Why Civil War Generals Joined the Confederacy

8/13/2019 Why Civil War Generals Joined the Confederacy

1/119

LOYALTY AND THE ARMY A STUDY OF W Y THE CIVIL WAR GENERALSROBWT LEE JOHN PEMBERTON THaMAS JACKSON ANDEDWIN ALEXANDER JOINED THE CONFEDERACY

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. ArmyCommand and General Staff College in partialfulfillment of the requirements for thedegreeM STER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

GARY SKUBAL MAJOR USARB.S. U.S. Air Force Academy Colorado 979

Fort Leavenworth Kansas995

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.


2/119

I Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 0704 0188AGENCY USE ONLY Leave blank) 12. REPORT DATE 13 REPORT TYPE AN D DATES COVERED

1 2 June 1995 Master s TheITLE A N 0 SUBTITLELoyalty and the Army: A Study of Why the CivilWar Generals Robert Lee, John Pemberton, ThomasJackson, and Edwin Alexander Joined the Confederacy

AUTHOR(S)Major Gary A. Skubal, U.S. ArmyERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME( ) AND ADDRESS(ES)U.S. Army Command and General Staff CollegeATTN: ATZL-SWD-ODFort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-6900

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADORESS(E5)

1 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

.s, Aug 94 - 2 Jun 955 FUNDING NUMBERS

3 PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSORINGIMONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER

2a. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILlTV STATEMENT 12b DISTRIBUTION CODEApproved for public release, distributionis unlimited.

I3. ABSTRACT Maximum200wordsThis study investigates the concept of loyalty as applied in the U.S. Army. Inlight of the fact that the term haabeen dropped from the official definition ofthe Army Ethos in the 1994 version of M 100-1, the study investigates theimplications from a historical perspective. The American Civil War is used as theonly appropriate onflict where issues of loyalty were widespread in the existingU.S. ~ rmy. The choices made by the individuals involved had severe consequencesand were not merely academic in nature. The study defines loyalty and applies thedefinition to the analysis of why the subject officers ,chose to fight for theConfederacy against the object of their ormer allegiance--the U.S. Constitution.Each officer is summarized and subjective rationale is offered for the specificreasons underlying each of their decisions. The study concludes that an Army Ethosmay be useful for providing a framework of discussion for matters of professionalconduct. . However, due to the numerous and diverse objects competing for one sloyalty, the Army Ethos has only marginal effect in influencing decisions of greatimportance.

1 SUBIECT TERM S 15 NUMBER OF PAGESThomas Jackson, Edwin Alexander, Confederacy, 125Loyalty, Civil War, Robert E. Lee, John Pemberton, 16. PRICE CODE


3/119

MASTER G MILITARY ART AND SCIENCETHESIS PPRCV L PAGE

Name of Candidate: Major Gary SkubalTltle of Thesis: Loyalty and the Army: A Study of Why the Civil WarGenerals Robert Lee, John Pemberton, Thomas Jackson, and Edwin AlexanderJoined the Confederacy

Approved by:

Thesis Committee ChairmanMajor Tom Dreilinger, M.A.

Member, Graduate FacultyRobert Baumann, Ph.D.

Accepted this 2d day of June 995 by:

Director, Graduate Degree ProgramsPhilip J. Brookes, Ph.D.

The opinlons and conclusions expressed herem are those of the studentauthor and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. ArmyCommand and General Staff College or any other governmental agency.References to thls study should include the foregoing statement.)


4/119

ABSTRACT

LOYALTY AND THE ARMY: A STUDY OF WHY THE CIVIL W R GENERALS ROBERTLEE, JOHN PEMBERTON, THOMAS JACKSON, AND W I N ALEXANDER JOINEDTHE 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 theofficial definition of the Army ethos in the 1994 version of FM 100-1the study investigates the implications from a historical perspective.The American Civil War is used as the only appropriate conflict whereissues of loyalty were widespread in the existing U.S. Army. Thechoices made by the individuals involved had severe consequences andwere not merely academic in nature.The study defines loyalty and applies the definition to the analysis ofwhy the subject officers chose to fight for the Confederacy against theobject of their former allegiance--the U.S. Constitution. Each officeris summarized and subjective rationale is offered for the specificreasons underlying each of their decisions.The study concludes that an Army Ethos may by useful for providing aframework of discussion for matters of professional conduct. However,due to the numerous and diverse objects competing for one s loyalty, theArmy ethos has only marginal effect in influencing decisions of greatimportance.

iii


5/119

TABLE OF CONTENTS.APPROVAL PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

KESTRACT

.- .. - > 1 J . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . LOYi i LTY: THEC ONC EP T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 63 THE Gm FPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 .WALYSiS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2

APPENDIXA. CADET OATH OF ALMANDW--i854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 6B C A D E T O A T I i O F J A W O N - - 1 8 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0C . i i E G i M E N T A L O A T H O F L Z 3 - - 1 8 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i 3

B I B L I K X W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I N i T i A L D I S T R I E C J T I O N L I S T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 5


6/119

Smce manhnd flrst took up a m o settle thelr disputes, theloyalty of the warriors involved has been a matter of great concern.Often throughout recorded hstory, fates of entlre natlons have changeddramatically due to disloyalty of their soldiers. Absolom rebelledagainst King David and led an entire army of Israel agalnst the crown.He died hanging in an oak tree while twenty thousand of his soldiersperlshed by the sw0rd.l To prevent such sltuatrons, sovereigns tryresorting to soiemn oaths of allegiance--with our own earliest versionbeing most thorough:

do acknowledge the United States of America to be Free,independent and Sovereign States, and declare that the peoplethereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King ofGreat Britain; and i renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance orobedience to him; and do swear that will to the utmost of mypower, support, maintain and defend the said United States againstthe said King George the Third, his heirs and successors, and his ortheir abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the saidUnited States in the office of which now hold, withfidelity, according to the best of my skill and ~nderstanding.~Unfortunately, the blank spaces of one such oath were filled in with thewords, Benedict Arnold, Major General. Even in the face of tyrants,with an army of men committed to a cormnon cause, a traitor can arrsewith shocklng boldness and do untold harm.

The U S Army recently released its newest version of the manualwhich, in the words of the Chief of Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan,


7/119

is the foundation for all Army doctrine. From our doctrine flows howwe think about the world and how we train, equip, and organize ourforces 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 cornerstonedocument, and defines the qualities, values, and traditions that guidethe Army in protecting and serving the Nation.'15 Therefore, anyomissions or errors in this manual would logically have seriouscascading effects throughout the Army. What then is the relationshipbetween loyalty and M 100-1, he Army?

The ProblemIn an increasingly complex world, nationalistic llnes are

becoming harder to define. One has only to consider the situations inBosnia or Moldava to see the emerging desire for self-determination andthe threat to existing governments. The loyalty issue is furthercomplicated as it becomes more difficult to identify what particularattributes a sovereign must have to be worthy of an individual'sallegiance. Although it may seem that t h s problem would be confined tothird-world nations, world powers and superpowers are not immune. Mostrecently, officers in the former Soviet Union have been forced to dealwith this issue in unforeseen ways as the following 1993 press releaseillustrates:

Officers in the Black Sea Fleet Said Persecuted: The presscenter of the Ukrainian Navy has reported that in subunits deployedin Kacha officers who have taken an oath of allegiance to Ukraineand received Ukrainian citizenship are routinely persecuted. They


8/119

were told to either lobk for employment in the Ukrainian Navy or toresign.s officers of the former Soviet Union, they had undoubtedly taken theoath common to that regime. When the economy collapsed and politicsbegan to change the structure cif the superpower, individual officerswere faced with the diiemma of determining just where and to what theirallegiance lay. As one might imagine, this was not simply an academicexercise. Drastic consequences could and did result from thesedecisions.

Officers in the American Army have not been faced with thesetypes of decisions in over a century. However, as the world continuesto destabilize, the future is certainly open to radical speculation. Toa helicopter pilot patrolling the East-West German border in the late1980s, the Soviet regime appeared to be as stable as anytime in itshistory. Yet in less than five years the entire system had collapsed.In such times it would make sense that military officers should have afairly clear idea of the meaning of loyalty.

