferred back to Fort Eiamilton where
there first son was born in January of 1853. John frequently prayed
during these anxious births and, although he did not care much for
organized religion, believed in a supreme being. The year 1853 would
see many trials coming to the young family, the first being an attempted
assassination of John by a disgruntled soldier. Next two nephews died
within days of each other followed later by another nephew. His own
two-year-old daughter Mary died in September and both John and Pattie
contracted prolonged illnesses during the summer. Then John had a
conflict with a senior officer and was arrested for insubordination, a
charge which was soon dropped.*l The situation gradually improved and a
son was born in December 1853 followed a few years later by another son
in 1856.
John was transferred back to Florida to deal with Seminole
problems and then to Fort Leavenworth to participate in the Utah
expedition against the Mormons. The family moved also and Pattie didn't
care'much for frontier life, although their older children had fond
memories of life in the West. Their seventh child, Anna, was born in

40

1858, just in time to accompany the family to their new posting of Fort

Ridgely, Minnesota in 1859. Life in the northern territories was fairly

monotonous and routise with little to offer in the way of socializing or

creature comforts. With slow mail and the isolation of Minnesota, the

worsening political situation in the country must not have seemed very

real. The John Pemberton family soon would be caught up in these events

when John's regiment was recalled to Washington, D.C. in 18E1.22

The Decision

John was assigned in Washington, D. C. when Fort Sumter was

fired on by secessionist troops in Charleston, South Carolina. Patty

and the children had proceeded to Norfolk. The reason for this is not

documented ai-~dopen to speculation, but clearly Patty intended to reside

in Virginia regardless of the state's status in the Union. The

situation in some northern cities became feverish and mobs frequently

sought out suspected southern sympathizers; giving them the choice of

flying the Stars and Stripes or having their homes razed.23 On the 15th

day of April, Israel penned the following to John:

I think if you were here a little while, you would feel that you and

your ancestors were Pennsylvanians, and that your destiny, in case

of a dissolution of the general government should be wlth Penn.

Governments may chan e but to our country we owe I think a never

swerving allegiance.3.4

On the same day Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down

the insurrection in the South. Israel attended a party that night and

heard rumors that John had already resigned. He added a postscript to

the letter (as yet not mailed) urging his brother to remain loyal and

adding ominow threats that if he defected to the South all would

consider him a traltor and he would never be able to come home agaln.

He told him that, "You wouldn't even have the poor apology of your state

going out of the union for forsaking the government and laws you've

sworn to protect.''25 Gn the 17th of April Virgiaia seceded from the

Union. This did not, however, cause John to resign immediately. Chi the
19th of April he received orders to seize steamers along the Potornac

river which he promptly carried out. Perhaps the dilemma John Pemberton

faced can be understood best in a 1ett.er written by his mother to

another daughter-in-law on the 23rd of April 1861:

Yours of the 20th, dear Carry, has just come to me and though I

wrote to you yesterday, yet I know you are both anxious to hear all.

Your husband got home this morning, but alas he brings but faint

hopes--he says that nothing but John's affection and feeling for us,

prevents him from resigning--his ideas of duty and honor are all the

other way, and he is perfectly honorable and open in all he does--

his feelings are well known to his brother officers--if your husband

had not goneto him, he would probably have resigned this first

night he got there--but he begged and pleaded with him, telling him

how we ail should suffer if he did it, and he has postponed it for

the present--at least did not act upon it while he was there--&

long as he remains, he will do he says, anything he is ordered to,

excepting going to attack and fire upon Norfolk--if he is ordered to

do that, he would resign at once--he is perfectly willing to stay

and protect "Wash.," in which he sars the Government is right. The

first day John got there, he was sent for to the War Department and

received orders to go and seize some steamboats, which were at the

wharves--he collected his men, mar-hed them some distance off and

then ordered them to load their muskets, and told them what it was

they were going to do, and if anybody opposed them, they were to

fire upon them--they set off in a quick run, jumped on board the

boats---JO& seized the rudder and the boats were theirs--he was

selected for this service, expressly to try him, he knew it--and was

perfectly willing to perform any duty, except going to Norfolk--John

is most dreadfully distressed and worried, on our account--for his

heart and views are that the South is right and we are wrong--he

says Patty's family (that of his wife) have never spoken or written

on the subject to him--but while your husband was there a letter

came to John from Patty, in which she says 'My darling husband, why

are you not with us? Why do you stay? Jeff Davis has a post ready

for youw--in answer John spoke of the hard position he was in and

enclosed the letter which I had written to him, in order that his

family might see what a sore thing it was for him, so to grieve us

 all--your husband alsowrote to Patty, in which he used every

argument to convince her what a serious thing it would be for :oh-''3
future',and besought her to advise him remaining with the
Government. "I
have been more wretched in this horrid state of suspense than words
can tell. I feel that if this grief a?d mortification must come
upon me, that I must accept it, and submit to it--we have done all
we can--Johnfirmly believes it would be the most honorable and
right--'tis only for us he hesitates. . "I have.a great fear now,
that so many of the officersknowing John's sentiments, they may
take some summary steps with him, and dismiss him before he resigns.
Of the two cases, that would be the worst. Some begin to think that
after all.,there may be no fighting--pray Heaven it may be so. "Do
let me hear soon again--love to Harry Your poor worried MO'I'HEX"~~
On the 24th of April 1861, John Pernberton submitted his resignation as a

captain in the A m y of the United States. However, General Winfield

Scott delayed the paperwork and requested an explanation in person.

During the next several days Scott offer4 him a Colonel's commission if

he would remaln, and he learned that hls younger brothers Clifford and

Andrew had joined the Philadelphia City Troop, a cavalry unit loyal to

the Union. In spite of these developments, John persisted in hrs

co~victionsand departed for Xichond and the Connfederacy.

Edward Porter Alexander

Ancestry

Edward's ancestral roots began in Georgia prior to the Pmerican

Revolution. His father Adamserved as a surgeon's mate in the Second

Georgia infantry during the war of 1812 and was captured and interred by

the British. After the war he acquired land and slaves in Liberty

County, Georgia and prospered as a planter and eventual banker. He

attended Yale (where he met his future wife) and became a model

"southern gentleman planter" typical of the aristocracy in the southern

states. He embraced the Presbyterian denomination and habitually read

the Greek New Testament daily. Adam felt that part of his Chr:stian
duty was ensuring that he did not trifle away his God given talents and
ir, this he was quite successful. He was particularly credited with
having a profcmd sense of integrity coupled with a transparent
personality. This made Adam well liked by virtually all of his
acq~aintances. His views were conservative and, although he did not
involve himself personally, he followed politics as a matter of good
business.27
Edward's mother Sarah traced her family roots to the Hillhouses
of Connecticut and the Giiberts of Virginia. Members of these families
moved to Georgia in the late 1700's and pursued livelihoods as merchants
and planters. Sarah was orphaned while quite young and was raised by
her grandmother. This Presbyterian woman had strlct ideas of discipilne
and duty which would impact deeply on Sarah's personality. Sarah
received.her education in New Haven, Connecticut, where she met Adam
while he was at Yale. A perfectionist, Sarah would never consider
herself worthy as a wife or mother, even though the evidence all
indicates otherwise. She was physically small (about 100 pounds) a ~ ~ d
plagued by numerous illnesses of which she eventual1y succumbed.28
Adam and Sarah were married in 1823 and moved to a plantation

inherited by Sarah. They worked well as a team in managing two

plantations while rearing their ten children. They manifested a deep

devotion to each other which was readily apparent to the children.

Their letters contain frequent expressioi?s of this relationship. Sarah

once wrote,

 i am sure I shall be happler, my dear husband, when you come back

than I have ever been ln my llfe, for i gave only now fully found

how necessary your presence is to my happiness, and how dependent I

am on you for a1 1 my enjoyments.29

Slmllarly, Adam penned,

How soon does a short absence convlnce me that my entire earthly

happiness rests upcn you. 'vJ~chyou, 1s embarked my all--& without

yo^, I am nothing.j0

Along with their 'example of personal relationship, Adam and Sarah

provided a home emphasizing their own tenets of discipline and
education. This homelife would naturally have varied effects on all of
the Alexander children.

Early Life

Edward Porter Alexander was born on 26 May, 1835 as the sixth of

an eventual ten children. As a boy he was ardently devoted to shooting
and fishing. He spent much time with two elderly men who mentored him
in these two activities. Seventy year old Frank Colley was a constant
fishing companion.31 Edward was similariy schooled in the arts of
hunting by the elderly James Dyson. His devotion to these two pursuits
was so intense that he became rebellious towards the system of authority
at an early age. Edward resented religion for its infringement upon his
freedom. At nine years of age he ran away from home with the idea of
subsisting on trapping and hunting but only lasted a day in the nearby
woods before returning home with hunger pangs.32
Edward received the finest education that circumstances would
allow in rural Georgia. His father had earlier enlisted Sarah Brackett
of Massachusetts (who later married a Boston preacher noted for writing
a response to Uncle Tom's Cabin entitled A South Side V i e w of Slavery)
t3 tutor Edward's older sisters. Later :he hir~ldDr. A. E4. Sc~ddeiof

Vermont .md then RiiSseli Weight ^if Easthamst.on' Massachusetts to

instruct the boys in the 5uiidamentais as they c a m af age..33 The idea
of secession first came to Edwardocn the ba-&I. of the Litti2 River in
1319. Frar3;.Coiiey explained the feelins; of the time a 2 Edward iater

penned, "the pang the ldea sent through me, & my thlnking that I wouid
rather lose my gun--my dearest possession on earth--than see it

happen."34 Hls antl-secession sentiments continued untl 1 an lncldent

which oczxred durlnq aii electlon of de;e.jates for a state convention.

Edward strongly supported the unronist delegate. In hls words,

My feelings were so much eniisted that i got. into a quarrel with two
of the "town" boys, Jim Hester & Een Kappeli, which came very near
ruining. my life. I was told that these two had aimed themselves
..-, . , pistois
,
?
W L ~ 5 intended to ship me, I borrowed an old "pepper-box"
revolver from our "cverseer," S o h Eldson, loaded it heavily, & got
6 special "Walker's Antic3rosive Caps" for the nipples, instead of
the conunon "G.D.'s." It would be too long to detaii the quarrel,
but, indignant at belng buiiied by two older & larger boys, i at
last came into collision with Jim Eester. He struck me over the
head with a light "skinny-stick," breaking it. I drew my revolver
& , aiming at his breast, pulled the trigger. It snapped failing to
explode the cap. Hester drew a single barrel pistoi, while i tried
ancther barrel, which also snapped. This serond failure nade me
think that t5e Walker caps were inade of copper too thick for the
hammer of my pistol, & that all six barrels would fail. At the same
tlme--while he had drawn a pistoi, Hester paused a moment, & made no
motion to aim or fire at me. 'Phis made me pause in the very act of
pulling the trigger for a third trial: for I thought that if I
continued to try to shoot, it would make him shoot, & that my pistol
wouid continue to fail on account of my thick caps while h s might.
not. I therefore stopped pulling on the trigger & waited to see
what he would do. IXI this other boys ran in & took both of our
pistols away. Someone said to the boy who took mine, "See if that
pistol is loaded." He raised it over his head & pulled the trigger
for the 3rd barrel (it was a self cocker). This time it went off
loud 6 clear. . . . But gratitude to a Providence which saved me so
narrowly from a calamity which would have ruined my whole.life, has
led me ever since to avoid & eschew politics, as too prolific of
quarrels for one who, likemyself, is liable to become reckless of
consequences when in a passion.35
 .
Edward was rifteer. years old at the time.

Attending West Faint vas paramouz?t in Edward's ambitions from

his earliest recoi:ections. This may have been due in large part to the
marrlagns of two of his sisters ts West Point graduates. His father
initially fromed on the idea but acquiesced during the s'mer of 1850
upon the urging of hls new son-in-law Lt. Alexander Lawten and future
son-ln-law Lt. Jeremy Gilmer. Edward and his father agreed that if
E&dard would promise to study hard enough to receive a commission ln the
engineers, then he would grart his blessing to the venture.j6 %I
appointment was difficult to obtain and Edward spent the zext two years.
preparing a d hoping for admission. He spent the winter of 1852-53 with
the iawtons (stationed in Savannah) studying French and drawing.
Finally, in late spring of 1853, he bid his family farewell in Fairfield
and 5egan his ;ourney towards Xest. %ink tkie i i f s of a cadet.

