I think you mischaracterize Lee.
For one thing, Lee never said he would ONLY fight FOR Virginia: What he said was he would NOT take up arms AGAINST Virginia, and would defend Virginia if it were attacked. Makes sense, since Virginia was his home. And, remember, prior to Andrew Jackson (arguably) and to Abraham Lincoln (definitely), it was pretty much well-understood that the states were sovereign to the federal union, and that the federal union existed ONLY because the states agreed to create it, but for a limited, restricted purpose. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments made that clear.
I am also unaware that Lee EVER said he would ONLY fight on the territory of Virginia (which is an unusual comment given Lee’s record in the war with Mexico). And, even if you attempt to limit Lee’s words to the years 1861-1865, such a comment by Lee would have been wholly uncharacteristic, as it would imply he would disobey orders if directed to fight outside Virginia’s borders.
He sent in Pickett to salve his pride? Humbug! It had nothing to do with pride; but was, rather, a tactical mistake. Lee missed Jackson so much at Gettysburg, and perhaps his failing at Gettysburg was that he believed his other generals could and would act and perform as Jackson would have.
Lee’s army at Gettysburg lacked the audacious and daring aggression that Jackson embodied, and because of that he lost Gettysburg. THAT was Lee’s great failure at Gettysburg. He fought Gettysburg the way he would have fought it had he HAD Jackson, when, of course, he didn’t.
I suggest to you that had Jackson been with Lee at Gettysburg, the outcome would have been quite different.
As for the oath part, Lee did NOT break his oath. Rather than break his oath, he resigned. An oath should be honored unless and until it becomes untenable to keep, at which point an honorable man would announce he could no longer abide by it, and would renounce it.
I don’t know if you ever served in the military, but please consider the following illustration:
As members of the military we swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and (in the case of enlisted personnel, which I was) obey the orders of our officers. However, had one of my officers given me an unlawful order I would have refused to carry it out. Likewise, had one of my officers ordered me to follow a truly repugnant order (i.e., one that went deeply against my morals and principles), I would have refused to follow it, and would have accepted the consequences of my refusal (Article 15, court martial, etc.) But my refusal would have been the honorable thing to do.
By taking an oath we do not abandon our principles, and we do not become robots.
For years, historians could only get Natl Endowment for the Humanities grants if they were going to a. write about African-Americans who fought on the Union side or b. proved that Lee was a womanizer. The last straw was ‘The Marble Man’ where the author opined that Lee was so audacious a commander because he didn’t have affairs but wanted to. At that, the NEH finally gave up.
Apparently they’ve scraped together a little more money to go after him. With predictably ridiculous results.
But, I’m sensing a new effort to discredit him, as he does embody some very honorable attributes.
The absence of Jackson turned the tide...I studied the tactics used by Lee via Jackson’s extraordinary talents and accomplishments...It shined through: Jackson was Lee’s “make it happen” leader...his presence at Gettysburg would have made a distinct difference.
Thanks for your deliberate analysis! Have you done any papers or publications of your studies? I would love to be able to study your findings in more detail.
It astounds me that there are so many on this board who don’t understand what you wrote and hold on to a belief that Lee was somehow a traitor.
It is then that I realize that while I don’t know what the future holds, we will see times that Lee saw and it will be in many ways far far worse, and the outcome much more bleak.