Posted on 08/17/2017 6:58:48 AM PDT by PBRCat
I wonder how many of the counter-protesters at the Charlottesville event even had any idea who Robert E. Lee was. He was a major hero of the Mexican-American War. He fought for the Confederacy against the Union, but at the time he did it, it was not illegal. Slavery was — while 100 percent evil — completely protected by law as of 1861. When Lee went to work to defend his native Virginia, he was not violating any law.
When the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered at Appomattox Court House in the spring of 1865, some officers of Lee’s Army suggested an ongoing guerrilla campaign against the Union. Lee absolutely vetoed the idea, saying that enough blood had been shed and that it was time to bind up the wounds of war.
I wonder how many of the counter-protesters who threw containers of urine and bottles and sticks at the protesters who actually had a license to demonstrate knew anything about Lee the peacemaker or about Lincoln, the lawbreaker. I wonder how many Americans of any age know that the immense majority of Southerners owned no slaves and that they laid down their lives to protect not slavery, but an invasion by Northerners who by the laws of the day simply had no clear legal right to be in North Carolina or Virginia at arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Let’s get real. Most of the idiots who are complaining about these Confederate statues can’t even spell “Lee,” let alone “General Robert E. Lee.” And they sure as hell don’t know two things about the guy.
One thing for sure, President Trump has exposed the fake Republicans who support Dems and condone leftist hate groups. He has shown us which Republican swamp monsters to vote out.
I'm pretty sure rebellion was illegal then and now.
3. I see that, as of late Tuesday night, he media is going berserk with rage about President Trump saying there were lawbreakers on both sides in C-ville. But clearly, Mr. Trump was right. The pro-statue people were strange looking, but they had a permit and they had the First Amendment. The ones who attacked them with clubs were the instigators. Yes, of course I hate anyone who even hints at sympathy for the Nazis. The monstrous evil of those demons is unmatched. But they have the right to speak when not inciting violence and when not committing violence. Otherwise, the Constitution is trash. For Trump to point out that while the KKK and the Nazis are nauseating, they have free speech rights, is not only correct, but actually brave of him. To take on the MSM and say the Constitution is above the networks and the major newspapers makes him a hero. The same day that this story appeared, I got a USPS letter saying — in a childish type written note on a torn sheet of lined paper, “Ben Stein–Economist, Lawyer, Actor, Commentator–Most of all F–king Jew.” I’d rather get those every hour of every day than lose one iota of the First Amendment. I appreciate that Trump, who is tortured every day by a hate-filled free press, still defends free speech. His endurance is exemplary. As Mr. Trump said, the day in C-ville was agonizing. But for those who stood up for free speech, it was a glorious day. For the apparent murderer by car, it will be judgment day. More to come, but for now, good for Donald Trump for taking the hard way out, and, I suspect, the far harder and more courageous way into a new media civil war. The Constitution or the MSM. Which side are you on, brother? Which side are you on?
“I’m pretty sure rebellion was illegal then and now.”
Is this posted to discredit the Declaration of Independence and support current efforts to tear down the Washington and Jefferson monuments?
No. And how you could come to that conclusion is beyond all understanding.
“Is this posted to discredit the Declaration of Independence”
Uh, you can bet your sweet patoot that the Declaration of Independence was illegal. Under then-prevailing law, of course.
That’s why they call it the American Revolution, not the American Cotillion.
“I’m pretty sure rebellion was illegal then and now.”
********
At the time, it was far from obvious that secession was unlawful. Suppose the southern states had been told before joining the Union that, once in, you can never get out, and that the northern states would be continually agitating for elimination of slavery even if it was protected in the plain language of the new Constitution. Do you think they would have joined? Of course, if they hadn’t joined, there would have been no Civil War, and slavery in the South would have lasted much longer.
Under the King’s laws, the Americans who fought for independence against the Crown were law-breakers and faced all being hanged. So the cases are exactly parallel.
“No.”
I am so proud of you. Really.
In the face of powerful media condemnation of both Washington and Jefferson, you are standing up for two great Southerners who helped found America as we knew it. Yes, they lead a rebellion against authority; yes, they were stewards of people bound to service.
I salute your understanding of complex history and your courage. I hope both will continue to grow.
There is no reason to believe secession of any kind is unlawful. James Madison explained, and the Supreme Court upheld in Texas v. White, what he believed constituted legal separation: "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." The Southern states merely walked out, taking with them every bit of federal property they could and walking away from obligations for treaty, debt, etc. That certainly isn't supported by law, Constitution, or any notion of fairness.
Agreed. Both were rebellions. But while the Founding Fathers knew that what they were doing was rebellion and against British law, supporters of the Confederacy insist that what the South did in 1861 was legal. It wasn't.