West P~int

At h i s entrance physical, Edward Porter Alexander weighed 1%

polixis and stcod 5 feet 3.5 inches tall . j 7 The new discipline had a
marked effect on Edward and, after a visit in July, his brother Felix
commented on Edward's newly acquired restraint and self control. He
overcame the homesickness common to new cadets and compensated by
perfirming his duties to exacting standards. Edward lived up to his
agreement with his father and placed 4th out of the 58 left in his class
(they began with 99) at the end of the first year.38 His parents were
concerned with his spiritual life, however, and admonished him to
perform his religious readings and contemplation daily and especially to
Chaplain Sprole wrote in a ietter tz Sarah:
His whole character is above reproach. All who h o w him speak
weil of him. And we regard hiir.,as one of the few about whose
:hr:stia? character. "ere : s no doubt. . . . This is net flattery.
: tak? great pieasure in writing it, for i believe it to be strictly
true.' 9
Edward's quest for class ranking turned to excess and he took to
studying iong after taps which brought a quick rebuke from his parents.
His mother wrote, "You must not feel that we expect so much from you
that you must overtax yourself, & incur the risk of a broken
" 40 His mother did not foiiow her own advlce and aftsr a
constitut;t;nn.
visit to the Academy (where she lay bedridden for 6 weeks) Sarah
Alexander died in February of 1855. The following ;-ox &?derstmdab1y
was not easy for Edward. He quarreied ;-ith a professor and a c c ~ ~ l a t e 2
zxneruus demerits. That sme:, however, Z%ard was aSle to take :he
ions awaited first furlough home. Here he awakened to the c h a m of t:?
fair sex and was temporarily smitten by Miss h i i e Church but as she did
not return his affection the relationship died in infancy.41 The next
year was bittersweet as he attained the rank of orderly sergeant but
distanced himself from his friends as he carried out his duties. His
attempted disciplining of the freshman Fitzhugh Lee brought censure from
the entire senior class.42 During the spring of 1856 fights broke out
between northern and southern cadets over the Issue of slavery and
states' rights. Edward backed hls southern classmates. He had shown
such sentiments earlier as a cadet and hls mother had reprimanded him by
letter before she died. She wrote:

 These extreme prejudices are unworthy of liberal i en!i$htened

winds, and are es2eciaily ~mbecorninc:one who has piedged himself to
ssrj-e the 7r~;ntryas a w,& is therefzre receiving an &;cation
from the
Edward was appointed a cadet captam for hls senlor year and agaln
becane interesred ; r ~fsmale companlonshlp that sprlng. His father had
heard zancrs of such that wlnter and inqu~red6xa?ptov:ngiy. Edward
assured hlm that the relatlonshlp (wlth a minister's daughter) was on!;-
a passing friendship. His father took a dim view of the possibility of
Edward becoming entangled with the fairer sex and wrote:
The increase in pay for the army is pretty respectable, I will
now afford you a fine 5 iiberai support, with means tc lay up a
ii:tle ever;: year, unless you are foolish enough to throw yo..---="
-La-A l

away in a marriage d fix your nose to a g r i n d ~ t o n e . ~ ~

Edward had no imnediate ideas along these i m e s aridtended to FLS
studies. He graduated in June of 1857 3rd in his class and received a
conmission as a second lieutenant in the elite corps of e~gineers.

Servlce Years

Edward's flrst assignment was as an assistant instructor 35

practicai military engineering. For three years he remained at West

Point excepc for two six month special details. His first deparvxe

from the Academy was in response to what became known as the "Mormon

War" in ~ t a h .Although
~ ~
the war ended before his detachment arrived.

Edward thoroughly enjoyed the adventure of scouting a new route to Fort

Bridger and hunting antelope, wolves, and'buffalo. He returned to West

Point and, during the following summer of 1859, met Bettie and Gussie

Mason who had come north from Virginiafor the summer. Edward and

Bettie wickly became more than friends and by the end of the s m e r

became engaged. Edward's father was not consulted on the matter and a

49

temporary rift developed over the : s ~ u e . ~in~ October

he uas assigned
to another special duty, this time investigating a new system of
military signaling which eventuai 1 resulted in the establishment of the
siqnai carp. This work requlred h s presence in the nation's capital
and poiitical sentiments over the sectional conflict were jrcwing
feverish. He wrote his father:
If it does come to war, you will have one son in it from the

commencemer,t, bearing a musket in the ranks if nothing else 5 if

Seaard is President, his first act shall be signing my

resignation."

In March of 1350 his father finally relented on the marriage issue and

gave award and Bettie his blessings. They were married April 3rd at

"Cleveland," the estate of her mcle in King George County, Virginia.48

Within a week of their return to West Point Edward received

orders to report to Fort Steilacoom in Washington Territory. He had
expected some sort of new assignment and had even been requested by the
Amy's new signal corps officer to be assigned to join him in New
Mexico. %t Fkiward did not care for making personal decisions and
preferred to be told what to do. As he explained to his father, he
hesitated to decide "because i did not like to assume any responsibility
in placing myself in a situation where so much would be risked by & upon
me."49 He proceeded with his bride (and their combined house girl/cook
Anne7 by side wheel steamer through Panama and arrived at Steilacoom
City on the 20th of September 1860. Although they were given the ship's
bridal suite from Panama to San Francisco, Bettie developed a fever and
remained ill for the rest of the trip.50 The post was a virtual utopia
for Edward. Post life was not taxing and the virgin territory abounded
 wlth all manner of game ar,d f ~ s h . Llfe could hardly have been more

idyllic for the young newlyweds and he later wrote of the time:

8,
NeveY to, or during that time, did I begin to realize what care &
responsibility may mean. I had a position for life, & an assured
suppmt in the profession I laced; .5 ; had 3317 to set the most
pleasure that I could out of my surrmndings . . . my company duties
were very iight, & i had ple~tyof time for shooting, fishlnq,
playing chess, & for social pleasures.
But the clouds of war loomed on the horizon and the honeymoon would soon

The Decision

Events in the East were gathering headway and most of the post

inhabitants met each bearer of news (of events at least three weeks old)

with anxiety. Edward, however, seemed unconcerned. He later wrote:

I took but iittle interest in politics. if the South seceded she

would want an army & I would . . . secure a place in it. If there
was peace that was well & good: & if there was war I would see
active service, which was even better. So i troubied my head not ai
- 7 1 abo~twhat. they did in the Zast.52

However, he had written to his sister in November:

We suppose from the latest news that Lincoln is elected, &id 1 5 33 I

hope and expect to be called in to help secede. . . . If he is
elected I believe the interests of humanity, civilization, and seif-
preservation call on the South to secede, and I'll go my arm, leg,
or death on it.53
Tensions continued to mount--February brought news that Georgia had

seceded, and in March Edward received orders back to West Point. Edward

penned later:

.,
Of course as soon as the news of the secession of Georgia reached us

at Fort Steilacoom, some three of four weeks after the event, i knew
that i wouid finally have to resign from the U . S. Army. But I did
not believe war inevitable & I felt sure I could get a place not
inferior in a Southern army, & I really never realized the gravity
of the situation. As soon as the right to secede was denied by the
North I strongly approved of its assertion & maintenance by force if
 necessary. And being young & ambitious in my professllon i was
anxious to take my part in everything going on.54

Edward and Bettie (and h i e ) departed Fort Steilacoom on April 9th

A x g with others of the command ostensibly enroute for West Pcint.

Edk-ar2 had ?lamed on resigning once he had ret~rnedk the East coact
=id thereby save the expense of the trip. However, he L-ecei;.ed new
orders when they arrived in San Francisco assigning him to Lt. James

McPherson on Alcatrazlsland for the construction of fortifications.

Real:cir.g the problem thls wouid ca7usewlth h s plans, went to McPherson

and asked if he xould forward his resicmation and give him a leave of

absence, thereby allowing his further passage at government expense. In

later years Edward recalled the response in vivid detail:

if you must go I will do all I can to facilitate your going. But

don't go. These orders, sent by pony express to stop you here, are
meant to say tc you that if you wLsh to keep out of the war whi'ch is
coming you can do so. You will ?.ot be required to go into the field
asainst your own peopie, but wlli be kept out on tnis coast on
for-tificationduty . . . this is not going to be any 90 days or six
;nont,b affair as some of the politicians are predicting. Both sides
are in ,deadly earnest . . . & [to be] fought out to the bitter end .
. . you are sure to be put in the front ranks & where the fighting
wiil be hardest. God only knows what may happen to you
individuaily, but for your cause there can be but one possible
result. It must be iost . . . the individual risks you must run . .
. are very great.' On the other hand, if you stay out here you wi!!
soon be left the ranking & perhaps tLe only engineer officer or. the
Pacific Coast . . . you will get promotion . . . you will have
cKarge of all the goverment reservaticns . . . buy a flock of sheep
. . . and in £.ox years you will be a rich man . . . you will be
able to make good investments. . . . in short, remaining here you
have every opportunity for professional reputation, for promotion &
For wealth. Going home you have every personal risk to run & in a
cause foredoomed to failure.55
Edward recalled his reply as follows:

My people are going to war. They are in deadly earnest, believing

it to be for their liberty. If I don't come and bear my part, they

will believe me to be a coward. And I shall not know whether I am

or not. I have just got to go and stand my chances.56

 .
So Edward returned to his room. There, while Bettie wept, .
ne wrote out

his resignation, dating it for the 1st of May 1 8 6 1 . ~Then

~
Ekard, and

his vife of just over a year, left for their fut.ure with the

Confederacy.

Thomas Jonathan Jackson

Amestry

The Jackson's had their orlglns in the lowlands of Scotland.58

Poss;bly due to re!:g;ous pressure, they moved to Ulster In Northern
Irelaiid and from there to London. The family came upon hard times
leaving 2 o h 2ackscn ar, arphain at an early age. Then, as a yomg nan.
he emigrated to America in 1748. In Maryland Jokii met and married
another orpha~frsn ior.don, Elizabeth ~ ~ u m m i n sBy
. ~1769
~ they had

estabiished a family and obtained a claim of ground aiong the Buckinanricc

River near the future site of Weston, West ~irginia.~' Jokii's Sco:c:?-

irish heritage left little room for loyalty to the British and he with

sons Edward and John G. fought for Arnerlcan independence in the

Revolutionary War. After the war John prospered and acqulred iarge

tracts of land. Hls son Edward continued the growrng aff:uence of the

Jackson name, serving in the Virsinia Legislature and acting as comity

surveyor. John G.'s marriage to Dolly Madison's sister Mary Payre

ensured permanent connections to Virginia aristocracy.61

Edward's son Jonathan attended the Randolph Academy in

Clarksburg, read law under his uncle John G. 62 and, at the age of 20,
was admitted to the Harrison County bar in 1 8 1 0 . ~He
~ briefly held the

job of Federal Collector of Internal Revenue for the Western Virginia

 distrizt. Durlng the War sf i

8
: Jonathon formed and was eiec~ed

lieutenant of a troop of cavalry although they saw nc service. After

the war he was a charter officer of the Masonic Lodge x Sarksbxg. -.

ne
had earlier metJulia Beckwith Neale while attending the Naie Academy in
Parkersburg and they were married on September 28, 1817. Juiia had deep
roots in Virginia--ner ancestor Thomas Neale was commissioned Royal
Patent Postmaster of all the colonles in i692.64 Like her new husband,
Julia was uncommonly well educated. Jonathan promptiy b u i l t he:- a thr??
room brick cottage in Ciarksburg and their first child, Eiizabeth, was
born in 1813. Thelr second child, Warren, was horn tc them ic :an;iary,
1821. Thomas Y'ackson came into the world on the 2ist of J m ~ a r y ,i824.
8;.ihlas named after his grandfather Thomas Weaie aiid would later add his
middle name Jonathon in honor 05 his father.

