Charles was beheaded on 30 January 1649, though at the time the new year did not occur until March, so his death is often recorded as occurring in year 1648. At the execution it is reputed that he wore a heavy cotton shirt as to prevent the cold January weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear or weakness. He put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. His last words were, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.”
Over six days in October of 1660, after the Restoration of Charles II, nine of those convicted of the regicide of Charles I in 1649 were executed in London in this manner. Those executed were: Thomas Harrison, John Jones, Adrian Scroope, John Carew, Thomas Scot, Gregory Clement, Daniel Axtel, Hugh Peters, and John Cooke. Three more regicides suffered the same fate within two years: John Okey, John Barkstead and Miles Corbet. Additionally, the corpses of Oliver Cromwell, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton were disinterred and hanged, drawn and quartered in posthumous executions for their involvement in the regicide.
In 1661, Oliver Cromwell’s body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. Symbolically, this took place on January 30; the same date that Charles I had been executed. His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. Finally, his disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Abbey until 1685. Afterwards the head changed hands several times, including the sale in 1814 to a man named Josiah Henry Wilkinson, before eventually being buried in the grounds of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960.
So, George, am I to understand that, in your opinion, Lee’s fate should have been somewhat the same as that of Cromwell?
(An interesting time in Englsih history. I think that if Americans saw the demands that Cromwell and his ‘Levelers’ put before the King, before they beheaded him for not agreeing, naturally, they would see much that is similar in spirit to their own Constition and Bill of Rights.)
CLR James, a Trinidadian, is one of my favourite historians, as well as being a great cricket comentator. However, he does lean somewhat to the left - a child of his times.
…the record of the trial of Thomas Wallcot, John Rouse, William Hone and William Blake for offences against the king, on 12 July 1683 concludes as follows:
“Then Sentence was passed, as followeth, viz. That they should return to the place from whence they came, from thence be drawn to the Common place of Execution upon Hurdles, and there to be Hanged by the Necks, then cut down alive, their Privy-Members cut off, and Bowels taken out to be burnt before their Faces, their Heads to be severed from their Bodies, and their Bodies divided into four parts, to be disposed of as the King should think fit.”
Presumably, the rebel flag is allowed to be flown, in places, in order to placate those that would still wish to Cecede? Is this a sign that the divisions between North and South remain precarious? Are there Americans that are as offended by it, as there are, obviously, those that take pride in it? Or, is it just history and, therefore, harmless?
…Then, in 1970, a Civil War buff obtained permission to research old State department files stored in the National Archives. During his research, he came across a cardboard box labeled “Virginia.” While rummaging through this box, he spied an aged sheet of paper containing a faded pen and ink inscription. Upon examination, he was stunned to learn that he was actually holding the notarized pledge of allegiance to the United States that Robert E. Lee had executed in 1865. Considering the numerous changes in administrations over the years, changes in State department staffing and relocations of offices and files, it is almost miraculous that this single sheet of paper survived for over a century, first in the State department and then in the National Archives.
Upon learning of the discovery of the lost pledge, Virginia Senator, Harry F. Byrd proposed a congressional resolution for a posthumous pardon and restoration of citizenship for Robert E. Lee. Normally the approval of such a resolution would have been routine. But there were a few members of Congress who did not want the federal government to take any action that would benefit the memory of the great General. One of these Congressmen, the Democratic Representative from Michigan, John Conyers, strongly and vocally opposed the measure. Conyers referred to the resolution as “neither healing nor charitable.”
But Congress, to its credit, overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution and President Gerald Ford indicated his willingness to sign it. The signing ceremony took place on August 5, 1975, at Arlington House, the former home of General Lee’s family. The room was filled with distinguished citizens and dignitaries including Virginia’s Governor, its Senators and its Representatives. These excerpts from the comments President Ford made at the signing ceremony are a fitting tribute to Robert E. Lee.
[b]"I am very pleased to sign Senate Joint Resolution 23, restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee. This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history. It is significant that it is signed at this place.
Lee’s dedication to his native State of Virginia chartered his course for the bitter Civil War years, causing him to reluctantly resign from a distinguished career in the United States Army and to serve as General of the Army of Northern Virginia. He, thus, forfeited his rights to U.S. citizenship.
Once the war was over, he firmly felt the wounds of the North and South must be bound up. He sought to show by example that the citizens of the South must dedicate their efforts to rebuilding that region of the country as a strong and vital part of the American Union.
As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.
General Lee’s character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride.
