Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."

There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."

Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.

Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.

[jmacusa #461] Yeah listen you stupid cloth eared twitReb.

Unlike your liberal Democrat progressive self, when the history I was sold in school did not match the historical documentation, I revised my beliefs. You reached your maximum delta, floundered, and chose to go through life fat, dumb and stupid. When you are met with facts you cannot contest, you just throw your tiny fisted tantrum.

Your lack of intellectual depth is demonstrated by your inability to engage on the topic at hand, but rather merely descend into juvenile insults. In fact, your shallow mind cannot even summon forth a worthy insult. It is truly sad. Perhaps I should drag your sorry butt out into a cow pasture, stretch an old cow vagina over your head, and see if the meanest bull around can inseminate some brains into you.

You really should take your act to DU or perhaps an Antifa site. You do so seem like one of those spandex Antifa guys. You certainly impersonate one of those nerdy sports fans who thinks if their team won, they accomplished something, all because you knelt for the anthem and wore a jock strap on your head, tilted to the left to support your team, while watching the game.

[jmacusa #461] Lee at least to see the war was lost by the end of 1864.

Do try to write coherent sentences, old chap.

[jmacusa #461] Adam Schiff wannbe?

Yep. Jealous of his ability and not quite up to the task of matching your idol. But matching his ability with research and facts. Indeed, you just make crap up, such as in your #411 where you stated,

[jmacusa #411] Due to political expediency, the nations psychical, emotional, industrial, financial cost and staggering death toll on both sides Lincoln saw no point in prosecuting Lee and Davis as the war criminals they were even though Davis wanted to continue the war in a guerrilla style fashion.

Of course, because you are even less competent than Adam Schiff, you were busted, bigly. As noted in my #437, Lee was indicted on June 7, 1865. Lincoln was dead. The prosecution remained active until 19 February 1869, when the prosecution of Jefferson Davis was dropped on the basis that the Johnson amnesty applied to everyone and prohibited any trial. Lincoln was still dead and did not participate.

Why did President Johnson suddenly see a need to issue a general amnesty?

Well, they could not put off a trial forever and the time was drawing near. Francis Lieber, author of the famous Lieber Code, assessed "The trial of Jefferson Davis will be a terrible thing—volumes, a library of the most infernal treason will be belched forth—Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten."

Prosecution counsel Richard H. Dana feared a loss and recommended not proceeding to trial, as quoted in my #437.

"[Attorney General] Evarts wished to go not further, believing that Chase, as chief Justice, would be able to persuade his fellow members on the Supreme Court of the merits of his view. It would be a humiliating defeat for the government. Evarts suggested to O'Conor that he would enter a nolle prosequi—a Latin phrase meaning "will no longer prosecute"—in the case, if the defense team would drop the proposal before the Supreme Court. O'Conor agreed. And then on Christmas Day, 1868, Andrew Johnson published a final proclamation granting complete amnesty to all participants in the rebellion including those under indictment. On February 11, 1869, Evarts entered a nolle prosequi for all thirty-nine indictments that had been found against the rebel leaders by the federal court in Virginia. Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the other Confederate leaders would not be prosecuted for treason by the US government." John Reeves, The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee, 2018, pg. 168. Chief Justice Chase wrote, "I can no good to come, at this late day, from trials for treason."

In this time of great need to make the case disappear, the assessment of Chief Justice Chase just happened to make its way to lead defense counsel Charles O'Conor. Chief Justice Chase had come up with the ingenious stratagem that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 foreclosed any criminal prosecution whatever. The defense quickly argued the point in the case.

Section 3.
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 as 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

By Amendment 14, a penalty was imposed on all those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Trying any of the people involved would run afoul of the double jeopardy provision of the 5th Amendment, which prohibits twice inflicting punishment for the same offense. If the case were to be decided by the Supreme Court, it was going to be thrown out as unconstitutional. It was better to generously grant a general amnesty.

Suck on that, grasshopper.

When your blustering B.S. was exposed, you failed to contest that Lincoln's sorpse did not do what you claimed it did. Instead, you limp wristedly attempted to maintain that Lincoln, and his being dead at the time of all of this, was irrelevant. This was done rather in the manner of Judge Sullivan attempting to explain himself in the Flynn case, or your fellow liberal Democrats on the impeachment committee trying to explain Russiagate.

[jamcusa #438] Lincoln's (sic) is irrelevant. ti

Do try to write coherent sentences, old chap.

As I stated in my #447, "Then why did you make up that load of crap and try to serve it to me?"

Of course, you did not answer because you have no answer you are willing to share. You just made crap up and tried to sell it, like the shiftless liberal progressive hack that you are. And you greatly prefer to hurl invective rather than to explain how a dead Lincoln did as you blusteringly claimed.

[jamcusa #461] I'm done with you. The North won. End of story. Screw you.

Now, run along to your safe space, enjoy a timeout, and go play in your sandbox. Then kneel down, put a jock strap on your head, tilted to the left, and watch a ball game. Don't forget to claim credit if your team wins. No charge for the history lesson. No charge for the used jock strap. Anything for a FRiend, pal.

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.