Early Life

Thornas' famiiy soon fel i upon hard times while he was stil i a

toddler. Fever (probably typhoid) struck the Jacksons in 1826. Seven

year old Elizabeth became ill and in less than a month both her and her

. father Zonathon were dead. The day after jonathon died Y'ulia gave jirth
to Laura Ann Jackson.65 Althouqh Jonathon had a good income, he also
left many debts and the family was left without money or assets. They
moved into a small cottage with the help of the local Masons and Julia
tookin sewing and taught school, despite offers of relatives to provide
financiai help. Four years later she married a lawyer, Captain Blake
Woodson, and moved with him to the smali settlement of Ansted. Her
health deteriorated and the new couple did not have the means to care
for the children so the decision was made to h m e them stay with
relatives for the time being. Thomas, now six years old, ran and hid in
the woods when an uiicle cans to get him. After two days of persuasion,
Thomas finaily relented a 2 d , accompanied by Laura (Narren had gone to
iive with their uncie Alfred in Parkersburg) they set off for Jackson's

Mill near Weston, ~irginia.66 Only two months later the children were

summoned back to their mother. Julia had just given birth to a son

(Wirt Blakemore) and was dying. Thomas' last memories of his mother

were of her fervent prayers for her children. After being passed around

to various relatives and acquaint+ces they finally wound up at

Jackson's Mill in 1831.67

Jackson's Will became a happy place for the two young Jacksv

Grandmother Jackson watched over the household of her three sons aid two

A,ghter;,
(--., G i ~mrnarried. Uncle Cununins became Thomas' surrogate father

and frequentiy iised the young boy as a jockey for his race horses. A t
the age of twelve Thomas had gone to stay with his uncle Brake and aunt
Polly in Harrison County. 3ere he had a falling out with his uncle and
promptly left. -When he showed up at the house of a relative and was
asked about the situation, he replied simply, "Uncle Brake and I don't
agree; I have quit him, and shall not go back anymore."68 About this
time Thomas developed a keen interest in learning and began to read
voraciously. It was also evident that he had some sort of a stomach
problem that adversely effected his appetite. During his teenage years
his older brother Warren came and convinced him that they should raft
down the Mississippi and make a fortune cutting wood for steamboats.
They left in the fall of 1836 and returned in February with no money and
i n poor health. Neither boy would t a i k of the t r i p and t h r e e years

l a t e r Warren died of the ague he had contracted on t h e journey a t the

age of nineteen. 69 In the s m e r of 1837 Thomas (now t h i r t e e n years

o l d ) got a job a s e n g i n e e r k g a s s i s t a n t with a companjj building a local

tump;ke. He was s o intrigued with t h e construction problems and t o o l s

t h a t he determined t o obtain more schooling. H i s s t u d i e s went we!! and

by t h e time he was s i x t e e n he was teaching school himself. Sometime i n

i840 he began t o develop a serious i n t e r e s t i n t h e Bible and became well

versed i n h i s knowledge of s c r i p t u r e . A t seventeen he became the

. .
d i s t r i c t constable--a job which amounted mostly t o c o i l e c t i n g overdue

debts. Local c i t i z e n s were impressed with his devotion t o duty a s a

sworn o f f i c i a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t an oath was a solemn duty t o be

performed t o the Thomas became aware of a vacancy a t West

Point &out this time and appli'ed f o r admission. He l o s t t o another

young man i n t h e d i s t r i c t but when t h e appointee had spent a few i;eeks

a t t h e Academy he resigned and returned home. Thomas Jacksori now was a t

the top of the l i s t and, a s a l a t e c o m e r , entered West Point with t h e .

c l a s s of 1 ~ 4 6 . ~ ~

West Point

Thomas d i d . n o t adjust quickly t o t h e rigorous academic l i f e of

the Academy. He experienced profound homesickness and struggled

doggedly with t h e coursework .72 A1 though t h e p r a c t i c e was forbidden,

Thomas t y p i c a l l y "would p i l e up his g r a t e with a n t h r a c i t e coal, and

lying prone before it on the f l o o r , would work away a t his lessons by

t h e g l a r e of t h e f i r e . .. t i l l a l a t e hour of t h e night".73 His

tenure at the Academy was consmed by his determination to succeed. He
had virtually no social life and later remarked, ":do riot remember
having spoken ta a lady while I was at West ~ o i n t " .hring
~~ this time
he compiled a list ;f maxims to be used as personal guidelines in life
These included:
Sacrifice your life rather than your word. . . . Disregard public
opinion when it interferes with your duty. . . . Through life let
your principle object be the discharge of duty. . . . Resolve to
perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.75

Thomas was not well understood by his classmates and seemed to have no
qualms of the unusual practice of befriending those in other ciasses.
Xis friends included U. S. Grant, William Rosecrans, James Longstreet,
and A. P. Hill. He did have one enemy however, another frontier r a t -
orphan by the name of Tomkins. In one incident, Tmkins switched a
dirty musket :.or Thomas' clear, one prior to an inspection ard when
confronted denied any knowledge of the matter. Thomas pressed charges
on the moral grounds that Tomkins lied and, despite much opposition,

insisted on a court martial. Only after it became evident that most of

the cadets and faculty opposed the action did Thomas relent and drop the

--
charge..Ib0x1 the compassionate side, Thomas was known for his concern

for the well being of his fellows, especially sick ones, and nursed them

withwhat was desdribed as "a womanly Even so, the main

accomplishment of Thomas Jackson as a cadet was he victory over the

academic program and the development of his thought processes. A

roommate later penned:

No one I have ever known could so perfectly withdraw his mind from

surrounding objects or influences, and so thorou hly involve hls

whole being in the subject under cons~deration.78

He rose steadiiy in class rarj?, from near the bottom of the class his

first year to seventeenth out of sixty, with his top ranking of fifth

beirig in his favorite course--ethics. In 1846 the war with Mexicc had

been in progress aver a month when Thomas Jonathan jackson received his

long soughtafter commission as a brevet second lieutena9t in the

artillery.

Servlce Years

Thomas was ass~gnedto company K, Flrst Artillery, statlmea on

Governor's Island, New York. As soon as he arrived the company was
alerted for deployment to Mexlco. With hls commander, Captain Francis
Taylor, Thomas departed (along with thirty men and forty horses) on a
thirty-six day journey to Point Isabel, Texas, and arrived just in time
to hear that General Taylor had captured Monterrey. There was to be a
lull in the war however, and at Point Isabel he acted as an assistar,?
com~issaryfcr the remainder of 1~46.:~In March the fighting resme.2
and Thomas got his first taste of battle at the siege of Vera Cruzar?d
later he was involved in the pursuit of the retreating Mexicans at Cerrc
Gordo. Gnce in the city of Calapa, Thomas had time to reflect apon his
surroundings. He started to learn Spanish (with the idea of meeting
some of the local 'young women) and his letters to hls sister began to
carry spiritual undertones coupled with ardent ambition. Expressing hls
restlessness with garrison duty in Jalapa while the rest of the army
advanced he wrote:
I throw myself into the hands of an all wise God and hope that it

may yet be for the better. It may have been one of His means of

diminis~ngmy excessive ambition; and after having accomplished Hls

 purpose, whatever it iay be, He then in His infinite wisdom ma;.

gratify my desire.sC
Thoaas requested and received assignment to a front line battery and
soon xas back in the fighticg. k he and a small escort were proceeding
to the front they were attacked by a band of guerriilas. in a letter he
wrote that he and his band "succeeded in killing four of the enemy ard
taking three prisoners, together with a beautiful sabre."81 Thomas
wrote calmly even though they had been outnumbered in the hand-to-hand
fight, but the real show of mettle was yet to come. At the final battl
3f Chapultepec, Thomas pushed his gun forward of the infantry and
come~ceda &el with the Mexican batteries. This drew the concentrated
fire of the entire Mex?.can line and soon only Thomas and a sergeant were
left to serve the gun. He received ax order to retire with the gun and
he promptly disobeyed arguing that with fifty more men he could hoid the
positior.. A second brigade was brought lip, charged carrier! the
breastworks. As the retreating Mexican fled down the street.s and ali
of Mexico city, Thomas and his comkider followed and powed fire ixto
the routed columns, even though they were far in advance of the rest of
the anny. For his actions here at the final assault on Mexico City
Thomas was breveted to the rank of Major. He spent the monti?sfollowing
the war taking in the finer points of Mexico City. He learned to dance,
polished his Spanish, and kept an eye out for eligible young Mexican
women. He wrote his sister,

I think that probably I shall spend many years her and may possibly

conclude (though I have not yet) to make my life more natural by

sharing it with some amiable ~enorita:82

Thomas did not marry in Mexico, but he did begin an earnest inquiry into

the Catholic faith. He had made the acquaintances of several priest and

59

even had several interviews with the Archbishop of Mexico. Although he

found the Catholics to be devout and sincere in their faith, he departed

Mexico unconverted. 8J

Thomas was transferred to Fort Hamilton where he was under the

command of a devout Christian, Colonel Frank Taylor. The Colonel

convinced him of his need for baptism, but even as he accepted the act

as a welcome into the Christian fold he carefully kept from membership

in any particular denomination. 8 4 Thomas also continued his quest for

health with various new eating and exercise habits to include such fare

as stale bread and unseasoned boiled beef. The fare seemed favorable as

he rose from a slight 133 pounds to 166 pounds in two years. 8 5 Thomas

was rather abruptly transferred to Florida to quell Indian uprisings in

October 1850, where he was assigned to a post commanded by Brevet Major

William Henry French. Thomas and Major French initially worked well

together, but both men were ambitious and trouble soon began. In

addition to performing frequent scouting patrols, Thomas was assigned as

the post commissary and quartermaster officer. He took these duties

very seriously and resisted French's attempts to oversee his activities.

Outright conflict erupted over who had the right to supervise the

construction of some post buildings. The feud grew so intense that

Thomas wrote an official grievance to the commanding general in order to

obtain support. The general replied with a softly worded but definite

rebuke to Thomas, reminding him that he was subordinate to his

commanding officer. A while later Thomas became aware of rumors that

French was having an affair with a civilian nurse. He a~ted on this by

questioning several enlisted men and then formally charged French with

60

"
conduct unbecommg an offlcer. French denled the accusations and placed

Thomas under arrest for the same offense. Another offlcer on post
approached Thomas and atxempted xc persuade hlm to drop the charges on
acco3mt of the hurt that woui:', come to Mrs. French if the whoie issue
beta;? gublic. The argument was wei! presented but Thomas, with tears
running down his face, insisted that conscience compelled him tc
prosecute the case.86 All during this time Thomas was writing to his
sister about the duties of a Christian, especially concerning hypocrisy
and the upholding of morals. The generals in the chain of command could
not come to a~adequate solution cf the problem which eventually wound
up on the desk of the secretary of wzr. Event:ual!y Thomas was ordered
released arid French transferrel to another post. Even though Thomas had
recently written his sister that he foresaw a long career in the army,
the incident w;st have helped ts change his mind. Several months L . .
he had received a ietter from the Virginia Military institute asking if
he would be interested in the positio;-Aof Professor of Natural and
Experimental Philosophy. At the age of twenty-seven, Thomas Jackson
resigned his comiission and embarked on a career in the teaching
profession.87
Life at VMI was relatively calm after active service. Thomas

was not noted for his expertise as an instructor and he actually built a

solid reputation for being a terrible teacher. His eyes bothered him as

did his stomach and he went to great lengths to overcome his physical

infirmities. He developed a rigid schedule of eating and memorizing hls

lessons that on the surface appeared eccentric. He studied the next

days lessons when the dayl~ghtallowed for proper reading and at night

would slt staring at a wall mentally revlewlns before the next mornlngs

recitation. Thomas' .answerving discipline also gained attention. In

one incident, a cadet involved in making "a noise" in class was court-

martided and dismissed.88 His devotion to his faith grew during this

time and he caused a stlr in the community by starting a Black Sunday

schooi. He wrote his aunt,

Within the last few days I have felt an unusual religious joy. I do
rejoice to walk in the love of God. . . . My Heavenly Father has
condescended to .use me as an instrument for setting up a large
Sabbath-school for the Negroes here.89
Thomas developed close friendships with Major D. H. Hill and a loca:
bookstore owner, , ' o h ,?. Lyle. 30th were ardent Presbyterians ad
thrc;l& their encouragement's, Thomas jolned the chxrch on Noverber 2 2 ,
1851.
During his tenure at the kiversity, Thomas finally Gave :;i his

bachelorhood. 0 . H. Hiil welcomed Thomas into his office one day

thinking that there was some academic matter at hz?d, but was pressed
wrth advice of quite a different matter concerning the college
presidents' daughter, Ellie Junkin. "I don't know what has changed me,"
Thomas said, "I used to thnk her plarn, but her face now seems to me
a11 sweetness."91 When Hlll laughingly replled that he must be in love,
Thomas agreed that t h s might be possrble. A romance blossomed between
the two, but, to Thomas' dismay, quckly soured. He attempted to divert
his attention to his sister (who had backslidden from the faith) through
numerous letters extolling her to the truth of the Scriptures. In a few
'

months the situation changed and, on August 4, 1853 in a secret

ceremony, Thomas and el lie^ were married.92

62

 Although happy, the marriaae was soon to end. in October of the

fcllowing year, both Ellie aiid their child died during birth. Thomas
was severely shaken as he later confided to her sister Maggie:
i am looking forward with pleasure to that time when i shall only be
seen by those who love me, as I now see Dear Ellie. Ah, if it only
might please God to let me go now!93
For over a year Thomas grieved his loss and busied himself with work and
other ventures.94

