Posted on 12/21/2018 4:57:30 AM PST by Bull Snipe
This book focuses on the post-Civil War treason prosecution of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, which was seen as a test case on the major question that animated the Civil War: the constitutionality of secession. The case never went to trial because it threatened to undercut the meaning and significance of Union victory.
You may want to read a little more and get past the cartoon version of history were taught in public screwel.
In his memoirs Grant asserts that the Constitution did not forbade secession. He thought the states had a right to autonomy,he also said a lot of things the people ignore.
a true patriot.
Quite as you ignored the rest of what he said about secession.
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.
Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.
Grant was more subtle than you or me. He had a complicated, serious view of the question, and you don't do justice to it.
Also in his memoirs, Grant blames the slave holding aristocracy in the South for causing the war.
Mark Twain wrote a pretty good book for Grant.
Grant’s opinion of secession was complicated, but irrelevant. He saw secession and the resultant attacks by Democrats of Federal troops as an armed rebellion which must be defeated.
“Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.”
“Any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy (revolution) stake their lives, their property, and every claim of protection given by citizenship, on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror, must be the result.”
US Grant, 1860
That is correct. But, he also said that if the southern states had not demanded to split like they did, he would have supported their cause.
Grant also stated that the poor dirt farmers in the south were looked upon as white trash by the wealthy plantation owners. He was correct.
The plantation owners who went to fight left behind their women to take care of the plantations. Those left behind lived in fear of the black slaves and what they might do.
Many of those commanders came out of that war very good friends. Also, many lost family through that war from the split. Stonewall Jackson being one, George Thomas another. both of those men had sisters who never spoke to each of them after it began.
Nice. I pulled from the same quote before I saw your post. I didn’t want to type the whole thing on my phone, though.
. You are right. and too many people call the south declaring thier Independence from the rest of the united states as and "armed rebellion " is a total embracement of ones own ignorance . The union invaded a sovern nation, which by all human rights defended itself against an invading army. period. You dont invade another country because you dont like their policies. We didnt invade germany when it was killing thousands of jews, we didnt invade japan when it tried to enslave china. but the union invaded the south for what? to enslave the south to their demands! And some today folks still wonder why theres still a war going on in some peoples hearts.
But we did go to war with Japan after they bombarded one of our military bases. Sound familiar?
The Democrats started the war, not the Repubicans.
The Confederacy was never a sovereign nation; it was a seditious collection of aristicratic Democrat schmucks who dragged good and decent Southerners into an unnecessary war they couldn’t win so they could force other men to perform the labor they felt themselves above doing.
The United States didn't invade another country.
The Union only invaded that “sovereign nation” after that “sovereign nation” fired on a ship flying the United States flag, fired on U.S. Army personnel in a United States installation, authorized letters of marque in state supported piracy against U.S. flagged ships. All three acts of war committed by that “sovereign nation” took place prior to an “invasion” of its territory.
Don’t forget the part about burned homes, stole private property, ignored military law and acted like the hordes of Mongolia.
“War is the option our opponents have chosen, and I say, lets give all they want.” General William T. Sherman.
They were.
Merry Christmas General!
I’m currently reading a history of the Dent family and Julia Dent, Grants wife. They were certainly no paupers.
Frederick Dent owned 30-40 slaves at one time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.