Yet the trend in M 100-1 is otherwise. A cursory reading ofthis manual gives one the feeling that all is well in our Army doctrinalfoundations. But when the chapter, The Profession of Arms, iscompared to the same chapter in the previous edition of M 100-1, asignificant 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 Espritde Corps and Pride. The first part is the foundation for the followingthree and is described as follows:


9/119

The Army ethos, tKe guiding beliefs, standards and ideals thatcharacterize n d motivate the Army is succinctly described in oneword--DUTY. Duty is behavior required by moral obligation, demandedby custom, or enjoined by feelings of rightness. Contained withinthe concept of duty are the values of integrity and selflessservice, which give moral foundation to the qualities the ethosdemands of all soldiers from private to general ~ f f ic e r. ~This sounds noble enough for a professional military, but the changeover time of this ethos shows a trend away from a broader perspectiveand towards a very narrow definition. This change is evident in theprevious edition's definition of the Army Ethos:

The Army ethic consists of four professional values: Duty,integrity, Loyalty and Selfless Service. Duty and Integrity aregreat morai imperatives which are also governed by the Uniform Codeof Military Justice. The values of Selfless Service and Loyaltyare governed by convention, tradition, and the character of theprofession. When internalized and adhered to, these values promotemut.aal confidence and understanding among all soldiers and inspirethe special trust and confi'dence of the nation.*

Apparently, the authors of the newest version no longer consider ioyaltyto be a part of


10/119

to the nation and an dbligation to support and defend theConstitution of the United states.1Surely no professional American soldier could argue with this value, yetit has been deleted in the current Army Ethos. Perhaps the authorswished to leave less to interpretation in the new version. Indeed, thetaking of the oath is described in the third section--The AmericanSoldier. ow ever the meaning given to the purpose of the oath israther alarming when viewed in the context of loyalty. The swearing-inceremony is a formal, public conunitment to the Army ~thos. ll The oath,however, is very clearly to the Constitution of the United States, notthe Army Ethos. Again, the authors apparently wish to focus only onduty. In the case of the oath, only the phrase that I will well andfaithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which am about toenter mentions anything resembling the current Army Ethos.12 Perhapsthe actual intent of the authors is contained in their ow descriptionof duty:

A sense of Duty compels us to do what needs to be done at the righttime despite difficulty or danger. It leads to obedient anddisciplined performance. Duty is a personal act of responsibilitymanifested by accomplishing all assigned tasks to the fullest ofone's ability, meeting all commitments, and exploiting opportunitiesfor the good of the group.13

For whatever reasons, our Army Ethos focuses on one word--Duty. This isa change from previous ideas which included the concept of loyalty;specifically and perhaps most important--loyalty to our nation. Thismay in fact be expedient to the natlonal command authorrty in ways notbefore considered. For example, NATO exlsted for over 5 years tocontaln aggressive acts of the Sovlet Union. Even though the SovietUnlon no longer exists, the member nations of NATO have found apparent


11/119

usefulness in the continuance of the organization. Regional conflictscontinue to destabilize areas ciose to NATO countries, and it wouldpresumablybe to the advantage of those countries to have Americanmilitary 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 theConstitution of the United States" and not the edicts of NATO or eventhe United Nations. It was fairly easy during the Cold War to fee thethreat to our security from the Soviet Union. Bosnia, however, israther more vague. Perhaps the assumption is that the member nat:ons ofNATO share common values and that American soldiers wlll have nodifficulty serving under French, German, or Italian commanders. But asinternational situations become increasingly more clouded, will Americanmilitary personnel question the legal authority of their non-Americancommanders? Probably not if UTl is the only byword of the Army ethos.But if these soldiers are loyal to the Constitution of the United Statesand its defense, problems could arise.

The Research Ouestion

The question itself is simple and straightforward. ConsideringAmerican historical tradition and experience, should loyalty be a partof the Army Ethos?

The Scope

The answer to the research question will not be readily provableby deductive style reasoning nor necessarily limited in scope. This


12/119

thesis will not address all the lnherent problems and Issues evoked bythe sublect of loyalty, but, slnce this is exerclse in investigatingthe need or lack thereof) of loyalty as part of the Army Ethos, will beconfined to the investigation of examples in the history of the AmericanArmy. To find subjects appropriate to this investigation, onlysltuatlons whch requred actual tests of loyalty and not merelyacademc rhetorrc can be used. The lndlvlduals chosen needed to havebeen faced wlth a declslon to place thelr allegiance wlth one of atleast two dlametrlcally opposed forces. The subject should have beenaware 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, conditionsconducive to these requirements occurred twice: the Revolutionary Warand the Civil War. Since, generally speaking, many of those who tookpart in the Revolutionary War were not born in America nor had theypreviously sworn an oath of allegiance to either slde, this d~scussionwill be limited to the American Civil War. This war gave rise to manyloyalty issues which are not generally well known. Although publiceducation may seem to have given the impression that a soldier foughtfor whichever side his home state was on, this was not necessarily thecase. At least one account puts the figure of whte cltizens fromslave-holding states fighting for the Unlon at 296,579 men. This is outof a total of 1,490,000 Federal troops, or about 20 percent .14 Overtwenty generals born in slave holding states cormnanded at the corpslevel or higher ih the Union ~ r m y . l ~ach of these individuals musthave gone through a personal soul-searching debate as to where his


13/119

loyalty should lay. Although a statistical study might yield relevantfacts and figures associated with the topic, thehistorical data is notsufficient to support such an effort. For this reason this thesis willconcentrate on a field narrow in quantity and increase the quality ofthe study by a deeper look at the lives of selected individuals.

The investigation will cover four Confederate Generals who hadbeen in the Federal Union) Army before the war. The results will thenbe applied to the research question in the form of inductive reasoning.Each of these persons had sworn an oath of allegiance see appendix) tothe Constitution of the United States that is very similar to thatrequired for service today. However, each chose to disregard their oathand subsequently caused considerable harm to the United States. Theseofficers were Generals John C. Pemberton, E P Alexander, Thomas JJackson, and Robert E. Lee. Each had a comon background in militaryethics as they all attended West Point, an institution known for itsdedication to the motto: Duty, Honor, Country. Other than this,however, their personal backgrounds were markedly dissimilar. Theseofficers could only draw upon their accumulated knowledge andexperiences, so the research will pertain to their histories up to thepoint when they actually decided to fight for the Confederacy. Somehowthese men decided that their loyalty was not in accordance with the oaththey had once taken.

study of this nature has certain imposing limitations. Thehistorical figures and anyone who knew them prior to 1861 are alldeceased thereby leaving only written historical accounts in finitenumbers available for research. Biographers and others who have since


14/119

published written accounts all have particular biases of some sortSome attempt to convey these personal feelings such as thls exerpt froma preface by M;chael B. Ballard author of Pemberton: A Biography:

most of the battle sites we walked over were scenes of major battlesduring the Vicksburg campaign. Our reading of the available bookson that pivotal event convinced us that the Confederacy might havesaved Vicksburg and won the war if only a competent commander hadbeen on hand to lead Rebel defenders. We had a very low opinion ofJohn C. Pemberton that despicable Pennsylvania-born Confederategeneral whose incompetence lost Vicksburg. am sure no one wouldbe more surprised to see my name as author on the cover of aPemberton biography an in-depth study of historycomplemented by excellent graduate training gave me the maturity tolook beyond personal prejudices. 6Although most authors probably believes that they are unbiased a readercan really only rely on critical evaluations by others competent in thefield. This means that a wider variety of authors will increase theprobability that an overall accurate picture of the topic is presented.Unfortunately materials tend to be produced in direct reLationshlp tothe interests showed by the readers. Not surprisingly materials onRobert E Lee are numerous whereas those on John C. Pemberton areconsiderably more scarce. For example Ballard states:

I decided to do a biography of Pemberton. After all the only bookever written about him was ublished In 1942 and had been wrltten byhis namesake and grandson. ?Lack of complete materials has a tendency to cloud the exact picture butthen this is the case with virtually any historical study.

AssumptionsThe first assumption is that the extant historical material

available allows for a fairly accurate rendition of the subject untilthe spring of 1861 Second the relative ablility to see through biases


15/119


16/119

with the war itself. Concerning the British author G F R. Hendersonwriting of General Jackson, there was the advantage of his ownattitude--that of a foreign observer not personally, emotionally orpolitically involved in the issues of the c ~n f li c t. ~~ach of the fourofficers has at least one biography currently available with those ofLee and Jackson being more numerous.