The Dec~sion

As Thomas recovered from the loss of hrs wife he began to hint

of his feelings on the growing tensions between North and South. He
wrote to Laura concerninij the ideas 3f a relative:
Say to h i m :hat i deslgn followlnq out his idea of locating some
land in a Northern state, but that I am a llttle afraid to put nuch

there for fear that in the event of a dlssolutlon of the Unlon :hat

the property of Southerners may be conflscated.95

In a similar letter concerning his half-brother Wirt in 1855 who wa~ted

to relocate into free territory he added, "He &irt] would probably

become an abolitionist; and then in the event of trouble between North

and South he would stand on one side, and we on the opposite."96 About

this time Thomas took a summer trip to Europe and, upon returning in the

fall of 1856, decided that his mourning should end in another marriage.

Thomas had much earlier made the acquaintance of Mary Anna

Morrison--the younger sister of D. H. Hill's wife. He decided that he
should marry her and began courting in earnest through the mall. They
were married the following summer on July 17, 1857 at her home in
Cottage Home, North Carolina. Coincidentally Anna, like Ellle before
her, was the daughter of a Presbyterlan minister.97 Thomas and Anna

63

moved x t o a large old hmse i n Leiting-,onin the wlnter of 1858. There

Mary Graham Jackson was born in Febmary but she became ~aundlceda7d

dled in May. Again, Thomas had tc endure the traglc loss of a loved

ore--especlaily hard since he had a particular affection for children.

In the fall hls nephew Thomas Arnold (twelve years old) came to spend

the winter a ~ dhelped to relieve the grieving couple. In November,

1859, he was ordered to command a detachnent of troops at the public

ha3ging of the aboliticnist John Brown. The scene ominously portrayed a

coz:tr-y OF. the verge of ciestructior.. Durlng the s m e r of 1860, Thomas

and ILvla traveled north to take :he baths (for 'salth reasons) an

Thonas made the friend sf an ardent .4bo!itionist Baptist minister. rie

listened to his arguments concerning slavery and secession but did not

:lime:£ enter into them. The following winter he wrcte Laura

I am looking forward with great interest to the 4th of January &en

the Christian people of this land will lift their united prayer as
incense to the Throne of God in sdpplication for our anhappy
country. ( A national day of prayer for peace). What is the feeling
about Beverly respecting secession? I am strong for the Union at
present, and if things become no worse I hope to continue so. I
think the majority in this country are for the Union, but in
counties bordering on us there is a strong secession feeling.98
He wrote more of his feelings to young Thomas Arnold:
I am in favor of making a thorough trial for peace, and if we fail
in this, and the state is invaded, to defend it with a terrific
resistance . .
. if the free states, instead of permitting us to
enjoy the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution . . . should
endeavor to subjugate us, and thus excite our slaves to servile
insurrection in which our families would be murdered without quarter
or mercy, it becomes us to wage such a war as will bring hostilities
to a speedy close.g9

In April secession feelings grew rapidly in Lexington. A clash broke

out between some VMI cadets and local citizens. The cadets were calmed

scmmhat by officers of the colleqe and Thcmas was called on to speak to

the agitated cadets. He spoke:

Military men make short speeches, and as for myself I am no hand at
speaking, ar?fhcw. The time f x war has not yet come, 5i;t ::wiil
come, and that soon; and when it does come, my advice is to draw the
ssror5 and throw zway the 3~ahbard.~OO
When Virginia seceded, Thomas' longtime friend &id former father-in-law
Dr. George Junkin, resigned his presidency of Washington College and
moved north. But events were moving rapidly and Colonel Smith of VMI
offered the services of the cadets to Governor John Letcher. The order
came from Richmond that the cadets were to proceed there on the 21st of
April. After a hurried breakfast and fervent prayers with A m a , Thomas
Jonathon Jackson led the column of cadets out of Lexington for Virginia
and the Confederacy.

Robert Edward Lee

Ancestry

The Lees of Virginia originated in the Schropshire area of

England where the knight Reyner de Lea (meanlng of the meadow and later
spelled Lee) settled about a century after the Norman Conquest. He
himself was a decendant of one of warriors at the battle of Hastings in
1066. One of his descendants, Roger Lee, married Margaret Astley in
1385 thereby cornbinlng the two family crests on the present day Lee coat
of a m . The Lee family motto was established as Non Incautus Futurl
which translated is Not Enmindful of the Future. The Lees established a
large estate known as Coton Hall and frorwhere, Colonel Richard Lee
emigrated to the American settlement at Jamestown around the year 1640.
Richard rapidly gained affluence in the new world. He married and began
 his farnily,.sur:~ivec!
?he Inelan nassacre of 1 , and was appointed
Secretary of State of Virginia in :649. By the time of his death in
1664, Richard had become one of the wealthiest men in Virginia. He left
over four thousand acres i;f tlsewater property and eighty slaves to his
s:r~iv~ng
xife
eight childre;;. The next six generations of Lees
would produce a preponderance of public servants. Of the fifty-four

adu!t males, thirty seven would hold office to include fifteen military

officers, thirty-nine government seats and two signers of the

. Declaratfcn of Independence. One of these, Richard's great-grandson

Henry (the future father of Robert), was born at ~ e e s ~ l k n isouth
a of

Alexandria in 1756.

Henry graduated with honors from Princeton in 1773 (age

seventeen) and would have gone to England to study iaw, but with the

hint of war in the future he remained and was comissioned a captain of

cavalry at the age of twenty-one. He enjoyed spectacular successes

during the Revolutionary War, particularly in the south under General

Nathanael Greene, earning the nickname "Light Horse Harry". However,

when the war ended Henry grew resentful and dissatisfied, apparently

unhappy with his lack of high rank. In 1781 he married &his second-

cousin Matilda Lee and seemed assured of an easy life on her great

estate of Strateford on the Potomac ri.ver.lo3 Henry entered politics

and was elected as a delegate to Congress in 1785. Matilda was not

well, however, and they spent much time at various spas and baths in

search of health. Henry lost his bid for re-election to the delegation

to James Madison and promptly accused his constituents of ingratitude.

However, when the Constitution was presented for ratification Henry was

66

af George Washington, Henry wrote him in 1790 that Matllda was in suck,
pear health that he feared r:f her- life. She died a few months later at

the age of twenty-six while g;vinq birth to their fifth chiid. Henry's

grief was profound and he never fully recovered from ~atiida'sdeath.

In 1791 he was elected Chief Magistrate of the Commonwealth of V~rginia

and moved with his three surviving children to the governor's house near
the capitol. Here he began a long series of ill-fat& financial
speculations and sank deeply into debt. Apparently Henry had displayed
such irresponsibility before as Matilda had put her estate into a deed
of twst for her children before she died and his father named a your.nc
brother executor of the father's will.IG4 He dabbled with the idea 3;

returning to miiitary life and even wrcte to Lafayette to inquire of

possibilities with the French Army. About this time tradegy struck
again when his seven-year-old son Phili? died suddenly. Henry's grief
over these events gradually subsided aid he began looking for a new
wife. He confided to Alexander Hamilton that he was "in love with
every sweet nymph"105 and in 1793 met Miss Maria Farley. Although Henry
was greatly enamored with Maria, she rejected his amorous advances.
However, her best friend AM Carter secretly became so enraptured with
Henry (who was seventeen years older than her) that she became ill.
Since Maria would not have him, Henry turned to Ann as the best
available substitute. Her parents saw through this shallow ploy but to
no avail. A n n already had the reputation of being gentle, but.tenacious
and strong-willed. She knew her mind and on June 18, 1793, wearing a
locket given her by George Washinqton. Ann Hill Carter married Henry
. A

"Light-Horse Harry" Lee.ii6

Ann's family had a history in Virginia to rIval that of the

Lee's. John Carter arrived fro% Z i ~ li~~ l ~G 5d, acqi.iire2

a large
estate, a d served in the Home of Eu~j.esses. x s son Rcbert Secame the
richest man in Virginia, owning over three hundred thousand acres of
land and a thousand slaves. HIS wealth was so great that he became
known as 'King' Carter amongst hls associates. 'Kin5' Carcer also
served in the iIciLse of Burgesses, as acrlng Governor of the Colony, and
on the King's Council for Virginia. Carter's descendants included three
governors of Virginia, three signers of the Declaration of independence,
and two Presidents of the United states. Ann was the great-
granddaughter of 'Klng' Carter and helr to a considerable portlon of hls
estate. Henry dohtless knew t h s and perhaps saw an answer to h s
financial woes.lo7
Although Ann may have hoped that she could win Henry's true
affection, the reality of the situation soon became evident. What

wealth she had was soon spent on prevlous debts, she was largely left
alone, and Henry built a reputation of paying too much attention to
other women. However, Ann persevered. She spent much time with her
family as Henry continued his pursuit of wealth and political influence.
Her first child, Algernon, was born in 1795. She got along well with
her eight-year-old step-son Henry but step-daughter Lucy hated and
reviled her. Algernon died a year later and Ann was generally alone
wlth her sorrow. Charles Lee was born in 1798 at a tlme when Henry was
again deep in debt. in 1799 George Washington died and Congress asked
Henry to deliver the funeral oration in which he coined the phrase,
"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his
co.mtrymen."lo8 The next several years were spent in having more
chilSrec and a steady decline of uealth. Pixl s~fferedthrough such
periods of depression and invalidism that during her fifth aregnancy she
admitted to not wanting mother child. She was faced with added pair,
when she went to visit her father and learned upon arriving that he ha,ad
suddenly died. Fort.matel:~her inheritance was protected, "free from
the claim, demaxxd, let, hindrance, or molestation of her h-usbad,

General Henry Lee or his creditors directly or indirectiy."lo3 Her

favcrite sister was also terribly ill and it was with gloomy spirits
that Ann returned to her home in the icy winter of 1806-7. into thiis
world of despair Robert Edward Lee was born on January 19, 1807.

Early Life

When Robert was still two years old Henry was arrested am;
jailed in debtor's prison. Upon his reiease he decided that he would no
longer live with Ann. During her plans to move back among relatives,
Henry changed his mind but Ann would only take him back if she chose the
place of residence. She picked Alexandria and the family moved there
the following year. Here they lived primarily off of Ann's trust fund
while Henry wrote his memoirs. Henry was opposed tothe prospect of war
with hgland and, 'with seven others, was severely beaten by a drunken
mob in 1812. Now maimed and disfigured, life with Henry challenged the
Lee family with "his exhibitions of commingled rage and anguish often
terrible."l1° In this broken down state he applied for passage out of
the country and in 1813 sailed for Barbadoes--it was the last time six-
year-old Robert was to ever see his father
Llfe in hiexandria was astere but good for a growing boy. The

legacy of George Washngtcn pervaded everything. Ann (who now refereed

to herself as Wldow Lee) frequently took her family to visit Mrs.