In approving this Joint Resolution, the Congress removed the legal obstacle to citizenship which resulted from General Lee’s Civil War service. Although more than a century late, I am delighted to sign this resolution and to complete the full restoration of General Lee’s citizenship."[/b]
Well, you’ll find in various places in the US, old laws that are on the books that just aren’t enforced anymore.
BTW, I wasn’t trying to slight Oliver Cromwell. I think that he was remarkable leader. He lived during an era when brutal wars were being fought over religion (the Thirty Years War was contemporary). Attrocities were committed by both sides (Protestant and Catholic) and sometimes against each other. IIRC, Puritans in New England sometimes hanged Quakers. I think their overzealous policies caused a negative backlash in succeeding generations.
As you said, it’s about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
Speaking for myself, I fly the Confederate flag at my home to recognise my ancestors who fought for it. For the most part they were not slave owners(1 exception of 19 who fought). They responded to the State of Georgia when called. IMHO many who fly the flag today do so to honor a family members. That is not to say there are some(minority) who wish to secede.
Many Afro-Americans see the flag as a symbol of slavery. I respect that but do not agree. My view is the primary cause of the War was political. The agrarian South was in the political minority. The country’s westward expansion would likely worsen the situation. The Emancipation Proclamation made slavery illegal in the States of Secession bit did not include States that remained loyal to the Union.
One’s perspective determines an individual’s view of history. I was born in Georgia, raised in the South and choose to live here today. In my youth I was exposed to racial prejudice including several uncles who were active KuKluxKlan members. I was fortunate to have parents who did not subscribe to the bigotry dominant in the South in the 1950-1960’s.
The flag is a part of US history and certainly is a part of mine. I view the struggle and associated symbols as important towards learning the lessons history can teach.
Lemme throw this out there without doing any research, but the Confederate “Stars and Bars” wasn’t actually the flag of the Confederacy but was more a battle ensign. Am I correct?
The “Stars and Bars” was the flag originally adopted in 1861 and is not the flag we see today. This flag was designed to be similar to the Stars and Stripes and had 13 stars arranged in a circle in the upper left quadrant. It was used until 1863 when a new banner was adopted. Several other designs were used before war’s end.
You are correct. The flag recognised as “the” Confederate flag never officially represented the CSA as a nation. It is actually a combination of army battle flags and naval “jacks”(ensign).
The Emancipation Proclamation made slavery illegal in the States of Secession bit did not include States that remained loyal to the Union.
Double standards?
In my youth I was exposed to racial prejudice including several uncles who were active KuKluxKlan members. I was fortunate to have parents who did not subscribe to the bigotry dominant in the South in the 1950-1960’s.
Do you feel that your views are typical of those of the people of the southern states today, or do you remain, as your post implies, a part of a minority?
Racial bias blatantly exists in some areas, typically rural counties. Beginning in the 1960’s, development and expansion of urban areas “forced” people to work/live together. No matter the skincolor, many realized we are not so different from each other.
The majority of people I am in contact with(business and personal) have discarded race as a predicator for association.
Mixed relationships are certainly more prevelant today than in the past and I would say publicly acceptable even in the Deep South. It does not appear to be a widespread phenomona tho.
Inexpicably mixed couples I have observed are invariably an Afro American male and Caucasian female. Seldom have I seen the reverse. A small percentage are gay mixed couples, male and female.
The time I spent in military service revealed what I had suspected as a youth: Skin color makes no difference when appraising the honor, integrity and character of an individual.
My apologies to the members for the off topic nature of my contributions to date. I have been a student of military history for many years and hope I can provide useful information in my future postings.
Southerners at the time perceived their states as their country, more so than the United States. Many Confederate higher ranks prior to the onset of war held commissions the the US Army. Lee himself was offered command of the US forces. IIRC he spent several weeks soul searching, finally refusing instead offering his sword to Virginia, not to the CSA. This was the same for the average soldier. When enlisting, allegiance was sworn to the state of birth/residence rather than the CSA.
When war began, the majority opinion for both sides was this would be a short campaign that would be decided in 1 to 2 years at most. Few foresaw the privation and cost in blood.
Regarding the Battle of Gettysburg, perhaps the most revealing document as to how and why the engagment occurred is a letter written by Major General Harry Heth, AP Hill’s Corps, ANV. You may read it here:
Heth states why he ordered his division to Gettysburg " Hearing that a supply of shoes was to be obtained in Gettysburg, eight miles distant from Cashtown, and greatly needing shoes for my men, I directed General Pettigrew to go to Gettysburg and get these supplies.".
