![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
(Terrible title but the best I could do.) In the current state that I live in, Arkansas, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert E. Lee Day are celebrated. I didn't even realize there was a Robert E. Lee Day until this year thanks to the left-wing outcry about it. So a few random thoughts for the day:
I wonder how many protesters in the Occupy movement or at Ferguson have read and were inspired by, as was MLK Jr., the Greek Classics--that is, what are now often referred to disparagingly by university leftists as the works of Old Dead White Males. If you've read the Letter from the Birmingham City Jail (as anyone with a college degree in the U.S. should) and are familiar with Plato (as any university graduate in the West should be) you'll of course note its similarities with Plato's Crito, with the exception that MLK Jr. (reasonably) argues, contrary to Socrates, that it is permissible to break a law, but (a) only when it is unjust, (b) when one does so non-violently after a full examination of one's moral state, and (c) where one willingly suffers any consequences (even if those consequences are themselves unjust). In addition, one's actions must be directed towards the realization of concrete goals. The similarities between Socrates and MLK Jr's. situations are striking (as MLK indirectly alludes to in the letter).
Regarding General Lee, it's often said that he was a dishonorable traitor. Being myself both a Northerner (who has thought about buying this shirt) as well as one who finds little value in psychoanalyzing and moralizing about the long since departed, I have no dogs in this race. Moreover, I know very little about the man--far less than I know about King (who himself was a flawed man, plagiarizing his dissertation and cheating on his wife among other things).
I raise a question only about whether he was a traitor and if being a traitor is necessarily, morally dishonorable. It seems hard to doubt that he was a traitor to the Union. The only way I can see that he was not (and correct me if I'm wrong) is if, when the Confederate States of America was formed, he immediately thereby became a citizen of the CSA, his Union citizenship being immediately dissolved. I'll leave questions about the historical facts to the historians and the metaphysics of states and citizenship to political philosophers.
Suppose, as seems likely from the little I know, that Lee was a traitor to the Union. Is being a traitor, by itself, intrinsically wrong? It seems not since one could be a traitor to an unjust, immoral, or illegitimate regime. Being a traitor in such circumstances would be a good thing. Furthermore, one can have more than one (legitimate) allegiance, for instance, to one's country, one's state, one's town, one's family, etc. When conflicts arise among allegiances one will thereby be a traitor (at least in some sense) to the others.
Of course for the Christian one's ultimate allegiance is to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--not to MLK Jr. or Robert E. Lee. That's the ultimate trumping allegiance.
The most charitable (and accurate) description of Lee is just that: he faced conflicting allegiances (state v. nation) and picked Virginia. In a way, he embodied the very conflict in which he was major player. For Lee--as well as many of his compatriots--loyalty to home and to one's state was more important than any national allegiance.
ReplyDeleteFor his part, Lee was a reluctant traitor. Lincoln made him a Colonel shortly before Virginia seceded, and Lincoln offered him a promotion to Major General and command of the defenses around Washington. But for Virginia's departure, he would have taken it.
Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteEven better...he was no _traitor_ at all. Unless one thinks that secession is ruled out from the political get-go...which neither he (nor any right-thinking American before him) did.
ReplyDeleteMonash,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't you say that if (a) he was at one time a citizen of the Union and (b) at some point he voluntarily left the union to fight for a side against it, that he was technically a traitor to the Union? Or do you deny that he was at one time a citizen of the Union? Is the Union one thing and the U.S. another? Is that what you're getting at? Or something else?
He was at one time a citizen of THESE (not "the") United States. As a member of a seceding state, he was not a traitor to something of which he was no absolute part in the first place. If Quebec votes to secede from Canada and does so, I would not think of Quebecois as "traitors" to Canada. Instead they exercised their rights as free states (not provinces).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the U.S. is not an entity over and above the states, and as such he was never a citizen of it? If so, would you say the same thing about Virginia and its counties (or parishes or whatever)? Or are you saying that if one secedes and then fights against what one seceded from that this doesn't fit under the definition of being a traitor?
ReplyDeleteThe latter. As a state, VA has a right to secede from these United States. Upon exercising that right - assuming some sort of provocation - one may fight against the other political entity which attempts to infringe upon the right of secession. Traitor has no part to play in it any more than if I moved to Britain, changed my citizenship thereto, and then repelled an invading force of Americans.
ReplyDeleteWasn't Lee still a citizen of the U.S. when Virginia seceded and formed the CSA? Or when Virginia seceded did the U.S. become no more and the Union and CSA came to being? (This is the scenario I had in mind with my caveat in the main body of the post). If the former then Lee's act of renouncing his citizenship and going to fight for the CSA might fall under being a traitor, since it seems as if to be a traitor one has to be a traitor TO one's country (and thus traitors must at least begin their traitorous acts AS citizens).
