Acton Lee Correspondence

JOHN EMERICH ACTONROBERT E. LEE

THE ACTON-LEE CORRESPONDENCE

4 LORD ACTON ROBERT LEE

INTRODUCTORY NOTE!

The English classical liberal historian John Emerich Acton wrote the following letter to Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate army, in the aftermath of the War Between the States. In it, Acton penned its view of the Southern states’ fight for secession as a struggle for self-determination and, ulti-mately, liberty. In his letter, the great historian expressed its great disappointment at the tragical outcome of the war. “I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond,” Acton wrote, “more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” Then he added, deeming the secession an exam-ple of free determination by the peoples as well of the new as the old world, “he institutions of your Republic have not exer-cised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them.” And this “by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy.” Or, expressing his views in a very clear, straightforward way, “I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization.” (Emphasis added.)

The next month the general wrote in reply to the Acton’s letter. Lee confirmed the historian’s writings. His words are a lesson to whoever wants to know what the US constitution stands, or stood, for. With a shade of sadness, he writes that “[…] while I have considered the preservation of the constitu-tional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the

1 Useless to say, you may skip this.


THE ACTON-LEE CORRESPONDENCE 5

continuance of a free government.” Then, as if foreshadowing today’s dramatic expansion of an imperialistic US abroad, he adds: “I consider it (i.e. the maintenance of the states’ rights) as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain pre-cursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” (Emphasis added.)

That’s the reason US’s most destructive war is called by many the War Between the States, as contrasted to the Civil War. It was not a civil war. A civil war is the struggle of a part for the conquer of the whole. The South was not going to conquer the republic. The republic was not even at stake, at least from the South’s point of view. They just wanted to go out. Right or wrong, slavery or not, the war was about states’ self-determination against government despotism.

!

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), known as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Bt from 1837 to 1869 and usually referred to simply as Lord Acton, was an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer. He was the only son of Sir Ferdinand Dalberg-Acton, 7th Baronet and a grandson of the Neapolitan admiral Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet. He is fa-mous for his remark, often misquoted: “Power tends to cor-rupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”2

Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was a career military officer who is best known for hav-ing commanded the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia

2 From Wikipedia.




in the American Civil War.The son of Revolutionary War officer Henry “Light Horse

Harry” Lee III and a top graduate of the United States Mili-tary Academy, Robert E. Lee distinguished himself as an ex-ceptional officer and combat engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican-American War, served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, and married Mary Custis.

When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his personal desire for the Union to stay intact and despite the fact that President Abraham Lincoln had offered Lee command of the Union Army. During the Civil War, Lee originally served as a senior military adviser to President Jefferson Davis. He soon emerged as a shrewd tactician and battlefield commander, winning numerous battles against larger Union armies. His abilities as a tactician have been praised by many military historians. His strategic vision was more doubtful, and both of his invasions of the North ended in defeat. Union General Ulysses S. Grant’s campaigns bore down on Lee in 1864 and 1865, and despite inflicting heavy casualties, Lee was unable to force back Grant. Lee would ultimately surren-der to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. By this time, Lee had been promoted to the commanding offi-cer of all Confederate forces; the remaining armies soon capit-ulated after Lee’s surrender. Lee rejected the starting of a guer-rilla campaign against the North and called for reconciliation between the North and South.

After the war, as President of what is now Washington and Lee University, Lee supported President Andrew Johnson’s program of Reconstruction and intersectional friendship, while opposing the Radical Republican proposals to give freed slaves



the vote and take the vote away from ex-Confederates. He urged them to rethink their position between the North and the South, and the reintegration of former Confederates into the nation’s political life. Lee became the great Southern hero of the War, a postwar icon of the “Lost Cause of the Confed-eracy” to some. But his popularity grew even in the North, es-pecially after his death in 1870. He remains an iconic figure of American military leadership.3

3 From Wikipedia.



LORD ACTON’S LETTER TO ROBERT E. LEE

BolognaNovember 4, 1866

Sir,The very kind letter which Mrs. Lee wrote to my wife last

winter encouraged me to hope that you will forgive my pre-suming to address you, and that you will not resent as an in-trusion a letter from an earnest and passionate lover of the cause whose glory and whose strength you were.

I have been requested to furnish private counsel in Ameri-can affairs for the guidance of the editors of a weekly Review which is to begin at the New Year, and which will be conduct-ed by men who are followers of Mr. Gladstone. You are aware, no doubt, that Mr. Gladstone was in the minority of Lord Palmerston’s cabinet who wished to accept the French Emper-or’s proposal to mediate in the American war.

The reason of the confidence shown in my advice is simply the fact that I formerly traveled in America, and that I after-wards followed the progress of the four years’ contest as close-ly and as keenly as it was possible to do with the partial and unreliable information that reached us. In the momentous questions which have arisen since you sheathed the sword, I have endeavoured to conform my judgment to your own as well as I could ascertain it from the report of your evidence, from the few English travelers who enjoyed the privilege of speaking with you, and especially from General Beauregard, who spoke, as I understood, your sentiments as well as his own. My travels in America never led me south of Maryland, and the only friends to whom I can look for instruction, are Northerners, mostly of Webster’s school.