Heth states "A short time before General Grant crossed the Rapidan, in the spring of 1864, General Lee said to me: “If I could do so – unfortunately I cannot – I would again cross the Potomac and invade Pennsylvania. I believe it to be our true policy, notwithstanding the failure of last year. An invasion of the enemy’s country breaks up all of his preconceived plans, relieves our country of his presence, and we subsist while there on his resources. The question of food for this army gives me more trouble and uneasiness than every thing else combined; the absence of the army from Virginia gives our people an opportunity to collect supplies ahead. The legitimate fruits of a victory, if gained in Pennsylvania, could be more readily reaped than on our own soil. We would have been in a few days’ march of Philadelphia, and the occupation of that city would have given us peace”. This clearly quotes Lee’s reasoning for the invasion of Pennsylvania.
Heth continues " The failure to crush the Federal army in Pennsylvania in 1863, in the opinion of almost all the officers of the Army of Northern Virginia, can be expressed in five words – the absence of our cavalry.". Many have argued this to be the case and JEB Stuart bears the blame by depriving Lee of his “eyes”. This is unfair to the reputation of arguably the greatest commander of cavalry who ever lived. Lee had ordered Stuart on this operation. Unfortunately for the Confederates, Federal forces had detected Lee’s move into Pa. Meade unknowingly positioned his forces between Stuart and Lee resulting in the loss of communication from the cavalry.
Assigning blame for the failure is at once simple and complex. Ultimately Lee, as the commanding general, must bear the responsibility. Lee’s command system and style failed him at Gettysburg. Jackson’s death and the subsequent restructuring from 2 to 3 corps, along with the loss of many able commanders in previous actions resulted in officers promoted to positions they were not to excel. Before the Pa campaign, Lee would provide impetus for a plan of action depending on his staff/generals to provide the action required. The entire operation at Gettysburg lacked cohesion. Pickett’s Charge, to succeed, required the following: left wing make a simultaneous diversionary attack; heavy artillery fire to disrupt the Union front and silence batteries that would respond to the assault; support the attacking troops left and right.
The left wing attacked Culp’s Hill at about 6-7 AM and continued the assault for 7 hours. This action was over before Pickett advanced. This effort did not cause Fedral units to be moved from the center as Lee had hoped.
The artillery commenced firing at 1 PM. Porter Alexander was in command of 170 guns for the bombardment. Shelling was vigorous however firing upward to an elevated target Alexander could not judge effectiveness as he could not see impacts. Lee’s artillery chief, Gen Pendelton had little positive effect on the barrage by not allowing the placement of additional batteries that were available and more importantly not replenishing ammunition supply from the previous day’s expenditure causing Alexander to reduce his fire.
At 3 PM(much too late) Pickett began the advance with 9 brigades across 1 mile of front. Some of the brigades had been engaged on the previous days and were not at full strength. The left most brigade under heavy cannon and musketry broke and retreated. On the right 2 support brigades did not advance until after Pickett was broken. Due to losses advancing, Pickett’s front was reduced to 1/2 mile allowing Union fire to concentrate. It was over in 45 minutes. Pickett’s division suffered as casualties all 3 brigade and all 13 regimental commanders.
Lee also ordered Stuart to attack the Union rear. This also failed.
Lee expected too much of his men. The attack plan required too many component actions. Lee carried a huge mental strain but one also must consider his physical condition. He was recovering a fall off his horse and it is suspected he was already feeling the effects of the heart ailment that eventually killed him.
He would have fared better to retreat to favourable terrain and compell Meade to attack. I believe Longstreet’s suggestion to march to his right attacking up the Taneytown Road had the most to offer.
Was there really a single shared attitude that you could call ‘the South’ even in the 1950’s - 60’s, as distinct from some fairly common attitudes about certain issues? I’m wondering if the different histories and sources of populations and economic circumstances produced a range of different states with their own attitudes which, like the US today, fits a certain stereotypical picture in the minds of outsiders but which doesn’t recognise the vast diversity within.
You mentioned that in the Civil War southerners enlisted essentially to their state’s colours rather than the CSA, which suggests that there wasn’t any unified notion of being ‘the South’ as distinct from fighting a common cause against a common enemy, although issues about raising state militias might have been more responsible for the state enlistments.
Did Southerners’ identification with ‘the South’ precede the Civil War, or was it forged by and followed that war, and strengthened by a united resentment of the North and its treatment of the South after rather than during the war?
This summer, that will be rectified…