Perhaps the most revealing resources available are personalletters written by the subjects, their families, and theiracquaintances. These offer undistorted word pictures (contextual, atleast) of the feelingsand thoughts of the writers through their owneyes. However, the use of letters involves inherent problems. Theyseldom contain negative information concerning the writer and thehistorian is often unable to decipher the writer's motives. Some appearto be obvious when the facts of the time are known as in this exerpt ofa letter from General Lee to hls daughter-in-law:

I received, last night, my darling daughter, your letter of the 18thfrom Hickory Hill. You must not be sick while Fitzhugh isaway, or he will be more restless under his separation. Get strongand hearty by his return, that he may the more rejoice at the sightof you. Nothzng would do him more harm than for him to learnthat you were sick and sad. How could he get well? So cheer up andprove your fortitude and patri~tism.~~These lines were written shortly after his son had been wounded andcaptured by Union troops and with little doubt were intended to providecourage and hope to is son's wife. Another possible problem can beillustrated by a letter wrltten by an earlier soldier, General CharlesLee of the Arnerlcan Revolution. General Lee had been a prisoner of theBritlsh and provided them a wrltten plan by which he felt they coulddefeat the Americans. Later he clalmed:


17/119

that he had not committed an act of treachery, indeed, that he hadsaved America when he was a prisoner, that.is, he had deliberatelypersuaded Howe to waste much time by taking a southern sea route toPhiladelphia while Burgoyne marched to his doom at Saratoga.21If one only had the first document without Lee s later explanation, histreason would seem absolute. The explanation casts doubt upon thematter and renders it inconclusive. This sort of situation is possiblein a wide variety of historic anecdotes. Again, the quantity andquality of evidence available to the researcher is the best insuranceagainst such problems.

In general, the topic of loyalty has been addressed for quitesome time but rarely in a manner fitting to the needs of the military.Loyalty is frequently referred to yet seldom described. This requiresalmost a study of its own and for this reason the general area ofmilitary ethics must be researched. Much of what could be consideredAmerican military ethics is based in the Judeo-Christian Bible. It isone of the oldest manuscripts available and figured prominantly in thelives of at least two of the four subject officers. 2 Other books arecompilations of short essays dealing with various military ethicalissues and many have items relating to loyalty. The Air Force Academyseems to be in the forefront in this area with a forum entitled theAlice McDermott Memorial Lecture in Applled ~ t h i c s ~ ~nd the well-publi-shed Colonel Malham M. Wakin, Professor and Head of the Departmentof Philosophy and Fine Arts. Many treatises appear to have been writtenduring the Vietnam War era and contain material centered around civilobedience as related to military service. One essay deals with problemsof German officers in the Wehrmacht during Hitler s rise to power and


18/119

the inherent loyalty problems of this regime. Much has been written andthis issue will be more thoroughly analyzed and discussed in chapter 2.

The SicinificanceThis work has the potential of identifying serious problems with

the concept of loyalty in the United States Army. A nation has theright to expect loyalty from those entrusted with its defense. Americanmilitary merbers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the UnitedStates. Allegiance to any other entity whether to a person in the formof a commander or to a conglomeration of nation-states such as NATOcould ultimately prove disastrous to the continuance of the UnitedStates. This issue is simply too important to be left in obscurity.


19/119

Endnotes12 Sam 15-18 RSV (Revised Standard Version)J . E Morpurgo, Treason at Fiest Pomt The Arnold-AndreConspiracy (New York: Mason Charter, 1975) 80-81.3FM 100-1 The Army 1994 (Washington, D Z Separtnent f theAmy 19943, 1bid., v.bid., v.6~orelgn ureau Inf ormatron 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, 6.1EM 100-1: The A m y 1991, 16.llEM 100-1: The A m y 1994, 10.121bid. ll.

14~harles . Anderson, Fighting by Southern Federals (New York:The Neal Publishing Co., 1912) 10.

~6Michael . Bal lard, Pemberton: A Biography (Jackson, MS:University Press of Mississippi, 1991), ix.171bld. ,ix.1 8 ~ . Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate (CharlesScribner's Sons, 1907) 1.19~eorge . R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson and the American CivllWar (Abridged) (Gloucester,MA Peter Smith, 1968) x-xi.20~aptain obert E. Lee, Recollections and Letters of GeneralRobert E Lee (Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Co., 1924) 100-101.


20/119

21~ohn lchard Alden, General Charles Lee Traltor of Patr~ot?Baton Rouge, LA: Loulslana State Unlverslty Press, 1951) 174-175.22~ev. Wllliam Jones, D.D., Chrlst in the amp r Religion inthe Cmfedera e A~m y B. F. Johnson Co. 1887) 9.23~eneral eorge Lee Butler, Personal Re flec tions on Integri tyfrom an Old rad CO : US Air Force Academy, 1993 ii


21/119

a m T ERLCYALTY THE ON EPT

The first step in answering the thesis question is to ensurethat the same standards are being applied to each case. Differentpeople will attach different meanings to a word or phrase' Therefore, aworking or operational definition of loyalty must be constructed.This operational definition should make sense both in present usage andin a historical context. it would be irrelevant to judge a historicalfigure against a standard known only to modem-day readers. Once anoperational definition is constructed, the implications of the decisionsof the four subjects should become obvious. This will provide thestandard needed to compare their individual actions and relate thoseactions to the current Army Ethic.

Word definitions may combine to give a good generalization ofthe concept of loyalty from a modern viewpoint, but they are uselessunless the idea can be conveyed in real terms. For instance, it is onething to talk about marriage; but quite another to marry. In likemanner, simply providing word definitions of loyalty fall far short ofwhat the concept must mean for someone faced with choosing sides in awar. Just as a person is the sum of his experiences, so a concept (suchas loyalty) is the summation of the historical ideas on which it isbased. For this reason, the word will be defind first, followed bysome older.thoughtso the concept.


22/119

Lovaltv: A Modem Definition of the WordLoyalty is synonymous with such words as allegiance,

faithfulness, fidelity, and fealty. One dictionary defines the wordloyaity and loyal as foliows:

Loyalty 1. the quality or state of being loyal 2. that binding aperson to something to which he is loyalLoyal 1 unswerving in allegiance: as a. faithful in allegiance toone s lawful sovereign or government b. faithful to a privateperson to whom fidelity is due c. faithful to a cause, ideal, orcustom 2. showing loyalty1The editors further clarify the concept as follows:

syn FIDELITY, ALLEGIANCE, FEALTY, LOYALTY, ean faithfulness tosomething to which one is bound by pledge or duty. FIDELITY impliesstrict and continuing faithfulness to an obiigation, trust, or duty;ALLEGIANCE suggests an adherence like that of a citizen to hiscountry; FEALTY implies a fidelity acknowledged by the individualand as compelling as a sworn vow; LOYALTY implies a faithfulnessthat 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 meatfirm in adherence to whatever one owes allegiance. FAITHEWL lmpllesunswerving adherence to a person or thlng or to the oath or promiseby 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 theterm.

Lovaltv: The Judeo-Christian PerspectiveOne of the earliest incidents in the Bible leading to a cause

for loyalty was the covenant between God and Noah. The idea of acovenant was a type of unilateral agreement instigated by God. Afterdestroying all life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the arkfull of animals, God said,


23/119

now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants afteryou and with every living creature that was with you. Neveragain will the waters become a flood to destroy the earth4This first covenant required no action by Noah or anyone else. The nextcovenant was not nearly so simple nor lenient. God said to Abram (soonto become Abraham),

As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father ofmany nations. will establish my covenant as an everlastingcovenant between me and you and your descendants after you for thegenerations to come, tobe your God and the God of your descendantsafter you you must keep my covenant, you and your descendantsthe covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall becircumcised it will be the sign of the covenant between me andyou. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised inthe flesh will be cut off from his people: he has broken mycovenant.This covenant established a formal relationship between God and thepeople of Abraham. Obedience was the byword of this association.Initially the main impact this had on Abraham's clan was the painfulprocess of circumcision (Abraham was 9 years old at the time)However, he was soon to learn exactly what was required to complete hispart of the covenant. God said to Abraham,

Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love and go to thereglon of Morlah. Sacrlflce him there as a burnt offerlng on one ofthe mountams I wlll tell you about Abraham bullt an altarthere and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laldhlm on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out h s andand took the knlfe to slay his son. But the angel of the Lordcalled 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 fromme your son, your only son swear by myself, declares theLord, that because you have done this and not withheld your son,your only son, will surely bless you and make your descendants asnumerous as the stars in the sky all nations on earth wlll beblessed, because you have obeyed me.6