Washington's granddaughter, Eleanor Custis. A local servant known as

"Mammy" had been attendant to Martha Washington and told the children of

Alexandria many exclting tales. Even the Lee house contalned varlous

Washington momentoes. In this environment Robert grew and first

attended the Carter family school for boys in Fauquier After

two years there he enrolled in the Alexandria Academy. When Robert was

eleven his father died in Georgia while on his way back to Virginia fro%

2 . e Caribbea. 'Je was m t mourned by the family and Henry "Light Horse

Harry" Lee was burled in ar, urmarked grave with none of his *--- ' -.
La.,LLY

attending the fmera!. However, Xobert inherrted his father's sense of

frivolity. He was well liked and perhaps kept responsible by his
mother's stem. sense of discipline. When his older brother Carter
squandered the thousmd dollars that A n n had gotten for his education in
only a single year, he received a stinging rebuke:
To you, I had looked, for the restoration of that happiness, in
part, which my.widowed lot had deprived me of. I had hoped you
would be a highly educated, discreet, judicious man. That you waul-!
b v e been an example for your Brothers imitation--a dignified
protector for your Sisters, and the pride, & solace of your Moth,-
declining years. But you are not pursuing the Course to fulfill
such expectations. He who prefers the gratification of sensual
pleasures, to the cultivation of mental endowments, will never be
qualified for the performance of such .duties.112
Robert became a devoted son to his mother and in her infirmities took

over many household duties, such as marketing and attending to business

matters. He especially loved hor;es and riding along with other outdoor

sports such as swimming, hunting, and explorins the woods. Fs he

Li,.-s5sd his sviidies in 1823 the nat.xal question loomed as to what to

do with his life. Carter had finished school and become a lawyer. His
L a b ~ ~ brcther
F-., i k
Smith ha2 gotten a comniszim as midskipma:: arid gone

sf£ to the Navy. ~ e c e n t l ~the

, Marquis

de Lafayette had visited

Alexandria. Upon learning that the widow of his old friend lived there

he insisted upon a visit and seventeen-year-old Robert came to know soma

of his father's more adrnirablk legacy.l13 It was decided that Roberi

should try for an appointment to Nest Point. His many letters of

recommendation, his ancestral links to virtually every affluent family

in Virginia, and the gratitude of many who remembered his father's

contributions to the nation virtually guaranteed his quest. Robert

received confirnation of his appointment on March 11, 1824, but had to

wait until July of next year for a vacancy. Parting with his mother and

sisters was hard, and, as he left his mother uttered to Sally Lee, "You

know what I have lost. He is son, daughter, and everything to me!"li4

West Point

Robert reported to West Point and began the familiar routine of

cadet life along with eighty-seven other young men. He easily passed

the dreaded entrance exams and in September of 1825 formally began his

education as a member of the class of 1829. Robert made friends easily,

but he became most attached to Jack Mackay of Georgia and Joe Johnston

whose father had fought alongside his own in the Carolinas.115 During

this time the dynamic Reverend Charles McIlvaine was in residence as

chapiain and professor of geography; history, and ethics. Robert spent

much time listening to sermons ss forcefui and convincing that ZI

upperclassman, Leonidas Polk, decided to enter the ministry after

o n . Robert established hls hijh rank in the class during the
~ra&'-'
first winter exams where his ranking of third in mathematics and conduct
would have been first were it not far the alphabetical placement of his
name. Fie continued to do well and was even appointed an assistant
professor of mathematics (actually a k i d of tutor) during his second
year. Xe read numerous books not required by the academic program to
include his father's Memoil-s. The Federaiist , ar.d Rsusseau's
Cmfessians.i16 His one furlough home was marked by his mother's

declining health and a seemingly continuous celebration. Both Carter

and smith had managed to come home and the midshipman and cadet exci-..

much interest am0r.g the eligible ladies of the Virginia aristocracy.

One of them, cousin Mary Custis, confided to her friends that she was

secretly in love with young liobert .l17 The fur:ough ended and the

cadets were soon back at the task of becoming officers. The next two

years passed relatively uneventfully for Robert although he discovered

he had a definite ability at engineering. When graduation day came,

Robert and four other classmates had not had a single demerit during

their four years at the Academy. Robert finished second in a class of

forty-six and was commissioned into the Engineer Corps. He had earned

his two months graduation fur!ough and managed to save $103.58.

 Service Pears

The new Brevet Second i,:.eutenant received kwo months furlough

but it was not to be a happy time for Robert. His mother's health

continued to decline and she died on July 26, 1829 at the age of fifty-

He remained until October settling his mother's estate a n d then

departed for Savannah, Georgia to work on coastal fortifications. He
took the elderly servant Nat with him in hopes that the climate would
help his aged condition but he soon died in spite of Robert's care. He
soon began spending much time with another officers younger sisters wher,
he wasn't playing chess or working in the Georgia swamps. The Lee
family name siiffered much during this time when it became public
knowledge that Robert's half-brother Henry had gotten his wife's te
sister pregnant some thirteen :?ear 2rior. President Aqdrew .Jackson hac
recornended Henry as Consul to the Barbary States ar~d,when the iscide~t
surfaced, t
h - ,,,"=late disapproved so forcefully that the topic was in all

-,LIZ

the papers. I n May of 1831 Robert asked for and received a transfer tn
Fort Monroe. Virginia. There he began to frequent the home of Mary
Custis. She was a childhood playmate and heiress to several wealthy
plantations. Mary shared Robert's love of horses and reading. However,
she was quite spoiled and temperamental. Unlike Robert she was
notoriously late to functions and careless of her personal appearance.
Nevertheless, they were married on June 30, 1831.119
The marriage initially proved somewhat difficult for the two.
She did not understand Robert's frugality and his insistence that she be
allowed only two servants to attend to her needs. She found Army life
dreary as she wrote her mother. "Except that we generally get some nice
cake and fruit, they [social fc-cticns: vouid be rather stupid.
1

suppose it is my fault, h t there are not many persons here very

. 51.~ng.11120
:-lSreCL;

At Christmas they visited her parents and Mary decided

that she wished to.stay for awhile, so Robert returned to Fort Monroe
alone. Ma:-y spent most of her time at Arlingtm, seemingly preferring'
the company of her mother to that of her husband. George Washington
Custls Lee was born on September 16, 1832. Robert at times maligned
their absences and at others seemed qulte happy to have them gone. He
wrote one friend, "Mrs. Custis and Mary have gone to Shirley, whi-h is
as much to say that I am as happy as a clam at high water."121 Robert
enjoyed socializing (especially with women) and Mary did not. He
apparently attempted to get Mary to spend more time with him as he
of his female friends:
Let me tell you Mrs. Lee, no iater than toda:~ did I esccrt Miss r;.
to see Xiss Siate! Think of that Mrs. Lee! ,912 hasten 6cwn if y s 2
do not wish to see me turned out a S e a aqain. Xow I did s t x t
along. . . . ?nd my whole face thrown into the biqqest qris T could
muster122
When many of the post officers had been sent to Florida he wrote, "I am
left to console them, & am in the right position tc sympath~zewith them
as Mrs. Lee & her little Limb are at ~ r l i n g t o n . "in
~ ~late
~ 1834 Robert

was transferred to an office in Washington and the family resided at

Arlington. Robert initially tried to get a house in the city but

eventually gave up and rode across the Potomac each day or stayed in a

boarling house during inclement weather. Robert continued his social

life apart from Mary as evidenced by the letter to a friend:

My splrits were so buoyant when relieved from the eyes of my Dame,

that my Sister Nanie was trying to pass me off as her spouse but I
was not going to have my sport spoiled in that way & undeceived the
 young ladies & told t5em I was her younger brother. Sweet innocent
young things, they concluded I was single, & i have not had such
soft looks & tender pressures sf the hand for many years.i24
In the spring of 1835 Robert was detailed to accompany a survey party to

the Ohio-Michlgan border and did not return uiti! 3ctober. 5 s wife h d

gone tz Ravenworth and their dauahter Mary Custis was born d9rir.g his

ahsencs. Althocah the birth was normal..Mary became ill and was Sec?

ridden for several months. Upon her entreaty to come to her side Robert

replied,

Eut why do you urge my iwnediate return, & tempt one in that
stroiqest mrmer, to endeavor to get excused from the performance of
a duty, imposed on me by my Profession, for the pure gratification
of my private feelings? . . . I cannot in conscience do what you
ask. . . . I must not consent to do aught that would lower me in
your eyes, my o m & that of others. . . . You see therefore Molly
that every consideration induces you to cheer up . . . to lay aside
mavai!ing regrets; to meet with a smiling face S cheerful hea:rA
vicissitudes of lifel~5
When Mary had recovered somewhat they spent some time in western
Virginia taking in the mineral waters in an attempt to improve her
health. The journey had some unrecorded impact on Robert's life as one
of his relatives wrote, "I never saw a man so changed and saddened.
He was unhappy with life in the Washington office and constantly
pondered a change to civilian life. Robert requested reassignment to
the Mississippi area to work on engineering canals and received approval
in April of 1837. A month later their third child, William Henry
'

Fitzhugh, was born and Robert left for St. Louis in June. For the next

nine years Robert would spend his time on various engineering projects.

He was almost-alwayshomesick, especially for his children. Four more

were born, Annie Carter in June of 1839 while Robert was away in St.

Louis, Agnes in the winter of 1840-41, Robert Jr. in October of 1843

wh:.l$ Robert was gc-e to Fort t.:ani!ton. and Mildred in March of 1846

...
wLti; jabert again away at ?>rtUaxiitcr.. Cc some sccasions Mary and the

family attempted :c acco;;,;acy ;;.&e;ri-. tc hi; new posts but invariably

wo'md up retuning to Aiexandri? to leave Robert a geoaraphic bachelor.
,
Robert appeared to be activ? in the miscopal chxch of whicz ne was
.
vestrykan for a local congregation. He was inclined to seek out and find
the company of ladies wherever he went and wrote a friend, 11you are
right in my interest in pretty women, & it is strange that I do not lose
it with age. But I perceive no dirnin~tion."l2~His wife later wrote of
hlm, "No one enjoyed the coclety of the !%dies more than himself. It
seemed the greatest recreation in his toiisome life."128 The routine
came to a close in 1846, however. when the United States declared wz- ...
Mexico. Before Robert left for Kexico he carefully prepared his will
which left his estimated $38.750 estat-eto Mary "in full confidence that
she will use it to the best advaytage in the education and care of my
children."129

Robert arrived in San Antonio in September, 1846 and was

assigned as engineer for General Wool. His first action was the assault

on Vera Cruz where he fought alongside his brother Smith during the

siege. He wrote of the scene,

I . . . am at a loss what I should have done had he been cut down

before me. I thank God that he was saved. The shells thrown from
our battery were constant and regular discharges. . . . It was
awful! My heart bled for the inhabitants. The soldiers I did not
care so much for, but it was terrible to think of the women and
children.130
Robert made his most meritorious contributions during the campaign for

Nexico City perf&ing engineering reconnaissance. In one particular

inst=:ce he ,;as sc%t!.nq f;rwa;fi a d was surprisec! bf a group of Mexisan

sol+iers, He hid behind a log which some of the enemy soldiers chose to
set on for several hours. Despite ravenous insects, Robert managed to
remai:: ,mdetected and reported safely back to his commander. General