In my emergency, urged by the importance of the ques-tions at issue in the United States, and by the peril of misguid-



ed public opinion between our two countries, I therefore seek to appeal to southern authorities, and venture at once to pro-ceed to Headquarters.

If, Sir, you will consent to entertain my request, and will inform me of the light in which you would wish the current politics of America to be understood, I can pledge myself that the new Review shall follow the course which you prescribe and that any communication with which you may honor me shall be kept in strictest confidence, and highly treasured by me. Even should you dismiss my request as unwarranted, I trust you will remember it only as an attempt to break through the barrier of false reports and false sympathies which encloses the views of my countrymen.

It cannot have escaped you that much of the good will felt in England towards the South, so far as it was not simply the tribute of astonishment and admiration won by your cam-paigns, was neither unselfish nor sincere. It sprang partly from an exultant belief in the hope that America would be weakened by the separation, and from terror at the remote prospect of Farragut appearing in the channel and Sherman landing in Ire-land.

I am anxious that you should distinguish the feeling which drew me aware toward your cause and your career, and which now guides my pen, from that thankless and unworthy sympa-thy.

Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison’s and Hamilton’s papers that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the abso-lutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to




have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civi-lization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Rich-mond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

General Beauregard confirmed to me a report which was in the papers, that you are preparing a narrative of your cam-paigns. I sincerely trust that it is true, and that the loss you were said to have sustained at the evacuation of Richmond has not deprived you of the requisite materials. European writers are trying to construct that terrible history with the informa-tion derived from one side only. I have before me an elaborate work by a Prussian officer named Sander. It is hardly possible that future publications can be more honorable to the reputa-tion of your army and your own. His feelings are strongly Federal, his figures, especially in estimating your forces, are de-rived from Northern journals, and yet his book ends by be-coming an enthusiastic panegyric on your military skill. It will impress you favourably towards the writer to know that he dwells with particular detail and pleasure on your operations against Meade when Longstreet was absent, in the autumn of 1863.

But I have heard the best Prussian military critics regret that they had not the exact data necessary for a scientific appre-ciation of your strategy, and certainly the credit due to the offi-cers who served under you can be distributed and justified by no hand but your own.

If you will do me the honor to write to me, letters will



reach me addressed Sir J. Acton, Hotel, Rome. Meantime I remain, with sentiments stronger than respect, Sir,

~ Your faithful servantJohn Dalberg Acton



ROBERT E. LEE’S LETTER TO LORD ACTON

Lexington, Vir.,15 Dec. 1866

Sir,Although your letter of the 4th ulto. has been before me

some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to a want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence. As a citizen of the South I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it. The influence of current opinion in Europe upon the current politics of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue the United States, involving not only constitutional free-dom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright. Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to relieve it from the mass of prejudice and pas-sion, with which it has been covered by party spirit. I am con-scious the compliment conveyed in your request for my opin-ion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion, which was commenced by the founders of the constitution and has been continued to the present day. I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet



believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority re-served to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safe-guard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Wash-ington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centraliza-tion of power, as tending to the subversion of State Govern-ments, and to despotism. The New England states, whose citi-zens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern states, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the pur-chase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threat-ened the disruption of the Union unless the war should be dis-continued. The assertion of this right has been repeatedly made by their politicians when their party was weak, and Mas-sachusetts, the leading state in hostility to the South, declares in the preamble to her constitution, that the people of that commonwealth “have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free sovereign and independent state, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, ju-risdiction, and right which is not, or may hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.” Such has been in substance the language of other State governments, and such the doctrine advocated by the leading men of the country for the last seventy years. Judge Chase, the present Chief Justice of the U.S., as late as




1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he “knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a state to perform its stipulations,” thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of state action. But I will not weary you with this unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable be-cause the judgment of reason has been displaced by the arbitra-ment of war, waged for the purpose as avowed of maintaining the union of the states. If, therefore, the result of the war is to be considered as having decided that the union of the states is inviolable and perpetual under the constitution, it naturally follows that it is as incompetent for the general government to impair its integrity by the exclusion of a state, as for the states to do so by secession; and that the existence and rights of a state by the constitution are as indestructible as the union itself. The legitimate consequence then must be the perfect equality of rights of all the states; the exclusive right of each to regulate its internal affairs under rules established by the Con-stitution, and the right of each state to prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage. The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it. Virginia to the last made great efforts to save the union, and urged harmony and com-promise. Senator Douglass, in his remarks upon the compro-mise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs. Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the republican party, and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable ad-justment was with the republican party. Who then is responsi-ble for the war? Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results,



and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a differ-ent way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia. In other respects I trust that the consti-tution may undergo no change, but that it may be handed down to succeeding generations in the form we received it from our forefathers. The desire I feel that the Southern states should possess the good opinion of one whom I esteem as highly as yourself, has caused me to extend my remarks farther than I intended, and I fear it has led me to exhaust your pa-tience. If what I have said should serve to give any information as regards American politics, and enable you to enlighten pub-lic opinion as to the true interests of this distracted country, I hope you will pardon its prolixity.

In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents for its completion. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the bat-tles were fought. I have not seen the work by the Prussian offi-cer you mention and therefore cannot speak of his accuracy in this respect. – With sentiments of great respect, I remain your obt. servant,

~ R.E. Lee

Documents

Acton Lee Correspondence