So far, only obedience (admittedly rather extreme obedience) is requiredin this budding nation-state with a divine ruler. In the moderndefinition, loyalty implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the


24/119

face of any temptation to renounce, desert or betray. Abraham couldrenounce or desert God rather than kiil his only son. in Abraham'smlnd, he had to choose between two conflicting loyalties; obey God andkill his son or, save his son and disobey God. Zis actions with isaacformed 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, theirrelationship with God continues to develop to include the beginnings ofnon-devine government. The covenant process continues when Moses ischosen 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 allnations you will be my treasured possession you will be for mea kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'lShortly afterward God gives Moses the Ten Comandments. Three of thesecommandments deal with loyalty:

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make foryourself an idol in the form of ,anything in heaven above or on theearth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down tothem 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 ofthese commandments in the context of sexual faithlessness. God speaksto Moses, these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreigngods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break thecovenant I made with them. $ During the reign of King Josiah, Godexclaim to the prophet Jeremiah,

Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She hascommitted adultery. I thought she would return to me butshe did not she defiled the land and committed adultery withstone and wood:lb


25/119

Adultery and abandonment are significant events to the aggrieved human.God apparently 'uses these metaphors to emphasize the seriousness of lackof falthfulness or loyalty (of mortals to thelr delty) In famlllarterms.

In the New Testament, the object of falthfulness and loyaltyexpands to include more than deltles or people. Jesus responds to aquestioning disciple, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. llThe disciples were already in a superior/subordinate relationship withJesus. This statement says that if they actually love Him then theymust also obey his teachings. Since the teachings of Jesus can easllybe considered an entire philosophy, He is saying that they must be true(loyal) to a doctrine which will become known as Christianity. Insteadof simple loyalty to a deity or person, the concept now includes loyaltyto an ideal.

hqllsh Ideas: Locke and HobbesModem western democracies can trace political theory throughtwo hglishmen--John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Both of these men

formulated political theory based upon the nature of man (competitiveand self-centered) and how the idea of a social contract is the basisfor government. They differed slightly in detail, but the ideas werelargely the same. Locke felt strongly that one of the purposes ofgovernment should'be the protection of personal property. In hisreatise he states,

Polltical power, then, take to be a right of making laws withpenalties of death and, consequently, all less penalties for theregulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force ofthe community in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of


26/119

the commonwealth from Xoreign in jury, and a1 this only for thepublic good.12Thomas 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 assumptionthat all men are equal in the state of nature; that is, as theyappear in the world considered apart from any fonnal social orpolitical structure. In the primal condition, every man hasequal right to everything and moral terms have no meaning.This natural condition of man is chaotic, savage, and marked byviolence. Life for man in such conditions is solitary, poor,nasty, brutish, and short. But man is also endowed with reasonwhich ultimately leads him to conclude that if he is to survive, hemust seek peace with other men. He must give up his right to harmother if he can persuade them to do likewise and enter into anagreement, a social contract with them. However, the mere fact ofthe existence of an agreement does not change human nature. It isstill the case that of the voluntary acts of every man, the objectis some good to himself. So to guarantee that men will abide bytheir agreements, tremendous powers must be granted to government(the real leviathan) so that men will live up to their socialcontact outof fear of punishment. All laws passed by theagreed-upon government become moral obligations; morality itselfrests on the agreement--it is man-made and not found either innature 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 beargued that all governments exist at the express or implied consent ofthe governed, the implication here is that the contract is freelyentered into, thereby establishing moral authority and, hence, loyalty.

The West Point PersuectiveWest point was the single common experience of the four subject

officers. This would not be so significant except that the school wasunlike that of any other in the world at the time. Unllke itscontemporaries of Ecole Polytechnique or Sandhurst, West Point had afour-year program of instruction. President Andrew Jackson referred to


27/119

the Military Academy as the best school in the world. 14 There werebasically three reasons for such assertions. First, the MilitaryAcademy had a strong emphasis on mathematics and engineering. This isevident in the statistic that 78 percent of all academic failures from1833 to 1854 were due to deficlencies in math. Second, admissions werebased on passing rigorous entrance exams. Each prospective candidatetook a battery of oral tests at a blackboard in front of thirteen Armyofficers and the representative professor. The class of 1846 lostthlrty of their 122 members to these exams in their first week at WestPoint. 5 Thlrd, the school had a reputation for bul lding character.The Board of Visitors to the Academy in 1820 remarked: The situationat West Point is so favorable that there exists but few of the usualtemptatlons to vxce and dissipation. 16 Under the system Instituted bySylvanus Thayer from 1817 to 1833, the Academy developed a program ofcombined Spartan and Athenian values. Recognizing that the Athenianideal of knowledge was virtuous, the Academy also leaned heavily onSpartan living conditions and discipline. The cadet's character was notonly developed through rigid adherence to regulations, but also throughmandatory attendance at chapel and classes in ethics. 7 The Board ofVisitors concluded in 1820 that:

In all ages, military seminaries have been nurseries from which haveissued the highest elements of character, and some of the mostconspicuous agents in the operation of society .I8In this environment there were three frameworks of ethical

training taking place. Each of these filled a role in the developmentof the cadet's personal ethics and ideas of loyalty.


28/119

First, formal training came in the way of chapel services andcourses in moral science and moral philosophy.19 In the institution searller years (1821) the course content was proscribed generally as toinclude natural d olitical law.20 Later (l857), the detail wasexpanded so as to read:

thics will include, lst, in its practical division, the duties,vices, and passions: 2d, in moral science, the pursuit ,of thehighest good for each and all; the realization of excellence byvirtue, the fulfillment of obligations to God, the country, tooneself and others; 3rd, in its applications, the connection ofethical principles with the higher exercises in rhetoric, and withthe common basis of all law. 1Second, less formal trainlng took place by the interaction of

cadets with authorities in the system and compliance with written andunwritten rules--a sort of ethical laboratory in which the officers andinstructors performed as role models and mentors. There was no writtenhonor 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 expectednot to steal or make false official statements and, if found guiltyof elther of these offenses, could be dismissed theauthorities trusted cadets, and the later, for their part, upheldthat trust.

At the time lying was considered an act of moral cowardice and aninappropriate trait for a future Army officer.

The informal training occurring in the daily life of a cadetgave rise indirectly to the third and perhaps most powerful agent in thedevelopment of a loyalty concept. The comradeship of undergoing commonhardsiups is a tremendous factor in developing personal bonds. Theplebe (flrst) year at the Military Academy was purposely severe andproduced the side effect of strong devotlon between classmates. A


29/119

particularly illustrative example of thisof protecting a cadet who had been caught

class loyalty was the systemdrinking. if the entire class

pledged to abstain from alcohol until graduation, the offender wouldusually be retained. There is no recorded instance of a class faiiingto save one of its classmates under this system.23 Over the course offour years, such feelings could only become firmly ingrained in thecharacter of these young men. However, conflicting loyalties wouldcause 3 4 ~ ~f these officers to resign their commissions and fightagainst their former classmates in the coming Civil War.

Modem Thoushts on Military LoyaltySeveral modem authors have specifically addressed matters

relating to loyalty in the military. Some of their ideas directlycorrespond to this thesis.

Samuel P. HuntingtonHuntington believes that the supreme military virtue is

obedience. *5 n officer is to be judged by the efficiency of carryingout an order and by no other criteria. Concerning loyalty he states;

n officer corps is professional only to the extent to which itsloyalty is to the military ideal. Other loyalties are transient anddivisive. What appeals politically one day will be forgotten thenext. Within the military forces only military loyalty to theideal of professional competence is constant and unifying: loyaltyof the individual to the ideal of the Good Soldier, loyalty of theunit to the traditions and spirit of the Best Regiment. Onlyif they are motivated by military ideals will the armed forces bethe obedient servants of the state26Huntington does allow for conditions of disobedience, but only in casesof clear immorality or violation of the law. He does not see the option


30/119

of a military professional disagreeing with natlonal policy as in thefollowing situation:

The commanding generals of the German army in the late 19301s, orinstance, almost unanimously believed that Hitler's foreign policieswould lead to national ruin. Military duty, however, required themto carry out his orders: some followed this course, others forsookthe professional code to push their political goals. theGerman officers who joined the resistance to Hitler forgotthat it is not the function of military officers to decide questionsof war and peace. 7Samuel Huntington takes what could be termed a black and white view ofmilitary loyalty and leaves very little room for conflict.

