RESTORING POSTHUMOUSLY FULL
RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP TO GEN.
R.E.LEE
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the Senate
Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 23) to restore
posthumously full rights of citizenship to
General R. E. Lee.
The Clerk read as follows:
S.J. RES. 23
Whereas this entire Nation has long recognized
the outstanding virtues of courage,
patriotism, and selfless devotion to duty of
General R. E. Lee, and has recognized the
contribution of General Lee in healing the
wounds of the War Between the States, and
Whereas, in order to further the goal of
reunion of this country, General Lee, on
June 13, 1865, applied to the President for
amnesty and pardon and restoration of his
rights as a. citizen, and
Whereas this request was favorably endorsed
by General Ulysses S. Grant on June
16, 1865, and
Whereas, Genera.! Lee's full citizenship was
not restored to him subsequent to his request
of June 13, 1865, for the reason that no accompanying
oath of allegiance was submitted,
and
Whereas, on October 12, 1870, General Lee
died, still denied the right to hold any ofilce
and other rights of citizenship, and
Whereas a recent discovery has revealed
that General Lee did in fact on October 2,
1865, swear allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and to the Union, and
Whereas it appears that General Lee thus
fulfilled all of the legal as well as moral requirements
incumbent upon him for restoration
of his citizenship:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That, in accordance
with section 3 of amendment 14 of the United
States Constitution, the legal disabilities
placed upon General Lee as a. result of his
service as General of the Army of Northern
Virginia. are removed, and that General R. E.
Lee is posthumously restored to the full
rights of citizenship, effective June 13, 1865.
The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, is the
gentleman who is demanding a second
opposed to the Senate joint resolution?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will make
the inquiry. Is the gentleman from New
York (Mr. FISH) opposed to the Senate
joint resolution?
Mr. FISH. I am not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed
to the Senate joint resolution?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
am.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies.
Without objection, a second will be
considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. EILBERG) will be recognized
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman
form Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) will
be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. EILBERG).
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this joint
resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 23,
is oo restore posthumously full rights of
citizenship to Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Gen. Robert E. Lee is a well known
and respected military figure and a person
whose dedication to duty has never
been questioned. This great leader has
earned himself a prominent position not
only in the annals of American history
but also in the hearts and minds of all
patriotic Americans.
As his ancestors before him served
their country, he, too, served both the
United States and his native State of
Virginia.
He possessed the courage to make the
most difficult decisions and he had the
fortitude to abide by his decisions. He
faced defeat with dignity and he sought
to regain his full rights of citizenship
with humility.
In approving this resolution we will
attempt to comply with requests made by
General Lee to the President on June 13,
1865. On that date, General Lee formally
applied for full restoration of his rights
and his application was personally approved
by General Grant and forwarded
to the President through the Secretary of
War. However, he did not realize his application
was to be accompanied by an
oath of allegiance, and when this fact became
known to General Lee, he executed
a notarized oath of allegiance on October
2, 1865. His application was never
acted upon by the President since the
oath of allegiance was lost and was only
discovered in the National Archives in
1970.
As a college president, Robert E. Lee
dedicated himself to teaching young men
to learn from the past and to live as
united Americans.
The virtues exemplified by Gen.
Robert E. Lee could be an example for
all, as they have been an inspiration to
students of American history for many
years.
Restoring full citizenship rights to
General Lee is a bipartisan effort which
serves as a symbol of how we as Americans
once divided can learn from our historic
past and once again reunite when
it is in our Nation's interest. In a time
when the United States faces complex
problems an act such as this helps to
remind us of our heritage and the struggles
which our Nation has endured in its
200 year history. It is only fitting and
proper that the Congress, as we approach
the Bicentennial of the founding of the
United States of America, remove the
last tarnish of the memory of General
Lee and retroactively restores his full
rights of citizenship.
This is indeed unique legislation and
is one of the few times that Congress
has sought to invoke its constitutional
powers under section 3 of the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The first sentence of that section relates
to the disability for holding public
office and provides that "No person shall
be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice
President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or
under any State, who, having previously
taken an oath, as a Member of Congress,
or an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof."