Scott spoke of Robert as "indefatigable, in reconnaissance as daring as

laborious, of the utmost value."131 Robert continued the rest of the

war on the general staff and received brevets for "gallantry and

meritorious conduct" to the ranks of major, lieutenant-colonel, and

co!cnel. After spending some time in Mexico City naking maps he

degarted for home and arrived in Alexandria on June 29, 1848 after an

absence of almost two years

The years immediately following the war were relatively calm

for the Lee's. Robert was put back to work building fortifications and
was stationed in Baltimore. Here he rented a house and moved his famil?
to the city. About this time he received an offer to lead exiled Char,

revoictionaries in a plot to free ?&a from Spain. Jefferson Davis had

earlier refused the $200,000 offer and Robert also refused, feeling that
to engage on such an enterprise would not be consistent with his duty as
an officer of the United States government.133 The revolutionaries were
later caught and executed. In 1850 Robert's oldest son Custis entered
the Military Academy. Two years later Robert was appointed as the
Academy's Superintendent--an assignment from whch he requested excusal
on the grounds that he was not up co the task. The request was denled
so Robert and the family took up residence at West Point in September of
1852,134
,-.-2*&
he ably rm the institution and became horn as one of it's best
z:.::?rinter.dents. This is scmewhat renarkable since his son (who
oradaate2 first in his class) and nephew !whom Iiobert twice recommended
for dismissal for disciplinary infractions) were both cadets at the

time. W o notable events took place during their stay at the Academy;
the death of Mary's mother and the consequent spiritual renewal of
Robert. In Aprii of 1353 Mrs. Custis became ill and died within days.
The entire family was shaken as Robert wrote,
I have no language to express what 1 feei, or words to tell what i
suffer. The blow was so sudden & crushing, that I yet shudder at
the shock 5 fee! as if I had Seec irrested in the course of life c
had no power to resume my oilward march.135
This experience must have caused a sense of personal mortality for on
Annie were ccnfi:-xed in
jul? 17. 1853, he and his two daughters Mary a ~ d
Christ Church of Alexandria. In March of 1853 the Sioux massacred a
small party of soldiers near Fort Laramie. Wyoming, prompting Congress
to authorize four new regiments to quell the Indians. Robert was named
as lieutenant-colonel of the new 2nd Cavalry under Colonel A . S.
Johnston. His response was mixed and showed a growlng dependence on his
renewed faith:
Personal consideration or convenience would not induce me to sever
my connection with my Corps, or to separate myself from my family.
And the thought that my presence may be of some importance to the
latter, or necessary to my children is bitter in the extreme. . . My
trust is in the mercy & wisdom of a kind Providence who ordereth ail
things for our own good. . . my happiness can never be advanced by
separation from my wife, children. & friends136
After taking the family back to Arlington, Robert, cow forty-eight years

of age, departed for St. Lou:s on April 18, i855.

During the next few Robert spent his time alternately with the

2nd Cavalry and servlng on courts-nartlal. He kept up wlth the growlng

political txmoil over slavery as he penned to Mary,

in this enlightened age, there are few I believe but what will
acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political
evil in any country. . . .The blacks are imeasurably better off
here than in Africa, morally, socially, and physically. . . . How
long their subjugation may be necessary is known and ordered by a
wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result
from the mild and melting influence of Christianity than the storms
.
and tempests of fiery controversy. This influence though . slow is
sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have reqJ;rea xarly

two thousand years to convert but a smaii part of the human race.

and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist!

While we wee the course of the final abolition of human slaver

onward, and we give it the aid of our prayers and all justifizi..

means in our power, we must ieave the proqress as we! as the result

in his hands who sees the end.137

Although able to return to Arlington on occasion, Robert was ur,able to

convxce Mary to accompany hlm to the Texas frontier. She suffered from
various maladles as she became older and seemed to want to stay by her
father's side. In late 1857, the aging Mr. Custis died. Robert made
application for an extended leave and soon was on his way back to
Alexandria. He wrote to A. S. Johnston as he departed, "I can see that
I have at last to,decidethe question I have staved off for twenty
years, whether I am to continue in the arm:r all my life, or to leave it
nqw ."138
Robert spent the next two years on extended furlough trying to

settle all the matters of his father-in-law's estate. On a Sunday

morning in October of 1859 he received a message delivered by a former

cadet, Lieutenant J. E. B. Stuart, from the War Department. There was a

slave aprising :a 'darpers Ferry m d Robert's services were urgently

needed. He went and connanded the stormmg of the arsenal in which the

~nsurrectionistswera holed up and took the infamous John Brown into

custody. The natlon became in£lamed at the depth of tie plot to stage a

slave revoit and the trial set the stage for the conflagration to come.

Robert cormanded the troops at John Brown's execution but his reaction

to the ordeal is unknown. However, he soon had other matters to attend

to as he was ordered back to Texas where he arrived in San Antonio on

February 19, 1866

The Decision

Since Robert was the ranking officer he took command of the

Department of Texas. His first grandson was born in the spring of 1853
as Pabert E&w'ar-d Lee I:;. For the remalnd?r of the year Robert
ccncexed himself with his lonely d~itiespursuing the Mexican outlaw
2ua.n Cortinas and watching the nation,sir& further into a politics!

abyss. in December, the day after he had been replaced by Genera! David
Twiggs, he wrote Custis,
i am not pleased with the course of the "Cotton States," as tney

term themselves. In addition to their selfish, dictatorial bearing,

the threats they throw out against the "Border States," as they call

them, if they will not join them, argues little for the benefit or

peace of Va. should she determine to coalesce with them. Flhile I

wish to do what is right, I am unwilling to do what is wrong,

either at the bidding of the South or the North. One of their plans

seems to be the renewal of the slave trade. That I am opposed to on

every ground.139

A few days later Robert left to take command of Fort Mason, a post

located to the northwest of San Antonio. On February 1, 1861, Texas

became the seventh state to pass an ordinance of secession. Robert

penned :
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. bit I czn anticipate no greater caiamity for
-,fie c o m t r y '.ha?a dissc!zt:nr, of the Enion. It would be an
acc;mu!ation cf ali the evils we complain of, and I am willing to
sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. . . . Secession
is nothing but revolution. . . . if the Union is dissolved and the
Government disrupted, i shall return to ny native state and share
the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on
none.140
Robert received orders to report to Washington and left Fort Mason on

February 13. An arny officer who saw him as he passed thrcqh San

Antonio later wrote, ''I have seldom seen a more distressed man. He

said, 'When I get to Virginia i think the world will have one soldier

less. I shall resign and go to planting con. Robert arrived back

in Arlington on March 1 and went to see General Winfield Scott a few

days after Lincoln's inauguration. Little is known of the conversation,

but Lee was promoted to colonel of the First Cavairy--a commission which

was signed by ~incolnMarch 16 and accepted by Robert on March 28.14:

The bombardment of Fort Sumter began on April 12. Robert received

another summons from General Scott and a presidential confidante,

Francis Blair, on April 17. On the i8th he went first to see Blair

where he was offered command of the Union army. Robert later wrote,

After listening to his remarks, I declined the offer he made me, to

take command of the army that was to be brought into the field,

stating as candidly as I could, that, though opposed to secession

and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the

Southern States .143

From this interview he went directly to General Scott's office where an

aide later recalled Scott to have said:

 Lee, you have made thegreatest mistake of your life; but i feared
it would be so. There are tines when every officer in the United
States service should fully determine what murse he wlll pursue and
frankly declare it. No one should continue in government employ
without being actively employed. If yo^ 2ropose to resign, it is
proper tha; you do so at. mce; your present attit~deis . .
equivocal.144
-.
zrom Scott'c, office Robert went for a long consultaticn with his brother

Smith, and, upon returning home, first heard from a newsboy of

Virginia's secession. The next day he went into Alexandria where the

news of secession was confirmed and, when asked by his druggist as to

his opinion on the news, Robert replied, "I must say that I am one of

those &dl 1 creatures that cannot see the good of secession."14j Robert
returned home and asked Mary that he be left alone. He spent the

evenxg ;n h;s room and sometlme after mldmght, came down to show her

two letters he had wrltten. The flrst, to General Scott, contamed the

General: Since my interview with you on the N t h inst. 1 have felt

that I ought no longer to retain my commission in the Army. i
therefore tender my resignation, which i request you will recornen?
for acceptance. It would. have been presented at once but for the
strugqle it has cost me to separate myself from a service to which I
have devoted the best years of my life and all the ability I
possessed. . . . Save in the defense of my native state, I never
desire again to draw my sword146
The other, to Secretary of War Simon Cameron, stated simply, "Sir--I

have the honour to tender the resignation of my Commission as Colonel of

the 1st Regt of Robert had been a Colonel of Cavalry just

twenty-two days and in the United States Army for thirty-two years.

Later that morning he wrote to Smith,

The question . . . has in my own mind been decided. . . . I am

liable at any time to be ordered on duty which I could not
conscientiously perform. To save me from such a position, and to
prevent the necessity of resigning under orders, I had to act at
once and before I could see you again on the subject, as I had
 wished. I am now a r?uate citizen, and have no other ambition than
to remain at home.148
In a ietter to his slster .4im (married to a pro-Union mar. with a son in
the 3. S. Army) Robert stated.
With all my devotion to the G7.i.m ,and the feeiing of loyalty and
duty of an Finerica~c:tize?.. Z Lave not been able to make up my mind
tc raise xy h a ~ dagainst my relatives, my children, my home . . ;
save in defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that y
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
These letters were sent on Saturday, April 20. Gn the following day
after church, officials from Richi~ondcame to offer Robert command of
all military forces of Virginia. He spent some time that afternoon
consulting with his cousin ~assiusconcerning the future and then spent
what would be his last night ever in the Arlington house. On Monday
Robert Edward Lee--sixth generaticn Lrnerican--wearing a black suit and
silk hat, proceeded to Richond and accepted a commission as major-
general in command of the military forces of Virginia.lSG
 .
1~~h~ c p e k e r t o n , ?emberton, -Defender of Vi cksb:ci-g (Durham, NC :
The University of North Carolrna Dress, i942), 7 .

2 ~ & a e l B. &:lard, Pembertari (Jac!;soa, MS: i'rilversity Press of

Mississippi, 1 9 9 i ) , 4-5.

j ~ b i b . ,5-6.

4penberton, 8.

S ~ a l l a r d ,6-11.

%bid. , 13-15.
7 ~ b i d . ,16.

% b i d . , 23.

%bid. , 22-24.

1 ° ~ e r b e r t o n ,10.

l l ~ a l l a r d ,27-31.

Li1bid. , 31-35.

%bid., 38-39.

141bid., 39.

i51bid., 50.

16pe;&erton, 1 4 .

178allard, 59-62.

I81bid. , 65.

191bid., 69;76.

- 2 0 ~ b i d . ,75.

Z1lbid., 73-79.

2 2 ~ b i d . ,79-82.

2 3 ~ b i d . , 83.

2*1bid., 83.

 27~auriceKlein, A Life of Genera: Edward Porter Alexander (Ph.D.

Emcry University, X C . j ) , l - 4 .

281bid., 4-5.

29:bid. . 6.'

30~bid.,6.

3 1 ~ a r yW. Gal iagher, Fighting for the C3NFEL)EFAE (Chapel Hii 1 :

Zniversity of North Carolina Press, 1989), 3 .
S k e i n , 11.

agher , 5.
33~all
%bid., 3.

3j:bid., 3-4.

4 k a l lagher, 8.

42~bid.,28.

- 4 5 ~ .P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate (New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907), 1.

 5 0 ~ aiagher
i , 15.

5 i ~ b i d,. 16-17.

j21(lein, 54.

5 3 ~ b i d,. 51-55.

5 4 ~ alagher,
l 21.

5 5 ~ b ~ d 24.
.,

5 6 ~ l e x a n d e r ,6-7

5 7 ~ a 1 1 a g h e r ,27.

. R . Henderson, Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War

j 8 ~ F.
(Gloucester, MA: P e t e r Smith, 1968), 3 2 .

5 9 ~ o h nBowers, Stonewall Jackson (New York: W i l llam Morrow and

Co., 1 9 8 9 ) , 38-39.

6 0 ~ u r k eDavls, They Cailed Hzm Stonewall ( N e w York: Rlnehart &

C o . , 1954), 88.