Why thank you.
In the face of powerful media condemnation of both Washington and Jefferson, you are standing up for two great Southerners who helped found America as we knew it. Yes, they lead a rebellion against authority; yes, they were stewards of people bound to service.
Hold on to your hat but I'm also against this wholesale removal of Confederate statue throughout the South. I believe they should remain where they are.
I salute your understanding of complex history and your courage. I hope both will continue to grow.
I am going to go way out on a limb here and assume that what you mean is that I will come around to your viewpoint and that of your cohorts. I'm pretty sure you will be disappointed there, which means I'll probably loose whatever pride you have in me. I'll just have to get along without it.
James Madison explained, and the Supreme Court upheld in Texas v. White, what he believed constituted legal separation: “A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.”
*************
The problem with Madison’s argument is thst it begs the question of what the original “compact” really provided. Before you have a compact, there must a true agreement, a meeting of the minds. Everyone at that time knew that, in a marriage “compact,” once you are in, you cannot get out. But this was something new at that time, unlike a marriage covenant. My point is that there was never a meeting of the minds on the issue of succession.
It is taught that the Civil War started at Ft. Sumpter. But Lincoln was planning one long before that happened. Otherwise, why did he want Lee to lead the Union army? At that time Lee wasn’t planning on leading ANY army. He simply resigned his commission in the Union army because his state was leaving the Union.
It is fundamentally unfair to judge people of the past by the present understanding of right and wrong. Having said this, a person of the past might be judged as to how his behavior advanced the cause of freedom.
Gen. Lee and the Confederate Army conducted themselves in accordance with the rules of war as were then understood. (Of course there were exceptions, and of course there were exceptions on both sides.) The same could be said of Gen. Washington and the Continental Army. Indeed, our American experience was instrumental in bringing about international conventions to codify the rules of war (the Geneva Conventions) and, even, to outlaw slavery.
By reason of the Geneva Convention, the people of a defeated country could not be reduced to slavery. Rather, they were to be treated humanely and, furthermore, soldiers of armies that conducted themselves in accordance with Geneva, were to be treated honorably. If you know anything at all about the history of slavery, you know that slaves came from the nations defeated in war. Indeed, wars were sometimes started in order to enslave. Our own African slaves were reduced to slavery in wars among African tribes, started for the profit of selling the slaves to the European colonial powers. But, with Geneva, the losers of wars would no longer enslaved.
Once Geneva was in place, the next step - of formally outlawing slavery around the world - was relatively easy.
In a strange way, then, the fact that we, in America, showed that people engaged even in a civil war could do so in accordance with the rules of law, due to Gen. Lee and other men of honor of the Confederate Army, paved the way for real progress in the world.
After the war, Gen. Lee famously demonstrated that things had changed in accepting communion with a black man, at church. Perhaps this reflected the honorable way he and his fellow Confederate soldiers were treated by Gen. Grant at Appomattox.
Another thing that Gen. Grant and Gen. Lee tell us is that the boys who fight on both sides of war are, by and large, guilty of no crime other than being males of military age. As traumatic as wars are, most real soldiers come to see this, and mourn the dead of both sides.
Unfortunately, we know that we did not “bind up the nation’s wounds.” We see, in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the dashed hopes of that generation. Intersectional hatred and racial hatred prevailed. Redeeming the promise of the American Revolution would take another hundred years. And now we have a new generation of haters.
Then there was nothing to prevent the Southern states from making the wrong decision, is what you are saying. But there should have been. If all states recognized it as a compact, as you say, then they would have known that a compact was a legal union, that no one party of the compact has any more rights than another, and that it should be ended only by mutual agreement.
What a great article
Was what West Virginia did illegal?
A rebellion is when the sitting government is over thrown. That was NEVER the intention of the Confederate States.
If slavery was the soul cause, why did Lincoln not free the slaves, by EO, until 1865? Would his Union Congress not go along with the plan? And why only in the Southern states? And why did he say he wouldn’t have freed the slaves if he could have saved the Union without freeing them.
Another thing I don’t understand. Why did Southern slave owners free their slaves on the order of a “foreign” president!
Bottom line is Lincoln knew the Union could not survive without the South’s cotton no matter who picked it.
Finally, the South DID rise again. We have the factories while the North is a rust bucket.
The one thing we’ll never have in a “war” with the left is strong enough agreement on any one issue to stand against the enemy. The Civil War was decided yet too many people want to keep fighting it. If there is a second CW, it shouldn’t even be discussed in relation to the other one. It makes the current problem appear to be white vs black. And that’s what the enemy wants it to look like. And they are succeeding.
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.