Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

Townhall.com ^ | July 22, 2020 | Walter E. Williams

[Kaslin]

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.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem quoting: ". . . and that as Free and Independent states, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Right, that is the declaration of the Congress & government of the United States of America, declaring all 13 colonies both states and united:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States..."

The government of the United States declared the United Colonies to be united States.

There was never a moment -- not even a full sentence -- in which they were not first United States.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "They were named individually and the sovereignty of each was recognized. Specifically.
The Founders insisted upon it. "

Sure, but the Founders also insisted, first & foremost, they were United States who fought one war of independence and signed one peace treaty at Paris.
The point of listing all 13 individually was to insure that nobody later could come along & say -- "but we didn't really mean Rhode Island or North Carolina, those are still British!"

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "But if you are not questioning the decision, I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight with me."

DoodleDawg: "Because of your claim that everybody accepts that slavery was the foundation of the Constitution.
Other than you and Justice Baldwin I'm not aware of anyone who would believe that."

Thanks DoodleDawg for manhandling our pro-Confederate, the alleged Jefferson Democrat.
I see a lot of Democrat in him, almost no Jefferson.

But just so we're clear, our so-called Jeffersonian Democrat has claimed that slavery was not just the US Constitution's "foundation", but explicitly (& obscenely) its "cornerstone" -- thus referring back to the famous speech by Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, where Stephens goes to great lengths to explain how the new Confederate constitution is vastly superior to the old US Constitution precisely because, as their cornerstone Confederates recognized slavery explicitly (& obscenely) in their new constitution.

[Reily]

“... accepts that slavery was the foundation of the Constitution. ....”

???

We have a NYT Project 1619 contributor\participant on this site?

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Rhode Island at the time was primarily a very rural state.
It was full of Anti-Federalists, which is why the state tried something like ten or eleven times unsucessfully to ratify the Constitution.
It quickly ratified the Constitution after one house of the US Congress voted to tax imports from Rhode Island into the United States, but before the other house of Congress passed that same law. "

And so, while disagreeing with me, you still verify my basic point which was that no original state was ever officially recognized as free & independent of the United States -- certainly not during the time the old Articles of Confederation were superseded by the new Constitution.

[FLT-bird]

Sure, but the Founders also insisted, first & foremost, they were United States who fought one war of independence and signed one peace treaty at Paris. The point of listing all 13 individually was to insure that nobody later could come along & say -- "but we didn't really mean Rhode Island or North Carolina, those are still British!"

LOL! Yeah that's it. The Founders insisted that each have its sovereignty recognized individually by name just so people wouldn't say they were still British. Not because the Founders wanted the sovereignty of each recognized by name or anything....

[FLT-bird]

We have a NYT Project 1619 contributor\participant on this site?

Notice how these PC Revisionists side with Leftists consistently while falsely claiming they're "conservatives"?

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Vermont was part of one of the supposedly indestructible, indissoluble states in 1776.
And then in 1777, it wasn't.
And it remained a free and independent state until 1791 when it joined the union of 13 as a free and independent state, with its self-constituted borders."

Vermont was never officially recognized by anyone as free & independent of the United States.

Throughout our history states & territories have formed or changed status according to Constitutionally mandated "mutual consent".
State boundaries have been changed, states have been split into two or more, proposed states absorbed (i.e., Franklin, Jefferson, Deseret) by others, territories added & "retroceded" -- i.e., Philippines, Panama Canal. All that was perfectly normal & constitutional.

So, land which came to be called first "New Connecticut" and then "Vermont" was previously claimed by New Hampshire, Connecticut & New York.
The issue was settled by Congress admitting Vermont as a free state, then Kentucky as a new slave-state, the first such pairing among many.

Mutual consent for such things is what the Constitution requires.

[jmacusa]

I'm going to tell this to you just once you dumb shit: I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT! You got that bird brain?. And your constant stream of ad hominems, which are replete through out this post prove to me you have no argument. The fact of the matter is simply this: The South launched the bloodiest war in American history to preserve an economic system based on the use of salve labor. And it lost that war. Here in I'm done arguing with or posting to you. Reciprocate in turn.

[jeffersondem]

“. . . thus referring back to the famous speech by Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, where Stephens goes to great lengths to explain how the new Confederate constitution is vastly superior to the old US Constitution . . .”

That is an interesting claim by you.

First things first: in which post on this thread have I referred to the Alexander Stephens speech?

[BroJoeK]

Monterrosa-24 to jmacusa: "If you can not see the tie between the growth of today’s socialist super state and the federal over-reach of the earlier federalism then you are willfully blind.
You’ll be happier over at HuffPost.
Lots of them with be in full agreement with you."

FLT-bird: "Exactly.
This is the direct source of the federal government's usurpation of powers the states never agreed to delegate to it.
Those who cannot see it don't want to see it.
Even biographers like Gore Vidal called Lincoln "the great centralizer".
That was essentially his entire program....to overthrow the original constitution and centralize power in Imperial Washington.
That is the source of most of our problems today."

And those are all absolute Democrat Big Lies.
The real connection between 1860 and today is Democrats going berserk & waging war because they hate the US Constitution and the United States.

Sure, to hear Democrats tell it, you'd think 1860 was over "states rights", but their states' rights were never threatened.
The real truth is 1860 was about, as now, Democrats use of Federal government to enforce special privileges for Democrat voters, period.
Then it was their privilege of owning slaves so Democrats could live the easy-life; today it's their privilege of having taxpayers pay for Democrats' easy-lives.