Sir John Winthrop HackettIn a lecture at the U. S. Air Force Academy, Iiackett addressed

several issues which reflect directly upon defining the concept ofloyalty.

But in a constitutional monarchy, or a republic, precisely wheredoes the loyalty of the fighting man lie? In Ireland just beforethe outbreak of World War I there was a distinct possibility thatopponents of the British government's policy for the introductionof home rule in Ireland would take up arms to assert their right toremain united with England under the crown. But if the British armywere ordered to coerce the Ulster Unionists, would it obey? Doubtsapon this score were widespread and they steadily increased. As itturned out, there was no mutiny, though the Curragh incident hassometimes been erroneously described as such. The officers in acavalry brigade standing by on the Curragh ready to move into thenorth of Ireland all followed their brigade commander's example inoffering their resignations from the service. The Curragh episode,all the same, formed an unusually dramatic element in,an intrusionby the military into politics which seriously weakened the Britishgovernment of the day and forced a change in its policy .it alsoraised the question of where personal allegiance lay and raised itmore sharply than at any time since 1641 when the hard choicebetween allegiance to the king and adherence to Parliament, in thedays of Thomas Hobbes, split the country in the mglish Civil War.28

Hackett contends that the ethical correctness of any disloyalty isjudged primarily by the consequences of the act and concludes the topic


31/119

with an appropriate quote from Sir John Harrington in the days of QueenElizabeth I, Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if itprosper none dare call it treason. 29

Michaei 0 WheelerWheeler postulates that loyalty is a type of relationship

between entities and uses the illustration of the military superior to asubordinate.

Like many other abstractions, loyalty is an often confusing, muchabused concept. Whenever we speak of loyalty, we are speakingof a two-object context: a context in which one gives loyalty andanother receives loyalty. Now, given this rather simple conceptualpicture, what we might focus our attention on is neither the givingnor the receiving of loyalty but instead the inspirin 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 issuesare sifted through, there will remain, I would suggest, a singletheme which forms the answer to that question. The theme istrust. 30

Malham M. WakinWakin 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 moralclaims against the person who gives it whether that commitment be toprivate individuals or to a larger segment of society. .Oneeasily sees that promise-keeping is the kind of human act that canbe universalized andthat keeping one's word involves treating otherhuman beings as ends-in-themselves beings with dignity whose worthis recognized when our commitments to them are honored. If oneis morally bound to keep his promises, then he takes on a moralcodtment to obey when he takes the military oath of officewe are justifiedin violating one of our moral obligations just

when that obligation is in conflict with another, higher obligationand the circumstances are such that we cannot fulfill both.31Wakin continues to expound upon the problem of conflicting obligationsand provides the basis for making a decision in such circumstances.


32/119

Our rule of action is ihat we are justified in violating ouruniversal moral obligations only when they conflict wjth a higherobligation and we cannot fulfill both at once. Thus if one is t o mbetween obedience to an order and fulfillment of another moralobligation, he or she must judge which is the higher obligation inthose circumstances. Universal obligations are neither absolute norrelative. They bind all human beings in analogous sets ofcircumstances,. ut they may conflict 32

The Basis for Loyalty in the MilitaryThe 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 theUnited States, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that will support inddefend the Constitutions of the United States against all enemies,foreign and domestic; that will bear true faith and allegiance tothe same; that take this obligation freely, without any mentalreserve or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfullydischarge the'duties of the office upon which I am about to enter;SO HELP ME GOD.

Although loyalty is not expressly stated in the oath, it is ev~dent nthe phrase . . . I will support and defend the Constitution of theUnited States . . that I will bear true faith and allegiance to thesame The terms support, defend, faith, and allegiance combine to givea practicable meaning to the word loyalty. The very last words of theoath, SO HELP ME GOD, appeal to the highest possible authority tooversee this commitment and in so doing, emphasize the gravity of thestatement. The implication is that the loyalty expressed in this oathis binding in such a way as to make a violation a matter of divineimportance. In the recent past 1991), the Army has named loyalty asbeing one of the four professional values of the Army ethic (the otherthree being duty, integrity, and selfless service). This Army ethic isdescribed as the informal bond of trust between the nations and itssoldiers. Further, it sets standards by which we and those we serve


33/119

wi judge our character and our performance. (italics added)34 TheAnny goes on to include in the definition of this standard such phrasesas . an obligation to support and defend the Constitution . .suppoztingthe military and civilian chain of command . . anexpression of the obligation between those who lea6, those who are led,and those who serve alongside the soldier devotion to the welfareof one's comrades . . (italics added). A1 though not defining, loyaltyto the nation, to the Anny, to the unit, and to the individual soldieris spoken of as being essential. 5

Lovaltv An Operational DefinitionFor the purposes of this paper, the operational definition of

loyalty must consist of four components. The first is that loyalty is amoral obligation based upon trust between two entities. This can range.from the mutual trust felt between a superior and subordinate all theway 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 towhich one can be loyal, such as self, people, ideals, governments, etc.Third, there is a hierarchy of these objects which will determine whichtakes precedence when two or more are in competition. And last, how anindividual sets up the hierarchy will almost automatically determine theanswer to (or actions associated with) any loyalty question.

This definition will be applied to the analysis of the foursubject officers and in the answer to the thesis question.


34/119

Endnotesl ~ e b s t e r ' s mth New Coileglate D l cLoyalty, Loyal , 708.2~bld. , 60.3~bld.,46.4~enesls : -19,5~enesls 7 -14.6~enesls 2:2-18.7~xodus 9:5-6.S~xodus 0 3-12.S~euteronomy 1: 6.lC eremiah 3 5-9.ll~ohn 4:23.

.

.tionary, 1984 ed. s.v.

12~ichard Cox, Locke on War m d Peace (Oxford, G . B . CiarendonPress, 1960), 82.13aiham M. Wakin, gar, Morality, and the Profession of ArmsSecond ed. S V The Ethics of Leadership 11, 202-203.14~ames . 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~eneral egulations, General Regulations or the Army; orMilitary Institutes (Philadelphia: M. Carey and Sons, 1821), 330.21~eneral egulations, Regulations for the U S. Mil it ary Academy(New York John F Trow, 1857), 17.


35/119

2 4 ~ sworth Eliot, Jr. West Pomt i n th e Confederacy (New York:G. A. Baker Co., 1941), x u .

25~amuel Huntington, The Sold ier and th e Sta te (New York:Vintage Books, 1957), 74.

28~ir ohn Winthrop Hackett, War Morality. and the M il it ar yProfession Second ed., 5.v. The Military in the Service of the State,114.

30Michael 0 Wheeler, War Morality and the Profession o f ArmsSecond ed. 5.v. Loyalty, Honor, and he Modem Military, 174.31~alham . Wakin, War Morality and the Profession o f ArmsSecond ed., 5.v. The Ethics of Leadership I , 189.

FM 100-1 June, 1994 ed., 5.v. Chapter 1 The Profession ofArms, 11.34 N 00-1 December 1991 ed. .v. Chapter 4 The Profession of

Arms, 15.


36/119

CHAPTERTHE GElER LS

This purpose of this chapter is to investigate the conditionsleading to the decision of John C. Pemberton, Robert E. Lee, Thomas J.Jackson, and E. P. Alexander to fight for the Confederacy. Theancestry, early life, West Point years, service experience, and theevents surrounding the decision of each officer will be addressed inorder.

