Letters to the Editor — November 2020

Originally published November 2020 · p. 2

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: I spent some time reviewing the results of the Civil War News Facebook poll taken over three questions relating to treason. In one response, the words “Weird that West point taught secession” appeared. It is an unfortunate example of how myths in history have long roots. Studies conducted by the United States Military Academy as well as more modern forums have addressed this particular issue. The reference to secession being taught at West Point is a perfect example of the poll observations written by the CWN editors, “the responses indicated a near total lack of effective teaching about U.S. history.” A book on constitutional law, written by W. Rawles, was used at West Point. There is a section of this book that addresses the permanence of the Union which has been cited as the source of secession being taught to cadets, however, this book was only used one year (1826) and then replaced by Kent’s Commentaries. The only officer in the Confederacy who might have used Rawles was Albert Sidney Johnston (Class of 1826). Because the concept of nullification was argued from 1828 to 1832, it is possible that the topic of secession was discussed by cadets. References to secession being taught at West Point also point out that no indication of questions about secession appeared on the final examinations each year up through 1840. Law was predominantly a First Class or senior course, hence Robert E. Lee, who graduated in 1829, would not have used Rawles as a text book. I am sure that it could be found in the Military Academy’s library. For other cadets prior to the Civil War back to 1840, there is no indication that Rawles was used as a text book, hence they were not taught about secession from that source. My sources of information:

“Was Secession Taught at West Point”, Col. Edgar S Dudley, JAG, U.S. Army, in an article published in Century Magazine, Vol. 78 No. 1 (May 1909), 629 634; and MILITARY ORDER OF THE LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES, COMMANDERY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, by Companion Brevet LTC James W. Latta U.S.V. at a meeting May 5, 1909. Brian McEnany, Class of 1962 Author of For Brotherhood and Duty: The Civil War History of the West Point Class of 1862. LETTER TO THE EDITOR: It was with great wonderment that I read M.G. Subhas’ article “Ulysses S. Grant: Migraine and Drunkenness – A Reconciliation” in your September issue of Civil War News. I agree wholeheartedly with the author’s clear and well-articulated presentation of facts. I wish to point to one additional reference which goes to the heart of the matter. In chapter 4 of John Eaton’s book Grant, Lincoln and the Freedmen, Eaton recalls being present in Grant’s residence while Julia applied poultices to Ulysses’ head and neck “to relieve the violent sick headache from which he was suffering and to which he was subject.” The event took place at the Gayoso House in Memphis during the early months of 1863. Eaton is a highly credible witness who had uncommon access to General Grant during that period. He follows up this account by flatly dismissing stories of Grant’s intemperance. Joe Krom Argos, Ind. LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The United States of America came into being as a contractual consortium of individual states. Citizen loyalties, however, were to their respective states first and, secondarily to the United States. This predominant order of loyalty continued through the Civil War until near the end of the 19th Century and was the reason numerous officers (Robert E. Lee, et al) resigned their U.S. commissions to serve their respective states upon the advent of the War between the States. Judging their conduct to be traitorous is largely conjectural and of questionable legal merit. Not one of them was ever charged with treason to my knowledge. By the time of World War I, loyalties had switched predominantly to America first with state loyalties clearly secondary. James D. West Longview, Texas LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The lady doth protest too much; methinks (Joan Wenner, J. D., “A Question of Treason”, October 2020). To accuse the Confederates of treason, one must first wipe one’s feet on the Declaration of Independence when the thirteen (slaveholding) colonies seceded from the British Empire. Abraham Lincoln did not recognize the Southern States as being out of the Union. He was the one, therefore, not the South, who committed treason under Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Self-defense is not treason, and no Confederate was ever tried for it, even under the vindictive Radical Reconstruction congress. H. V. Traywick Jr. Richmond, Va. Editor’s comment: Judging from comments, it is possible some readers misunderstood the whole point of the Wenner article, “A Question of Treason.” The idea was to show how treason was considered in 1861 rather than in 2020.