ReplyDeleteNo, upon VA's secession he was no longer a citizen of these United States. That's, uh, sort of the point of secession. "The" US, I take it, remained a federal and sovereign nation, i.e., among those states that remained in the wake of secession.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't need to "renounce" his citizenship to one entity as he bared allegiance to another. But even that's not necessary...states have dissolved in the past leaving "citizens" who were no longer citizens, i.e., there was no state of whom they are citizens. Think Alsace-Lorraine between the Germans and the French...So, metaphysically, yes at the moment VA seceded, it was no longer a part of a collective entity known as United States. And so no, traitor he was not, but loyal to his own nation.
"No, upon VA's secession he was no longer a citizen of these United States." But WHY? There is such a thing as DUAL citizenship after all. (Don't "uh, sort of the point" me, Holmes!) Why wasn't he a dual citizen, at least for a time?
ReplyDeleteWell, first, DUAL citizenship is a fairly modern notion, and I doubt anyone in the 1860s would've even considered it. But I can't say much more than this: that's WHAT SECESSION IS. I don't know what the "why" question even means!
ReplyDeleteLee leaves the U.S. (Union whatever). I have granted that all along for the sake of argument. HOWEVER, IF he were at one time a U.S. citizen, and at the time of being a U.S. citizen decided to switch allegiances and fight against the U.S., then that might very well count as an act of being a traitor.
DeleteMy why question above is this: Given VA's secession, what it is about VA's secession such that Lee is no longer a citizen of the U.S.? Dual citizenship, a modern notion. Well, so what? The U.S. Supreme Court has said that secession isn't legal so what do you care about what people at a certain time think? The question is what is true. The question is over METAPHYSICS not about people's notions.
I have no reason to think that "dual citizenship" is a right. While I have excellent reason to think that a group of people banding together under political principle within a certain territory have every right to break away from a tyranny. And so at no point do I need to appeal to "people's notions."
DeleteAgain, secession is what it is. But I fail to see why your question of metaphysics matters. "What is it about my SIGNING MY NAME to document x that makes it such that I am no longer an American and am henceforth a Brit?" Well, I honestly can't say that I know. But it seems reasonable to suppose that signing my name cancels my American citizenship and makes me a Brit. What else do you want?
I won't to know when Lee was not a citizen of the U.S. and in virtue of what. If he was still a citizen when he decided to fight for the Confederacy then it's hard to see how that decision was not a traitorous act.
DeleteYou "won't" to know. So, you "will not" to know? Interesting.
DeleteYou keep asking about the metaphysics of losing citizenship...I admit: I have no clue. None. But I also have no clue, none whatsoever, about the metaphysics of gaining citizenship either. It just seems perfectly sensible to me that if one is a member of state x and state x secedes from entity y, then one is no longer a citizen of entity y. Any more than that and I can't help you. But this much I can say: I do not for one second believe that he was still a citizen of the belligerent federal entity whenever he fought for the Confederacy.
Well, you're obviously a racist so I'm through arguing with you.
DeleteThink about it. You're a citizen of Alsace-Lorraine. It's owned by the French. So, you're a French citizen. The Germans take it over. Well, you ain't no French citizen no more!
ReplyDeleteOr so it seems to me.
Alsace-Lorraine, annexed by Germany.
ReplyDeleteYou're not a French citizen anymore. Thus spake, Kaiser Monash.
I was born as in Ohio, which is a part of the Union. Since it is part of the Union and I was born in it, I am a citizen of these United States by birth. Now, let's say that Ohio decided to secede today (and I lived in Ohio rather than the cesspool NY); Ohio would not longer be a part of the Union (assuming secession is legal. As TB has noted, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not, but I think that is disputable).
ReplyDeleteIf my citizenship comes via Ohio being a part of the Union, then maybe I'm not a citizen anymore. But, that would be wierd. Consider all the people born in Ohio who now live in another state, who are citizens of the Union because they were born in Ohio. They lose their citizenship, simply because Ohio is no longer in the Union, unless their citizenship is no longer due to being born in Ohio, but being a resident of another state. Again, that is weird because birth is a typical way of getting citizenship, not residence.
And what about all the Ohio citizens who voted against secession? They lose citizenship just because they were on the losing side, despite being pro-Union. That seems suspect to me. It seems to me that if you were born anywhere in the Union, you are a citizen, and this citizenship remains intact so long as the citizen himself or the governing body take no actions to dissolve citizenship. Secession is an action by a third entity (granted, an entity that is part of the Union prior to secession) that is neither the citizen nor the entity that grants citizenship.
Here's a historical question: If you were a Virginian during the time of secession and you were against secession and decided to immediately move to PA and enlist in the Union, you were treated as a US citizen, right? You didn't have to re-naturalize and then enlist!
I don't find that question all that interesting, to be honest. But here's why: it all boils down to the legality of secession. Historically, HAD the federal leviathan recognized the Confederacy as a legal entity, then OF COURSE Lee (and others) would have been no longer citizens of the former and there would be no discussion of the matter of citizenship one way or the other. The "in virtue of what's" would be beside the point.
DeleteNow as to whether one could immigrate from the CSA to the USA and be recognized as a naturalized citizen, I don't know. I'd imagine so. But then I'm just speculating. Fact is, I just don't know.