John Clifford PembertonAncestry

Ralph Pemberton departed Radcliffe Bridge, Lancaster County,England with his son Phineas and family to escape religious persecutionand arrived in America in the year 682 They were devoted 1 lowersof William Penn the Quaker (Pennsylvania s namesaire), frequentlytraveling in his company. In those times Quakers were distinguished bytheir non-violent lifestyle, simple dress, and communal discipline.Phineas only suniiving son Israel eventually moved to Philadelphia andbecame a successful merchant and community leader. Although anacclaimed leader in the Quaker church, he began what was to become agradual religious liberalization of the Pemberton family by his purchaseof Clarke Hall, a mansion that would become known for its lavishgrounds. His son Israel Jr. was born in 7 5 and carried on the family

3


37/119

business as well as continuing in the Quaker faith. He especiallyembraced the pacifist doctrine while promoting peace with the localIndians. This attitude continued with his opposition to the AmericanRevolution when he was jailed and then exiled from Pennsylvania. IsraelJr. s third son joseph was born in 1745, later marrying Sarah nrkbrideand further liberalizing the family with the introduction of socialdancing.* Their youngest son John (one of eight children and the futurefather 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 liberalpersuasion. John, a Christian in principle, did not entirely embraceQuaker doctrine and became the first of the American Pembertons to seemilitary service. He enlisted in the Pennsylvania volunteers during thewar of 1812 but saw little, if =y combat action. After the war JohntraveLed widely while earning his living as a land speculator. Duringhis journeys he met and befriended Andrew Jackson from whom he laterreceived an appointment as naval officer for the district of~hiladel~hia.3

Early LifeJohn ~liford emberton was born on August 10, 1814, the second

son o thirteen children.4 He was a typical boy of the times--active,rowdy, and tended to behave impulsively. He spent much time with hisolder brother (by fifteen months) Israel and their friendship continuedthroughout their lives. Their fathers frequent absences led tonumerous admonitions by mil that were taken to heart by both boys.


38/119

They were advised to be kind, obedient, and polite, especially to theirmother, and urged to read thelr Blbles. Soon the boys needed a propereducation. Their mother enrolled them in a private academy where Johnexcelled in exposition, Latin, and French, but complained about grammarand geography. s John grew older he thrived in the environment ofPhiladelphia, a city well known for its ties with the southern states.The populace of the city had strong patriotic feelings and Johnoccasionally reenacted battles with his friends. The sentiments ofslavery excited and polarized strong emotions in the city. Whiteresistance to the antislavery movement resulted in the burnlng of anabolitionist headquarters in 1838 John, meanwhile, concerned hlmselfwith the more immediate issue of his own education. He prepared for andentered the University of Pennsylvania in 1831 after some difficultieswith the entrance exams (he was deficient in Greek). During this timeJohn began to consider the possibilities of entering West Point. Someinfluential friends of the family recommended him to the Secretary ofWar Lewis Cass, but John eventually asked for and received anappointment directly from President Andrew Jackson. After completmgtwo 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 Hudsonriver 5


39/119

West PolntMalor Rene de Russy was the supermtendent in 1833 the year

John entered the Academy. Malor de Russy was considered a somewhat laxdlsclplinarian, a factor that may have contributed to John's pleasurehis new surroundings. However, the academic rigors of West Point provedchallenging to young John as he managed to maintain a standing onlyslightly above average. He excelled in drawing and French, but his mathclasses left much to be desired. Dennis Hart Mahan taught math andengineering at the time and was not too popular with the cadets. iJohn's parents constantly critiqued his grades and his accumulateddemerits. 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,

would rather have my hand cut off tomorrow and I beg you wlll notspeak to me of it again. i would not resign wlth my own wlll if youcould glve me twenty thousand dollars for doing so.Perhaps John's parents had correctly assumed that his soclal llfe andfrequent attendance at parties were having a negative influence on hisgrades. Although blckerlng was frequent, John was very close to therest of the Pemberton fanuly, especially his brother Israel and slsterAnna. During thls time the territory of Texas rebelled against Mexicoand several cadets' left to fight in the conflict. John might have gonealso but he deferred to the wishes of his family. He wrote to hissister I would not be doing my duty to my parents or properly returningtheir affection. Not surprisingly, John's thoughts often centered onwomen. He entertained them whenever possible and in the summer of 1836(between his junior and senior years) met an attractive sixteen-year-old


40/119

from New york City, Angeline Stebbins. After only a three-dayacquaintance they determined to make their relationshp permanent assoon as practicable after John graduated. Both of thelr famillesdisapproved, but they were young and in love and detemned to havetheir way. John, however, incurred professional difficulties thatnearly ended his military career. While on duty as orderly,-liquor asdiscovered in the barracks and John was arrested for violatingregulations. He professed innocence and refused to testlfy againstother classmates who were also charged. John s father naturallychastised him for not doing his duty to which he replied,

am sorry, very sorry, you think me wrong--but I repeat that Iwould suffer any disgrace that a court-martial could inflict on mebefore would commit an action which has far more disgrace to it inmy opinion than if I were twenty times dismissed from thisinstitutionJohn s loyalty to his friends took precedence over the form all cadetssigned promising to obey regulations. The entire class signed apetition vowing not to drink for the remainder of their cadet days and(recently promoted) Colonel de Russy dropped all charges. This incidentwas not atypical of cadet friendships at the Academy. During his cadetdays John s best friend was another Philadelphia youth, George Meade.George was two years his senior and John would never again have such aclose friend. John Pemberton graduated from West Point in 1837 twenty-seventh out of a class of fifty. He never lost his affection for thisschool on the Hudson river.


41/119

Service YearsSecond Lieutenant 2oi-n Pemberton was comissioned into the

Fourth Regiment of the U. S Artillery and assigned to Fort Hamilton onGovernor s Island, New york.1 This allowed him to continue hiscourtship of Angeline and arouse further displeasure from his motherover the issue. The problem soon fell victim to national events as Johnwas transferred to Florida to participate in the Seminole wars. He sawconsiderable activity and became quite homesick, but his interest inAngeline began to wane. John managed a short visit home where Angelineexpressed her displeasure with his absence and pushed for hisresignation from the Army. John contended that the Army was hisprofession nd he had no intention of leaving it.11 n his return toFlorida he was given the command of an ordnance depot. During this timehe became very interested in his fankly s plans to buy property inVirginia. He even told them that he would like to become a Virginian byadoption. His relationship with Angeline continued to decline when hemet another woman and rapidly decided that he would like to marry herinstead. John attempted to get his father to break his engagement withAngeline, but John flnally wrote and told her that they should annul theengagement for reasons other than his affection for her. T h s nearlycaused her brother to challenge John to a duel. Meanwhle the newgirlCs father, n Army captain, threatened to dlsown her if theycontinued to see each other and the affalr died. Fortunately for John,he was transferred to Fort Washington, New Jersey, where he would bemuch closer to the stabilizing in uence of his family I 2 He spent aconsiderable amount of time with his family and obtained a new, although


42/119

less serious, girlfriend. His hcmecoming was relatively shorthe received a new posting to Mackinac Island, near Detroit, onCanadian border. Frontier life did not agree with John and he

lived andtheslipped

into financial troubles while entertaining more ladyfriends (presumablyfrom the Detroit area). In a letter home to hls mother he states,

I am extravagant to excess, even when i know ought not to spend acent beyond the absolute necessities I require, yet at this momentI have not even a decent suit of clothes to show for my money.throw away In a moment without thinking all that owe should sendto you. I am disgusted with myself I 3At this time he did not think very highly of the opposite sex and spokeof them to his sister, the more I see of women generally, the less Ithink of them. Marriage seems to be the sole object of theirthoughts. 14 Relief came in 1842 when he was transferred to FortMonroe, Virginia. He was again close to home and became involved in thesocial life of the region. Here he met Martha Thompson (nicknamedPattie) the daughter of a wealthy Norfolk shipping family. She easilycaptivated John and (even though she was aware of his fonner femaleliaisons) they were soon engaged. However marriage would not comequickly.

Troubles with Mexico brought orders to Texas and John departedfor Corpus Crlsti. The political maneuvers between the U, S andMexico took much time and John earnestly wrote his family encouragingthem to make Pattle feel welcome. When war came he accompanied the m a mforce to Matamoros and fought in the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca dela Palma. Even though surrounded by the horrors of war, he wasexiularated by the experience He wrote to h s ather, I really llket h s part of my profession better than any other. would not have


43/119

missed the two fights for the world, nor will any more that are tocome if can help it . 15 He was breveted to :he rank of captain forgallantry at Monterrey, but as the war began to drag on he becamehomesick and wished for the war to end. His anxiety worsened with theprolonged illness and death of his father inearly 1847. GeneralWinfield Scott launched his campaign for Mexico City in the spring andJohn served as aide-de-camp to division commander General William Worth.Perhaps he was still upset over his father's death or maybe the pressureof his job was weighing heavily for he had several confrontations withhis commander and submitted his resignation. Things improved, however,and he withdrew his resignation. Sometime during this campaign, a storyconcerning John reached another young officer, Ulysses S Grant. Manyyears later he recalled the episode:

more conscientious, honorable man never lived. I remenber when ageneral order was issued that none of the junior officers should beallowed horses during the marches, Mexico is not an easy country tomarch 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, andnearly all of them remounted. Pemberton alone said, 'No,' e wouldwalk, as the order was still extant not to ride, and he did walk,though suffering intensely the while. Yes, he was scrupulouslyparticular in matters of honor and integrity.16