6 3 ~ r a n k3 . Vandiver, Mlghty Stonewai; {Kew York: McGraw-H111 Co.,

1957), 2.
7 5 ~ b i d . , 94, Bowers, 56-57
 102philiP Van Doren Sterx, iiober-t E. L e e - The M a n and the Soldier
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1963), 11-25.
103~ouglasSouthall Freeman, R o b e r t E. Lee (Diew York: Charles
Scrlbnz's Sons, 1934;, Vs; :, 1-- C
4.

134~argaretSanborn, R o b e r t E. Lee - A P o r t r a i t (New York: J. B.

iippincott Co., 1966), 5-10.

Gene Smith, L e e and Grant - A Dual B i o g r a p h y (New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1984), 21.
 The analysis of the preceding chapters involves f m r separate

and distinct areas: first, the four officers themselves must be

subjectively evaluated in the sense of what type of persons they

appeared to be at the time of their decisions; second, the operational

definition of loyalty needs to be appiied to their speciflc situations;

third, why did they decide to fight for the Confederacy; and finally,

would any type of professional trainxng or code have made a difference.

The Officers at a Glance--1861

John Clifford Pemberton

At forty-six years of age John Pemberton had led a reasonabiy

successful life. He was not deprived as a child and was reared in a

close, miidly religious family where education was highly valued. His

West Point experiences profoundly affected his ethical makeup and such

convictions seemed to follow the rest of his life. As a cadet he xas

probably more concerned with how he related to females than the average

cadet of his day, perhaps resulting later in a strong tendency to defer

to the desires of his wife. Although aware of his heritage, John did not

seem overly concerned with living up to any family traditions. On the

other hand he was quite attached to his immediate family and greatly

valued the relationship with them. John did not make close friends

 easlly and probably looked upon ,us wife and h s brother as h s rwo

closest confidants. He was decidedly brave in battle was a good

officer by any measurement. He had shom a preference for the southern

way of life and, as evidenced by :he presace of his wrfe's servants,

held no particuiar aversion to siavery. Even though ;oh experienced

numerous personal losses, there is little evidence that he gave religion

or spiritual beliefs more than cursory interest.

Edward Porter Alexander

At the tlme of his declsion Edward Alexander was a young,

Impetuous offlcer eager for excitement. Edward was a characterlstrcally

out-of-doors type person and valued hunting and fishing over ail other
,

actlvitles. Even so he was thoroughly educated and exposed to the

dlverse ideas of h s northern born tutors, elderly childhood companlons,
and enlightened mother. HLS childhood was happy and completely mvoived
in the typical aristocratic plantation life based upon the necessity of
slave labor. His parents were devoted to each other and their Christian
faith. Edward, however, rebelled against organized rellglon at an eariy
age but apparently accepted the faith more completely at West Point. He
had romantic notions of warfare undoubtedly rooted in his southern
upbringing, West Point education, and lack of actual combat experience.

Although a newlywed, he did not seem to realize the effects his actions
would have upon his wife. His ethical system was in line wlth his
notlons of warfare as his greatest fear was being thought a coward by
his southern acquaintances. His outlook on life was characterized by a
sense of mmorral~tycommon to men ln thelr early twentles and he

pursued adventure.

Thomas .Jonathan Zackson

Thirty-seven year old Thomas Jackson had lived a hard and

demanding life up to the time Virginia seceded from the Union. Even

though his relatives attempted to make his childhood as pleasant as

possible, the life of an orphan was laced with emotionally trying

situations. His sister remained his closest relation throughout his

life. The admonitions of his mother on her deathbed sank deep into his

personality and both parents were revered in their absence. Thomas was

not connected to the plantation society of the south but rather grew up

as a lower middle class lad who had to work for his successes. He

developed a tenacious drive for perfection as a boy and approached life

with a tremendous amount of ambition. This trait spurred his interest

in learning and, although a slow learner, he virtually 'educatedhimself.

Kowever, Thomas would always be plagued by an inability to relate to

others, whether personally or as a teacher. His rigid ideas of honor

began early and were so engrained that they caused him trouble on

several occasions during his life. Re was an excellent officer when

allowed to perforri independently but did not fare well when closely

supervised. Thomas was thought tremendously brave but in actuality his

fatalistic views precluded problems of cowardice. The overriding

element in his life was his complete devotion to Christianity. The

tenets of his faith determined the principles behind almost all of his

actions and supplied him with the internal strength to endure the tragic

i osses of 1oved ones.

Robert Edward Lee

Robert Lee was fifty-four years old when the first shot was

fired at Fort Sumter. He was in a semi-civilian status and in no great

hurry to return to active duty. His life had been full, productive, and

could be considered successful from almost any point of view. His

childhood had not been so ideal. His father left at a critical time in

a young boy's life and left a legacy of great service to his county

coupled with personal failure. He was raised primarily under the

influence of his mother who, although loving, extracted dedication from

her children in no uncertain terms. He received the best education

available and was obviously keenly intelligent. Robert was surrounded

by strong icons of his own and the nation's heritage. His ethical

outlook was probably heavily influenced by the examples of the ywmg

nation's heroes in addition to the sense of the family tradition of

public service. Unlike his father, the austere financial situation of

the Lee family taught Robert at an early age to be quite frugal. He

did, however, inherit his father's affinity for women. Robert's

marriage appears to have been made more for financial and social reasons

than for love as his letters indicate a stronger relationship with his

Savannah female friend than with Mary. Throughout his life he preferred

the company of females other than his wife. Robert apparently got the

majority of his family satisfaction through his children for whon he

showed a great deal of affection. Although he did not appear bitter

94

over the refusals of Mary to accompany him to many of his posts, Robert
obviotalywas not happy over the many separations and what would.have
seemed his wife's preference of her mother and father over her husband.
The Mexican war gave opportmity for Robert to demonstrate his bravery
and resourcefulness aithough he did not directiy command forces in

battle. Both of his West Point experiences gave,himmuch time to

reflect on the ethics.of military situations. However, Robert seemed
relxctant to make important personal decisions and left much to the
whims of his superiors. He did not espouse slavery and even spoke of
it's evil but did little to change the system. Similarly, e v m though a
veil know and respected citizen of Virginia and strongly opposed to
secession, Robert took no action at ali to persuade the state to stay in
the Union. He apparently felt that a military person had no role in
poiitics. Up to this point religion had not yet become the central
issue in his life as it would later. Robert's upbringing was mildly
religious and he gradually became more concerned with spirituality as
his life progressed.

The Issue of Lovaitv

For each of the four officers, the operational definition of

loyalty presented in chapter two is appropriate. The officers developed

their-concepts over the course of their entire lives and the idea was

never concrete but rather somewhat situational. Recalling that the

definition includes the four components of: 1. two entities or ideas

with some sort of basis for trust, 2. multiple objects competing for

trust, 3. a hierarchy of those relationships and, 4. a method of setting

up the hierarchy. Each component must be addressed as they applied to

the subject officers .

The Sasis for Trust

The primary basis for trust among these men was their honor.
Although the term has traditionally been ascribed more to those of
aristocratic southern rather than common northern birth, Pernberton and
(especially) Jackson appear to have been at least as conscience of the
idea, if not more so, than Alexander and Lee. So "to be honorable" was
something all four felt to be of primary importance. This honor was
evident i n ma.ny attributes, but nowhere as paramount as in the keeping
of one's word. This was the absolute basis for the trust between the
officers and any person or thing to which they felt loyalty. Whether in
.the form of a private deal, a marriage vow, or the oath of service to

their country, these men felt that their word was their bond. They also

expected those to whom they had pledged their loyalty to also be true to

their word. Herein lies the first difficulty in the ethical outlook of

these men. Apparently, if the other party did not adhere to their

responsibilities then the matter became less than binding. Although

each of these officers had sworn to defend the Constitution, it is

significant that none of them left any evidence at having ethical

difficulties on the basis of their oaths. Somehow the trust between

county and officer had been violated, and, from the officer's point of

view, violated by the country. It appears that part of this perception

occurred through the political decisions of the non-slave holding states

who were in the majority in both houses of Congress. By continual

pursuit of theremoval of slavery as an institution, the slave holding

states felt Congress to be cormittirig acts contrary to the spirit of the
Csnstitution concerning the right tc 2rivate property. This must have
had an effect on the four men as a!! of them vere in some way
economically involved with slavery. This was one instance where two
objects of loyalty would be directly in opposition to each other.

Multiple Loyalties

The four officers all had various loyaltiesbut of different

degrees and types. Although it may seem that the older officer would

have a more complex system to deal with than the younger officer, in

these four cases that does not appear to be so. Each officer is assumed

to have had some sense of loyalty to the Constitution on the basis of

their oaths of office.

John Pemberton had five identifiable loyaltiescompeting for

obedience. They were his career, his wife, his family and Pennsylvania,
,his duty as a C'. 5. officer, and his future in his adopted state of
Virginia.
Edward Alexander had three evident loyalties in opposition. He
had to decide between his future as a 3. S. or Southern army officer,
his obligation toGeorgia, and his personal (perceived) bravery or
cowardice.
Thomas Jackson alluded to three conflicting loyalties. He dealt

with the county allegiances of western Virginia, his own pro-Union

sentiments, and duty as a military :officer.

 Robert Lee also had three loyaities in direct opposition to each

other. They were his future as a 2romised General of the Union, his

obiigation to his family and Virginia, and his pro-Union/anti-slavery

beiiefs.

The Hierarchy of Loyalty

This is the key to understanding why these officers made their

decisions to fight for the Confederacy. This assumes that they were

honest about their thoughts in spoken and written word. Obviously if

they were going to make a decision based on personal fear, gain, or

other less than honorable motive they would probably not have told

anyone about it.

John Perherton went through a great deal of anguish as he made

the decision because his loyalties were more or less equivaient. On the
or,e hand he wanted to please Patti and live in Virginia. On the other
hand he wanted to be a good offlcer and please his farmly and fellow
Pennsylvanians. He nust have felt that he was relleved of obligation
to his oath through the act of resigning even though his brother
reminded him that he would be considered a traitor.
Edward Alexander had very littie discomfort over his decision to

return to Georgia.. His reply to Lt. MacPherson's plea was that his

bravery was more important than personai gain. He reasoned that the

southern army would need officers so he felt secure in his career as an

army officer even with MacPherson's reasoning that the south could not

win a war. Consideration for the feelings of his wife did not enter his

thinking and so was not a competing loyalty. The excitement of the time

dohtless also added to the strenqth of the argument (although none was

needed) for joining the Confederacy.

Of the four officers Thomas Jackson had the leas: personal

difficulty with joining the Confederacy. Indeed, it appears tha; a

decls~cnwas never actuaily xade. He simply foilowe.? -he grders cf the

school president when ordered to Richmond. The county where he was

raised stayed in the Union, but Thomas never made the distinction that

he had a choice in the matter. He was pro-Unionbut must have

considered his own opinion to be of no consequence when called upon by

his authority to act. This devotion to duty obvicusly applied even

though he was not technically a military officer. Like Pemberton, he

must have considered himself released from his oath to the Constitution

when he resigned his active duty commission.

Robert Lee probably struggled more with his decision than any of

the other three. This was not just due to tine conflicting loyalties but

also to Robert's aversion to making such decisions on his own. His

letters show the vacillation between the opposing sides, especially the

phrase wherein he states that he would sacrifice everything but honor

for the preservation of the Union. He personally did nothing to

preserve the Union. It seems that he may have used Providence as an

excuse not to take personal action for which he could have been censured

by his Virginia compatriots. In the same way he relied upon God to

eventually solve the problem of slavery and therefore took no action

against the institution he abhorred. So even though he professed a pro-

Union/anti-slavery stance, his loyalty to such was not very pronounced.

However, his entire life had been devoted to carrying out the legacy of

his ancestry and the heritage of Iievolxtionary Kar heroes of Virginia---

to include that of his father. Even the offer to be named the

ccm,a,~dinggeneral of an army could not overcone this creed. Robert

obviously felt that a written resignation absolved him of the obligation

of his oath as he told his brother he didn't want to resign .under

orders.

why Pemberton. Alexander, Jackson, and Lee Joined the Confederacv

As previously mentioned, how a person sets up their o ~ nloyalty

'

hierarchy will automatically determine the highest loyalty in any given

situation. The simplest way of addressing this is finding what is most

important in a person's life at any particular time.