The restoration of full citizenship
rights to General Lee is a measure which
is neither Republican nor Democratic,
conservative or liberal, but hopefully is
an issue on which we can display a .bipartisan
and historical unity. I urge my
colleagues to support this meritorious
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
The Constitution further provides that
this disability can only be removed by
congressional action.
Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance
that I take this time to speak
on this matter, one which might
more appropriately be considered as a
sentimental, symbolic gesture; as Bicentennial
fluff, or perhaps as legislation
that clears up some important historical
business that has been neglected by previous
Congresses and by previous Presidents.
So it was in this frame of mind that
I initiated some research on this subject.
Even though it is not yet complete,
enough questions have been raised that I
have no other alternative but to take
the well at this time.
The first issue raised by my research
was the circumstances and date of the
"discovery" of General Lee's oath of allegiance
presumedly undertaken on October
2, 1865, and thereafter lost, never
reaching President Andrew Johnson. In
reading the committee report to my-surprise
I found that no one from the National
Archives came before the Committee
on the Judiciary or before the appropriate
committee in the other body to
attest to the "discovery" of this oath.
Nothing in the report indicates who discovered
this missing oath and when, or
where it had resided all these years.
A member of my staff yesterday visited
the Archives. He spoke with the man who
located the oath and was advised that
it had come to his attention not in 1970
as stated in the committee report but in
1965. You may be interested to know that
this "discovery" was, in truth, made by a
capable and conscientious Archives clerk,
Mr. Donald King, who brought it to the
attention of his superior, Mr. Elmer
Parker, in 1970. Two archivists further
advised my staff member that the Lee
oath was known to be on public display as
far back as the 1930's. It is the position
of the Archives that the oath has always
been in the Government's custody, had
never been lost, was first stored with
other amnesty documents in the State
Department and during World War II
transferred to the National Archives
where it presently resides. This romantic
notion of the lost oath may ultimately
do a great disservice to those who sincerely
wish to preserve the memory of
General Lee. Obviously some of the statements
regarding the oath's "discovery"
in Senate Joint Resolution 23 are inaccurate.
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I am delighted to yield
to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. BUTLER. Of course, we are not in
a position to question the gentleman's
information, but in order that the record
may be clear, with respect to the archivist
who wrote this article and called it
to the attention of the committee, his
letter is a part of the report. It appears
on page 4 and is by Mr. Elmer Oris
Parker. The gentleman is familiar with
that; is he not?
Mr. CONYERS. I read it very carefully.
That is precisely what caused me to go
to the Archives.
Mr. BUTLER. I am pleased to know
about this report about the earlier date.
Would the gentleman enlighten us a little
bit as to how he arrived at the information?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I would be pleased
to enlighten my colleague. I merely sent
a member of my staff over to the Archives
located on Pennsylvania Avenue
to raise the question and to see the oath.
We do not have handwriting experts on
our staff, but it is not my intention to
put the authenticity of this oath into
question at this time. This question came
up-and as the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. BUTLER) who served on the Committee
on the Judiciary during the impeachment
proceedings with such great
distinction will recall-during the impeachment
when an archivist was called
in on at least several points concerning
the authenticity of Watergate-related
documents. Therefore, we wanted to
learn about the history of this document
since it is an important item in the
Archives.
There are a couple of other points that
I would like to raise. It seems the committee
has had some difficulty in determining
the exact date when the 14th
amendment to the Constitution took effect,
a matter you will appreciate is of
some importance to me. The committee
states it occurred on June 21, 1868, but
take my word for it, it really occurred
on July 28, 1868.
I turn now to what I consider another
crucial question in this discussion. What
was the intention of General Lee with regard
to amnesty? What benefits did he
wish to enjoy under the First Amnesty
Proclamation of President Johnson
which required former Confederate officers
to submit a special application and
an oath? As we know General Grant supported
General Lee's application. Apparently,
General Lee neglected inadvertently
to submit an accompanying oath,
which he later submitted on October 2,
1865.
I suggest to the Members we may be
stretching the point just a bit because
section 3 of the 14th amendment involves
only a very limited disability, as my colleagues
on the Committee on the Judiciary
are well aware. It only prohibits
one who participated on the Confederate
side from holding any Federal office, including
positions in the U.S. Armed
Forces.