John was breveted to major for his actions around Molino del Rey. Aboutthis time he leamed that his youngest sister Sarah had dled ofconsumption--the same illness which took his father. s the war againwound down he became despondent and feared that it would never end. Hewas arrested as part of a letter writing scandal (several generals hadwritten various letters, each making claims as to their roles during the


44/119

war) but later released. He finally returned to the east coast inDecember of 1847 .17

John promptly married Pattie in January of1848 hut none of hisfamily attended the wedding. Pattie later said that perhaps the in-lawswere hesitant about having a southern girl in the family. However thePenbertons soon grew to appreciate the good influence Pattie was havingon 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 alllove her more every time we have her here. 18 John meanwhile remainedas General Worth's aide, traveling often and incurring numerousexpenses. Pattie quick1 y became pregnant &d experienced a difficultdelivery. She was ill for several weeks before delivery and went into acoma. The baby died before Pattie regained consciousness. Shortlythereafter John's sister Mary also died. John did not have long todwell on these things as he was ordered to the frontier post of SanAntonio, Texas. Upon arrival he decided that he could not bring Pattieto such n austere environment and so requested w d received a transferback to Norfolk, Virginia enroute to Florida. John and Pattie lived inseveral locations and their daughter Martha was born at Fort Brooke inTampa Bay on January 14 1850. Next they were sent to New Orleans whereJohn was put in command of Jackson Barracks and subsequently promoted tocaptain. 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 moresee of slavery the better I think of it. 19 Transfers came again, firstto Fort Hamilton, New York, and then to Fort Washington on the Potomac.


45/119

There they had servants, mcluding a black cook glven to Pattle by herfather as a glft. Pattle often attended church while John baby-sat andsoon another daughter, Mary (named after John's deceased sister) wasborn. John heard much of polltlcs-in ashington and commented inparticular on a tour by Hungarian rebel Louis Kossuth-- have neverbeen more disgusted in my life with the impudence of this country thanhave since his presence in it. 20 John considered him a traitor to thelegitimate government of Hungary and felt the U. S was wronglysupporting him. The family was transferred back to Fort Eiamilton wherethere first son was born in January of 1853 John frequently prayedduring these anxious births and, although he did not care much fororganized religion, believed in a supreme being. The year 1853 wouldsee many trials coming to the young family, the first being an attemptedassassination of John by a disgruntled soldier. Next two nephews diedwithin days of each other followed later by another nephew. His owntwo-year-old daughter Mary died in September and both John and Pattiecontracted prolonged illnesses during the summer. Then John had aconflict with a senior officer and was arrested for insubordination, acharge which was soon dropped.*l The situation gradually improved and ason was born in December 1853 followed a few years later by another sonin 1856

John was transferred back to Florida to deal with Seminoleproblems and then to Fort Leavenworth to participate in the Utahexpedition against the Mormons. The family moved also and Pattie didn'tcare'much for frontier life, although their older children had fondmemories of life in the West. Their seventh child, Anna, was born in

40


46/119

1858, just in time to accompany the family to their new posting of FortRidgely, Minnesota in 1859. Life in the northern territories was fairlymonotonous and routise with little to offer in the way of socializing orcreature comforts. With slow mail and the isolation of Minnesota, theworsening political situation in the country must not have seemed veryreal. The John Pemberton family soon would be caught up in these eventswhen John s regiment was recalled to Washington, D.C. in 18E1.22

The DecisionJohn was assigned in Washington, D. C. when Fort Sumter was

fired on by secessionist troops in Charleston, South Carolina. Pattyand the children had proceeded to Norfolk. The reason for this is notdocumented ai-~d pen to speculation, but clearly Patty intended to residein Virginia regardless of the state s status in the Union. Thesituation in some northern cities became feverish and mobs frequentlysought out suspected southern sympathizers; giving them the choice offlying the Stars and Stripes or having their homes razed.23 On the 15thday of April, Israel penned the following to John:

think i you were here a little while, you would feel that you andyour ancestors were Pennsylvanians, and that your destiny, in caseof a dissolution of the general government should be wlth Penn.Governments may chan e but to our country we owe I think a neverswerving allegiance. 4On the same day Abraham Lincoln called for 75 000 volunteers to put downthe insurrection in the South. Israel attended a party that night andheard rumors that John had already resigned. He added a postscript tothe letter (as yet not mailed) urging his brother to remain loyal andadding ominow threats that if he defected to the South all would


47/119

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 stategoing out of the union for forsaking the government and laws you'vesworn to protect.''25 G n the 17th of April Virgiaia seceded from theUnion. This did not, however, cause John to resign immediately. hi the19th of April he received orders to seize steamers along the Potornacriver which he promptly carried out. Perhaps the dilemma John Pembertonfaced can be understood best in a 1ett.er written by his mother toanother daughter-in-law on the 23rd of April 1861:

Yours of the 20th, dear Carry, has just come to me and though Iwrote to you yesterday, yet I know you are both anxious to hear all.Your husband got home this morning, but alas he brings but fainthopes--he says that nothing but John's affection and feeling for usprevents him from resigning--his ideas of duty and honor are all theother way, and he is perfectly honorable and open in all he does--his feelings are well known to his brother officers--if your husbandhad not goneto him, he would probably have resigned this firstnight he got there--but he begged and pleaded with him, telling himhow we ail should suffer if he did it, and he has postponed it forthe 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 todo that, he would resign at once--he is perfectly willing to stayand protect Wash., in which he sars the Government is right. Thefirst day John got there, he was sent for to the War Department andreceived orders to go and seize some steamboats, which were at thewharves--he collected his men, mar-hed them some distance off andthen ordered them to load their muskets, and told them what it wasthey were going to do, and if anybody opposed them, they were tofire upon them--they set off in a quick run, jumped on board theboats---JO& seized the rudder and the boats were theirs--he wasselected for this service, expressly to try him, he knew it--and wasperfectly willing to perform any duty, except going to Norfolk--Johnis most dreadfully distressed and worried, o our account--for hisheart and views are that the South is right and we are wrong--hesays Patty's family (that of his wife) have never spoken or writtenon the subject to him--but while your husband was there a lettercame to John from Patty, in which she says 'My darling husband, whyare you not with us? Why do you stay? Jeff Davis has a post readyfor youw--in answer John spoke of the hard position he was in andenclosed the letter which had written to him, in order that hisfamily might see what a sore thing it was for him, so to grieve us


48/119

all--your husband alsowrote to Patty, in which he used everyargument to convince her what a serious thing it would be for :oh-''3future', nd besought her to advise him remaining with theGovernment. Ihave been more wretched in this horrid state of suspense than wordscan tell. feel that if this grief a?d mortification ust comeupon me, that I must accept it, and submit to it--we have done allwe can--Johnfirmly believes it would be the most honorable andright--'tis only for us he hesitates. I have. great fear now,that so many of the officersknowing John's sentiments, they maytake some summary steps with him, and dismiss him before he resigns.Of the two cases, that would be the worst. Some begin to think thatafter all., there may be no fighting--pray Heaven it may be so. Dolet 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 acaptain in the A m y of the United States. However, General WinfieldScott delayed the paperwork and requested an explanation in person.During the next several days Scott offer4 him a Colonel's commission ifhe would remaln, and he learned that hls younger brothers Clifford andAndrew had joined the Philadelphia City Troop, a cavalry unit loyal tothe Union. In spite of these developments, John persisted in hrsco~victions nd departed for Xichond and the Connfederacy.