Once analyzed, the leading reason each of the four officers chose to

join the Confederacy is easily determined.

John C. Pemberton
His main concern in life was'patti. Although his other

loyalties were strong, his devotion to Patti ultimately caused him to

join the Confederacy.

award P. Alexander

His priority was his southern concept of honor, specifically

bravery. This bravery would be measured by his family and friends in

Georgia. Therefore he had to follow Georgia into the Confederacy.

 - Thomas J. Jackson
fie had to perform his duty rsgardless of circumstances. In this
case that duty consisted of f01 l owi:?g orders, ;;iiich he uniesitatingly
did by tahng his student,'so:die;..j to Richmond and the Confederacy.

Robert E. Lee
He had to remain true to his heritage. Fighting against

Virginia would be fighting against the traditions of over six

generations of Lees and Carters. He had r,o choice but to follow

Virginia into the Confederacy.

Did These Men Need More Professional Training or a Code?

It is highly improbable that anything the military could have

done previous to the secession of the southern states would have made

any difference. Each of these officers had gone through an institution

known for it's high ethical and moral staiards. In fact, these

officers were probably more aware of their ethical responsibilities and

obligations than most citizens of the nation. They all were raised in

an environment based upon the precepts of Christianity and most probably

felt they would eventually be judged by an authority higher than man.

Each of them somehow divorced his actions from the obligation of an oath

sworn before that same authority. It would be highly presumptuous to

think-that simple classes, written works, or even a moral or

professional code would have made any difference in their ultimate

choices.

 Is there a problem with the lack of loyalty in the current

United States Army Ethos? This is the original issue of this paper as

stated in the first chapter. Throughout history the loyalty of soldiers

has been an emotionally charged issue. This only makes sense since the

use of force by nations can drasuca1:y alter the face of humanity and

soldiers are the iinstrument of this power. From a purely academic and

utilitarian point of view, a government would like to know that the

military actualiy is an "instrument" to be wielded with impunity.

However, the military is not a machine but a grcmp of people bound

together to accomplish certain tasks. Each of the members of this group

has a personal "ethos" by which he or she makes decisions and generally

conducts life. When the government attempts to employ the military in

some manner which conflicts with these individual value systems, some

type of problem will result. These problems couid be as simple as a

visit to the chapl.ain or as serious as treasonous rebellion. In order

to provide confidence for the governing officials in the militaries they

govern, some type of group value system can be defined. Military

commanders may then use t h s system as a lltmus test to judge the

members of their particular organization and chastise or remove those

who are not in compliance. By so doing, the government then may be

reasonably assured that they indeed have an "instmment" which can be

applied to nationai situations as necessary.

This will work well as long as the goverment's own ethos is

relatively in line with that of the goverxed popclace. The problem

arises when it is not. The Civil War was one exampic; where the

govern~entno longer maintained the same ethos as a iarge segment of its

own population. Since the military forces prior to the war were fairly

representative of the population as a whole, many individual soldier's

value systems also differed greatly from that of the government. The

lack of the government to realistlcaily address this difference resulted

in the greatest loss of life in the nation's hstory.

The United States Army ethos is an attempt to define a vaiue

system whlch wrll Inspire confidence on the part of the government and

the people of the Unlted States. This is good from the standpoint that

the nation knows the values of its milltary forces. However, those

values appear to be changing in ways that may not be readily apparent to

outside viewers. Few Americans would argue with a military that

requires integrity and selfless service on the part of its soldiers.

The concept of duty, however, is something that many citlzens may view

differently than what is stated in the A m y ethos. A citizen would

likeiy think of duty in terms of doing something for the larger group

which involves self-sacrifice on his or her part. This self-sacrifice

is usually done so that some higher good may result for the group as a

whole. In the current edition of FM 100-1 The Amy, the authors

emphasize this same spirit of doing what is good for the group. The

prob1em.i~that the group spoken of is the Army. The implication is

103

that by dolng that wh~chbeneflts t h Army,\ an mdlvldual wlil aiso Se

benefiting the nation. This is not necessarily the case. The key is in
the missing fourth term--loyalty. Just as a government wants to know
chat its mr1ltar:es wlll respond when called ilpon to perform some
service, irilitary superiors want to know that subordinates will obey
their orders. This is often spoken of as being loyal to one's
superiors. But there is a difference between obedience and loyalty.
Tkis is especially dangerous if a soldier confuses loyalty iobedience)
to a superior with loyalty to the nation. This is situation which now
e.c--+
.La& with the A m y ethos. Duty to the A m y is paramou~tand the

nation which it serves receives only lipservice

But does this really matter? The research questlon asks,

"Considering Amencan historical tradition and experience, shol;:d

loyalty he a part of the Army ethos?" Cven the llmlted scope of the

four Civil War generals, probably not. Even if a well defined ethos had

been in existence at the time, it probably would have made very iittle

difference. Why? Because the government (and the military which served

~ t )could not compete with the higher loyalties of each officer's

internal loyalty hierarchy. This is as it should be. If the nation

expects men and women of principle to lead its armed forces, then it has

the right to expect those principles to be founded upon service to the

ideals of the nation and not an organizational ethos. An ethos is

valuable as a basis for introspection and reflection, but, in the end,

the personal values of individuals will always prevail.

APPENDIX A

Alexander, award Porter. Fl~htlngfor che Confederacy. Chapei Hli i ,

London: The Unlverslty of North Carolma Press, 1989.
Alexander, Edward Porter. ~ i i tal-y
i Memoirs of a Confederate. Charles

Scribner's Sons, 1907.

Alden, John Rxhard. General Charles Lee - Traitcr or Patriot?. Baton

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 195i.
Anderson, Charies C. Fighting by Southein Federals. New York: The
Neale FvkJishing company, 1912.
Axinn, 'Sidney.A Moral Militar-y. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1989.

Baliard, Wchael B. Penherton: A B~~graphy.Jackson & London:

Unlverslty Press of Mlss~sslppl,1991.
Bowers, Joh. Stonewali Jackson. Wil ilam Morrow and Company, Inc., New

Yoric, 1989.

Butler, ~eneralGeorge Lee. Personal Reflectlons on Integrlty from an

Old Grad.--The Allce McDermott Memorial Lecture in Applred
Ethlcs: U. S. Air Force Academy, CC., 1993.

Cox, Richard H. Locke on War and Peace. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960.

Cummings, Charles M. Yankee Quaker Confederate General. Associated

University Presses, Cranbury, NJ, 1971.

Davis, Burke. Gray Fox. Rhinehart & Co., New York, 1956.
Davis, Burke. They Called Him Stonewall. Rkinehart & Co., New York,
1954.
Eliot, Ellsworth, Jr. West Point in the Canfederacy. New York: G. A.
Baker & Co., Inc., 1941.
Eplctetus. The Handbook of Eplctetus. Nicholas P. White, ed. Hackett

Publishing Co., Inc., Indianapolis, 1983.

Freeman, Douglas Southhall: R. E. Lee--A Biography. Charles Scribner 's

Sons, New York, 1934.
Gallagher, Gary W. ed. Fightmg for the Confederacy--the Per-sonal
Recol lections of General Edward Porter A1 exander. Chapel Hli l ,
London: The iinrverslty of North Carolina Press, 1989.
Gersoz, Noel B. Light-Horse Hai-i-y.Doubleday & Co., New York, 1966.
Hackett, John X. The Military Lri the Service af the State. The Hamon
Memorial Lectures in Miiitary History: U. S. Air Force Academy,
CO, 1971.
Hackett, :oh W. The Profession of Arms. MacMlilan Publishing Co., New
York, 1983.
Henderson, George F. R. Stonewall Jackson and the American Clvll War.

Gloucester, MS: Fawcett Publlcatlons, Inc.,1962.

Huddleston, Sisley. Petain-Patriot or Traitor? Andrew Drakers Ltd.,

London, 1951.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Soldier and the State. Vlntage Books, New
York, 1957.
Jories, J. William. Christ in the Camp. Sprinkle Publlcacions,
Harr-isonSurg,VA, 1986.
Kemjle, C. Robert. The image of the Army Dfficer in Ainer~ca.Westport.
C N : Greenwood Press, i973.

Kirk, Kenneth E. Personal Ethics. Books for Libraries Press, Freeporr,

, 1934.

Kiimow, Matthew S. "Surrender--A Soldier 's Legal, Ethical, and Moral

Obligation; with Philippine Case Study." MMAS thesis, U. S.
Army Conunand and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS,
1989.

Lee, Captain Robert E. Recollections and Letters of General Robert E.

Lee. Garden'City,New York: Garden City Publishing Co., Inc.,
1904.

Locke, John. On Politics and Education. Howard R. Penniman ed., D. Van

Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, 1947.
Logan, Mrs. John A. Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife. New York:
Charles Scrlbner's Sons, 1913.
Long, E. B. with Barbara Long. The Civil War Day by Day-An Almanac
186121865. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971.
Loveli, John P. Neither Afhens nor Sparta? Indlana Universlty Press,

Bloomngton, IN, 1979.

Matthews, Lloyd J . and Dale E. Brown, eds. The Parameters of Military

Ethlcs. Waslhington: Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense

Publishers, Inc., 1989.

McWbiney . Grzdy . firaxton Bragg and Confederate Defeat. Coiumbia

University Press, Inc., New York, i969.
M~litaryService Publishing Company. The Officer's Guide. 4th ed., i94i.
Military Service Publishing Company. The Off~cer'sGuide. 19th ed.,
1952.
Morrison, James L. Jr. "The Best School in the World." Kent State
Universlty Press, Inc., Kent, OH, 1986.
Nathanson, Stephen. Patriotism, Morality, and Peace. Lanharn, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993.
National Defense Universlty Press. 1987. Military Ethics. Washington
D.C.: CiPO.
Pemberton, John C. Pemberton--Defender of Vicksburg. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1942.
Permock, 7 , soland and John W . Chapman eds. Political and Legal
Gbilqatlon. NewYork: Atinercm Press, i970.
Randall, Willard Sterne. Benedict Arnold: Patr-iot and Traltor. New
York: Willlam Morrow and Co, Inc.,i990.
Sanborn, Margaret. Robert E. Lee--A Portrait. J.B. Lippincott Company,
New York, 1966.
Shdnan, Arnold M. The Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, 1861-1865.
Associated University Presses, Inc., Cranbury NJ, 1980.
.
Sherman, William Tecurrcseh. Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman. Vol I ,
New York, Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1990.
Smith, Gene. Lee and Grant. McGraw-Hill Company, New York, 1984.
Stem, Philip Van Doren. Robert E. Lee. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., 1963.
Strauss, Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1936.
Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Samuel B. Griffith, ed. Oxford University
Press, London, 1963.
Toner, James H. The Americ-&IMiiitary Ethic. Praeger, New York, 1992
Vandiver, Frank E. Mighty Stonewail. McGraw-Hill Company, New York,
1957.

Wakin, Malham M. ed. War, Moraii ty, and the Military Profession.
Boulder, CO: Westview press, inc., 1986.
Piass&strom, Richard A. War and Morali cy. Wadsworth Publiskinq Coxpany,
inc., Belmont, CA, 1976.
Waugh, E. D. J. West Point. New York: The Maanillan Company, 1944.
Waugh, John C. The Class o f 1846. Warner Books, inc., New York, 1994.
Zwtgart, Major (General Staff) Dr. Ulrich F. "HowMuch Obedience Does an
O f f i c e r Need? Centennial Commemorative Essay, U. S. Army Command
and General Staff College, Ft. ieavenworth, KS, 1993.
 INiTIAL DISTRIEVTION LIST

1. Comblned A n s Research Library

U. S. Army Conunand and General Staff School

Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-6900

2. Defense Technicai Information Center

Cameron Station

Alexandria, VA 22314

3. Dr. Robert Baumam

Combat Studies Institute

USACGSC

Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-6900

4. Major Tom Dreilinger, M.A.

Combat Studies Institute
USACGSC
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-6900