Everything else Democrats claim is 100% pure nonsense.

[DoodleDawg]

The Founders insisted that each have its sovereignty recognized individually by name just so people wouldn't say they were still British.

And what was the name of each individual state's individual representative?

[jmacusa]

Thanks Joe. As always your spot on analysis of the subject is right to the point.

I must say, when it comes to telling lies these wannabe Johnny Rebs could give Ananias a tip or two.

Here's a little bit of my family's history concerning the Civil War. My great-great grandfather served in a very prominent position in The Surgeon Generals Office during the war in Washington Dc. It was during this time an extensive manual of caring, cataloging, tracking the wounded soldiers and documenting their treatment and care they received was published and is , to some extent is still used. It's called The US Army Surgeons Manual.My great great grandfathers name was William C. Grace. He wrote this manual. You can Google it.

[FLT-bird]

And what was the name of each individual state's individual representative?

Feel free to look that up for yourself. In anticipation of your next post...no. I'm not going to look it up for you. I'm not here to do your research for you.

[FLT-bird]

And those are all absolute Democrat Big Lies. The real connection between 1860 and today is Democrats going berserk & waging war because they hate the US Constitution and the United States. Sure, to hear Democrats tell it, you'd think 1860 was over "states rights", but their states' rights were never threatened. The real truth is 1860 was about, as now, Democrats use of Federal government to enforce special privileges for Democrat voters, period. Then it was their privilege of owning slaves so Democrats could live the easy-life; today it's their privilege of having taxpayers pay for Democrats' easy-lives. Everything else Democrats claim is 100% pure nonsense.

No, the denial is an absolute Leftist lie. The Democrat party of 1840 and 1860 and 1910 is not the Democrat party of today. The same goes for the Republicans. They have each changed considerably. The lie is that secession was "about" slavery. Plainly it was not. It was about tariffs and economics and more broadly, the centralization of power.

[DoodleDawg]

Feel free to look that up for yourself. In anticipation of your next post...no. I'm not going to look it up for you. I'm not here to do your research for you.

I did. The only representatives there signed for a single sovereign entity, the United States of America.

[FLT-bird]

I did. The only representatives there signed for a single sovereign entity, the United States of America.

Yet that representative and those who negotiated the treaty insisted that EACH state be recognized as sovereign INDIVIDUALLY BY NAME.

[DoodleDawg]

Yet that representative and those who negotiated the treaty insisted that EACH state be recognized as sovereign INDIVIDUALLY BY NAME.

And if each was sovereign then shouldn't each have signed?

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "I see that you cannot identify what branch of the Federal government the States are a part of.
Your omission is telling."

Your insistence on playing senseless word games is more telling.

woodpusher: "Just how does my unanswered question confirm OIFVeteran’s absurd conspiracy theory that the United States suffers from schizophrenia? "

That is a completely dishonest question, revealing some of what's going on in woodpusher's soul.

woodpusher: "Why did nobody in the Congress even question or oppose these claims by MADISON et al?"

Neither Madison nor anybody else at the time officially recognized Rhode Island as a separate & independent country.
Indeed, Madison specifically refers to it as a "state" and says it would be improper for Congress to invite the "state" to join the United States.

woodpusher: "How was the Order-in-Council recognized as nullified, and Vermont recognized as an independent state from 1777 to 1791, and Vermont recognized as having entered the Union as an independent state, with self-constituted boundaries in 1791, without it having left the Union after 1776?"

As with Rhode Island & North Carolina, Vermont was never officially recognized as a separate country by any foreign power, or by any United States authority.
Nor did Vermont seriously claim to be a separate country, and indeed joining the United States as a state was a primary reason for changing its name from "New Connecticut" to "Vermont".

But the key point in all these discussions is that changes to state or territory status & boundaries were accomplished by mutual consent, just as James Madison and the US Constitution require.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher quoting Virginia 1776 Constitution, adopted June 29, 1776. : "By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED."

Part of the answer here is in the next paragraph:

"...and in compliance with a recommendation of the general Congress, do ordain and declare the future form of government of Virginia to be as followeth: "

Virginia was a member of the Continental Congress and recognized its authority.

But there's more to this story, which you may remember from the musical "1776" -- Adams & Franklin are sitting with Richard Henry Lee and ask him to go back to Virginia and secure from Virginians, "a resolution on independency".

Lee then delivers the catchiest tune of the play:

"Lees of Old Virginia

My name is Richard Henry Lee; Virginia is my home
My name is Richard Henry Lee; Virginia is my home
And may horses turn to glue if I can't deliver
Unto you a resolution on independency!

For I am FFV, the first family
In the sovereign colony of Virginia
Yes the FFV, the oldest family
in the oldest colony in America
And may the British burn my land if I can't deliver
To your hand a resolution on independency!

You see it's here-a-Lee, there-a-Lee
And everywhere-a-Lee-a-Lee..."

And the song's point is entirely historical: the Continental Congress requested Virginia's declaration in order to persuade reluctant states to go along -- a fact Virginians acknowledged in saying: "in compliance with a recommendation of the general Congress…".

It was then Congress which declared all 13 colonies to the free & independent united States.
Even Virginians never considered themselves a separate country independent of the United States.
And, more to the point: when Virginia was invaded by British troops, it never insisted on fighting the Brits alone.
Virginians served, as did all others, in the Continental Army under its Commander in Chief, George Washington.
So the United States not only declared 13 colonies independent, it fought a long, bloody war to make them so.