Edward Porter AlexanderAncestry

Edward's ancestral roots began in Georgia prior to the PmericanRevolution. His father Adamserved as a surgeon's mate in the SecondGeorgia infantry during the war of 1812 and was captured and interred bythe British. After the war he acquired land and slaves in LibertyCounty, Georgia and prospered as a planter and eventual banker. Heattended Yale (where he met his future wife) and became a modelsouthern gentleman planter typical of the aristocracy in the southern

states. He embraced the Presbyterian denomination and habitually read


49/119

the Greek New Testament daily. Adam felt that part of his Chr:stianduty was ensuring that he did not trifle away his God given talents andir this he was quite successful. He was particularly credited withhaving a profcmd sense of integrity coupled with a transparentpersonality. This made Adam well liked by virtually all of hisacq~aintances. His views were conservative and, although he did notinvolve himself personally, he followed politics as a matter of goodbusiness. 7

Edward s mother Sarah traced her family roots to the Hillhouses

of Connecticut and the Giiberts of Virginia. Members of these familiesmoved to Georgia in the late 1700 s and pursued livelihoods as merchantsand planters. Sarah was orphaned while quite young and was raised byher grandmother. This Presbyterian woman had strlct ideas of discipilneand duty which would impact deeply on Sarah s personality. Sarahreceived.her education in New Haven, Connecticut, where she met Adamwhile he was at Yale. A perfectionist, Sarah would never considerherself worthy as a wife or mother, even though the evidence allindicates otherwise. She was physically small (about 100 pounds) a ~ ~ dplagued by numerous illnesses of which she eventual y succumbed. 8

Adam and Sarah were married in 1823 and moved to a plantationinherited by Sarah. They worked well as a team in managing twoplantations while rearing their ten children. They manifested a deepdevotion to each other which was readily apparent to the children.Their letters contain frequent expressioi?s of this relationship. Sarahonce wrote,


50/119

i am sure I shall be happler, my dear husband, when you come backthan I have ever been ln my llfe, for i gave only now fully foundhow necessary your presence is to my happiness, and how dependent Iam on you for a1 my enjoyments. 9Slmllarly, Adam penned,

How soon does a short absence convlnce me that my entire earthlyhappiness rests upcn you. 'vJ~ch ou, 1s embarked my all-- withoutyo^ I am nothing.

Along with their 'example of personal relationship, Adam and Sarahprovided a home emphasizing their own tenets of discipline andeducation. This homelife would naturally have varied effects on all ofthe Alexander children.

Early LifeEdward Porter Alexander was born on 6 May, 1835 as the sixth of

an eventual ten children. As a boy he was ardently devoted to shootingand fishing. He spent much time with two elderly men who mentored himin these two activities. Seventy year old Frank Colley was a constantfishing companion.31 Edward was similariy schooled in the arts ofhunting by the elderly James Dyson. His devotion to these two pursuitswas so intense that he became rebellious towards the system of authorityat an early age. Edward resented religion for its infringement upon hisfreedom. At nine years of age he ran away from home with the idea ofsubsisting on trapping and hunting but only lasted a day in the nearbywoods before returning home with hunger pangs.

Edward received the finest education that circumstances wouldallow in rural Georgia. His father had earlier enlisted Sarah Brackettof Massachusetts (who later married a Boston preacher noted for writinga response to Uncle Tom's Cabin entitled South Side i e w o Slavery


51/119

t3 tutor Edward's older sisters. Later :he hir~ld r. A. E4 Sc~ddei fVermont .md then RiiSseli Weight if Easthamst.on' Massachusetts toinstruct the boys in the 5uiidamentais as they c a m af age..3 The ideaof secession first came to Edwardocn the ba- I. of the Litti2 River in1319 Frar3;. Coiiey explained the feelins; of the time a 2 Edward iaterpenned, the pang the ldea sent through me, my thlnking that I wouidrather lose my gun--my dearest possession on earth--than see ithappen. 34 Hls antl-secession sentiments continued untl an lncldentwhich 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 twoof the town boys, Jim Hester Een Kappeli, which came very nearruining my life. I was told that these two had aimed themselves.

W L ~ istois 5 intended to ship me, I borrowed an old pepper-boxrevolver from our cverseer, S o h Eldson, loaded it heavily, got6 special Walker's Antic3rosive Caps for the nipples, instead ofthe conunon G.D.'s. It would be too long to detaii the quarrel,but, indignant at belng buiiied by two older larger boys, atlast came into collision with Jim Eester. He struck me over thehead with a light skinny-stick, breaking it. I drew my revolver

, aiming at his breast, pulled the trigger. It snapped failing toexplode the cap. Hester drew a single barrel pistoi, while i triedancther barrel, which also snapped. This serond failure nade methink that t5e Walker caps were inade of copper too thick for thehammer of my pistol, that all six barrels would fail. At the sametlme--while he had drawn a pistoi, Hester paused a moment, made nomotion to aim or fire at me. 'Phis made me pause in the very act ofpulling the trigger for a third trial: for I thought that if Icontinued to try to shoot, it would make him shoot, that my pistolwouid continue to fail on account of my thick caps while h s ight.not. I therefore stopped pulling on the trigger waited to seewhat he would do. X this other boys ran in took both of ourpistols away. Someone said to the boy who took mine, See if thatpistol is loaded. He raised it over his head pulled the triggerfor the 3rd barrel (it was a self cocker). This time it went offloud 6 clear. . . . But gratitude to a Providence which saved me sonarrowly from a calamity which would have ruined my whole.life, hasled me ever since to avoid eschew politics, as too prolific ofquarrels for one who, likemyself, is liable to become reckless ofconsequences when in a passion. 5


52/119

.Edward was rifteer. years old at the time.Attending West aint vas paramouz?t in Edward's ambitions from

his earliest recoi:ections. This may have been due in large part to themarrlagns of two of his sisters t West Point graduates. His fatherinitially fromed on the idea but acquiesced during the s'mer of 1850upon the urging of hls new son-in-law Lt. Alexander Lawten and futureson-ln-law Lt. Jeremy Gilmer. Edward and his father agreed that ifE&dard would promise to study hard enough to receive a commission ln theengineers, then he would grart his blessing to the venture.j6 Iappointment was difficult to obtain and Edward spent the zext two years.preparing a d oping for admission. He spent the winter of 1852-53 withthe iawtons (stationed in Savannah) studying French and drawing.Finally, in late spring of 1853, he bid his family farewell in Fairfieldand 5egan his ;ourney towards Xest ink tkie i i f s of a cadet.

West P~intAt i s entrance physical, Edward Porter Alexander weighed 1

polixis and stcod 5 feet 3.5 inches tall j7 The new discipline had amarked effect on Edward and, after a visit in July, his brother Felixcommented on Edward's newly acquired restraint and self control. Heovercame the homesickness common to new cadets and compensated byperfirming his duties to exacting standards. Edward lived up to hisagreement 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 wereconcerned with his spiritual life, however, and admonished him toperform his religious readings and contemplation daily and especially to


53/119


54/119

These extreme prejudices are unworthy of liberal en i$htenedwinds, and are es2eciaily ~mbecorninc: ne who has piedged himself tossrj-e the 7r~;ntry s w is therefzre receiving an &;cationfrom theEdward was appointed a cadet captam for hls senlor year and agalnbecane interesred r ~fsmale companlonshlp that sprlng. His father hadheard zancrs of such that wlnter and inqu~red xa?ptov:ngiy. Edwardassured hlm that the relatlonshlp (wlth a minister's daughter) was on ;-a passing friendship. His father took a dim view of the possibility ofEdward becoming entangled with the fairer sex and wrote:

The increase in pay for the army is pretty respectable, willnow afford you a fine 5 iiberai support, with means tc lay up aii:tle ever;: year, unless you are foolish enough to throw yo..---="L a Aaway in a marriage d fix your nose to a gr i n d ~ t o n e . ~ ~Edward had no imnediate ideas along these imes arid ended to LSstudies. He graduated in June of 857 3rd in his class and received aconmission as a second lieutenant in the elite corps of e~gineers.

Servlce YearsEdward's flrst assignment was as an assistant instructor 5

practicai military engineering. For three years he remained at WestPoint excepc for two six month special details. His first deparvxefrom the Academy was in response to what became known as the "MormonWar" in ~ t a h . ~ ~lthough the war ended before his detachment arrived.Edward thoroughly enjoyed the adventure of scouting a new route to FortBridger and hunting antelope, wolves, and' uffalo. He returned to WestPoint and, during the following summer of 1859 met Bettie and GussieMason who had come north from Virginiafor the summer. Edward andBettie wickly became more than friends and by the end of the s m e rbecame engaged. Edward's father was not consulted on the matter and a

49


55/119


56/119

wlth all manner of game ar,d f ~ s h . Llfe could hardly have been moreidyllic for the young newlyweds and he later wrote of the time:

8 NeveY to, or during that time, did I begin to realize what careresponsibility may mean. I had a position for life, n assuredsu ppmt in the profession I laced; 5 ad 3317 to set the mostpleasure that cou

Why Civil War Generals Joined the Confederacy

Documents

Transcript of Why Civil War Generals Joined the Confederacy