I would inquire rhetorically if any
Member of this body is claiming that the
oath submitted in connection with the
First Proclamation had anything to do
with relieving General Lee from the disability
imposed by section 3?
To me the fairest interpretation of this
matter would incline one toward the
negative.
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. CONYERS. Permit me to finish
my statement. I will be through in just
a moment.
Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that
General Lee was an enfranchised citizen
of his community in Lexington, Va.,
where he spent his last distinguished
years as the president of the now renamed
Washington and Lee University.
Apparently, however, he never chose to
vote after 1865. Furthermore, the biographies
on General Lee concur that he
was not interested in holding any public
office after 1865. If that is so, it can be
construed that General Lee was well
aware of the disability under section 3
of the 14th amendment and that he knew
he had been relieved of all the other disabilities
by virtue of the Presidential
Amnesty Proclamation of December 25,
1868. In this proclamation President
Johnson granted "a full pardon and
amnesty for the offense of treason
against the United States," excepting of
course the disabilities imposed by section
3 of the 14th amendment which the
President by executive order could not
remove. So if General Lee, fully aware of
this, chose not to pursue the matter further,
then there might be a very valid
question of his intent to raise in connection
with this resolution.
Now I will be happy to yield either to
the chairman of the subcommittee or to
my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. BUTLER).
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for yielding. I think the
question the gentleman raises about the
intention of General Lee to seek admissibility
or relief from all the limitations
which had been for one reason or another
placed upon him is a very legitimate inquiry.
But, of course, we have first the
oath which follows the application.
Mr. CONYERS. I wish to say to the
gentleman from Virginia I would be glad
to respond to a question of his, but if he
just chooses to engage in general debate,
then I refuse to yield further.
Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman will recall
that the gentleman took our time
and I am now responding to a rhetorical
question the gentleman asked a moment
ago, on which I hope that I might be permitted
to speak.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I will not
yield further and I reserve the balance
of my time at this point.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has
consumed 11 minutes.
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. FISH).
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to concur
with the remarks of Subcommittee
Chairman EILBERG in support of the bill,
Senate Joint Resolution 23, which,
would posthumously restore full rights
of citizenship to Gen. Robert E. Lee.
General Lee's military brilliance and
his stature as a genuine American hero
is well known. His tactics on the battlefields
have long served as models for
military students and his picture hangs
in the military academy library at West
Point where he once served as superintendent,
next to the picture of his adversary
in the Civil War, Ulysses S.
Grant.
A nuclear-powered submarine bears
his name and sails together with another
submarine named the
Abraham Lincoln.
I believe a lesser known aspect of General
Lee's life deserves particular mention
at this time. After the conclusion of
the Civil War, history tells us that General
Lee's actions were aimed toward
resolving any division that still existed
in our country, rather than to perpetuate
it. As Jonathan Daniels states in his
book, "Robert E. Lee's Last March":
By word and deed he opposed hate and
bitterness in the south. Gently he declined
the offer of some ragged, simple soldiers to
provide him a mountain hideout where he
might continue to defy the union.
After the war, he wrote to a Confederate
veteran who planned to leave Lee's
home State of Virginia for a foreign
country, that "Virginia has now need for
an her sons and can ill--afford to spare
you.'' His action in applying for pardon
and amnesty itself shows his efforts to
set an example to Confederate supporters
to put the war behind them.
Robert E. Lee therefore, is not only a
great military hero, but one who can
serve as a model today. By his words and
his deeds, he set an example that would
serve us well to follow in light of some
of the bitter divisions that have de·
veloped in our country in the recent past
based, once again, on war.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment provides
that Congress, by a vote of two-thirds
of each House, may remove the re-
strictions on the rights of a citizen who
has engaged in insurrection against the
United States. Congress has acted many
times in the past to remove such disabilities,
and in fact did so June 11, 1874, for
Lee's nephew, Fitzhugh Lee, and on
July 26, 1886 for Lee's son, William H.
F. Lee.
I urge my colleagues to vote to suspend
the rules and pass this bill to remove
this disability from General Lee, albeit
posthumously. I think it is most appropriate
as we begin our Bicentennial celebration
to remove any remaining restrictions
on the citizenship of this great
American hero, Gen. Robert E. Lee.
...
[see the C.R. for the intervening speakers]
...
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. HOLTZMAN).
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in opposition to the resolution which
grants citizenship posthumously to Gen.
Robert E. Lee.
I recognize that serious questions have
been raised about the historical validity
of the documents regarding General
Lee's application for amnesty. I also am
aware of the futility of granting General
Lee the right to run for the Senate or
Congress and the right to hold Federal
office, since it is very unlikely, indeed,
that he can exercise such rights. It is not
for these reasons, however, that I primarily
oppose this resolution.
I oppose this resolution because it
seems to me to raise an issue of misplaced
priorities. It is true, the War Between the
States was a very divisive war. We had a
war very recently that caused as much
division in our country. There are Americans
right now who have lost their citizenship
because they opposed that war.
They were not eligible for clemency under
President Ford's program. They are
not eligible to return to the United
States.
There are other Americans who refused
to fight. They face prosecution
here. They cannot come home.
This is a bicentennial year. Therefore,
the proponents of the resolution tell us
we should correct the injustice done to
Robert E. Lee now. What about these
living Americans? Will we allow them to
come home?
General Lee led armies against this
country. The Congress is willing to forgive
him. What about the young men who
refused to bear arms in a war that they
thought was unconscionable? Like General
Lee, they placed principles above
conscription. Why does the Congress ignore
them?
It seems to me to be a bitter blow at a
time of the Bicentennial to turn a deaf
ear to the plight of the living. We ought
to be able to show as much compassion
and concern for the living as for the
dead.
Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that
I oppose this bill.
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 1 minute at this point.
In reply to the gentlewoman from New
York, I would like to make a comment
on the gentlewoman's statement about
misplaced priorities. The gentlewoman
knows and the Members know the jurisdiction
of our subcommittee. Our subcommittee
simply has no jurisdiction
over amnesty.
I think we know also that another subcommittee,
headed by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. KASTENMEIER), is
considering that matter and will no doubt
be bringing that matter to the floor very
shortly.
I would also add in reply to one of the
other statements made, it is necessary to
pursue this route by reason of section 3
of the 14th amendment.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. EILBERG. I yield to the gentlewoman
from New York.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would
advise the gentleman that I introduced
a bill (H.R. 7893) on June 13, 1975, which
does permit American citizenship to be
restored to those who renounced it because
of their opposition to the Vietnam
war. That bill has not been acted upon
and it has been referred to the subcommittee
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. ECKHARDT).
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I
think it is never a waste of time to make
a gesture of grace and generosity. I recall
a statement of General Lee that I
think was one of the finest statements
of grace and generosity ever made by a
general. I think it was after Gettysburg
when he said:
It was all my fault. I thought my men
were invincible.
Combined in that very short statement
was his recognition of his own fallibility
and also a high compliment to his
men. Of course, he was fallible. Most all
the South was fallible.
Some men took a different position.
Sam Houston was driven from the governorship
of Texas, because he disagreed
with the final determination of General
Lee; but the fact that men may be wrong
does not mean that they should not be
treated with grace and generosity. Many
men have died for causes that were tragically
wrong, but if they believed in it
and conceived of it as one for which they
and their countrymen should pledge
their lives and fortunes, they deserve· at
least our grace and generosity and ofttimes
our respect and honor.
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, Members
of the House, I thank the gentleman for
the opportunity to speak to the House
on this matter. I also want to thank the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS)
for stating his opposition in the
manner he has, and not taking this opportunity
of maligning the memory of
this great American.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to repeat
now some remarks that were made to me
by a newly naturalized citizen of the
United States as a fair summary of why
we should adopt this legislation.
...
*See the Congressional Record for more of this House debate.*
It's from July 22, 1975 on pages 23941 to 23950 of the
Congressional Record, which is found here:
Vol. 121, Part 19 - House pages 23935 - 24027 (PDF 36MB)
