Amen to that.
We do not teach our kids this anymore but it was tremendously distressing to hear a US general spout such bs.
Deo Vindice
In the eyes of Great Britain, Washington was a traitor. Or wasn't Williams aware of that?
“Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain.”
Had the 13 Colonies lost the war of against Great Britain, the charge against George Washington would have been treason.
The Confederacy lost the war against the United States, the charge of treason against the principal Confederate leaders, is not unreasonable to consider.
This history lesson by a patriotic Black man is a must read.
the ratification of the constitution was not the moment these independent states joined together, they had already done that years before by ratifying the Articles of Confederation.
history is written by those who ultimately succeed. So we ignore the articles.
We’d be ignoring the Declaration too if GB had put down the insurrection in their colonies. Our true independence came when GB lost the will to continue the fight with their superior resources, perhaps Yorktown is the closest thing to the actuak moment we achieved independence.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in Defense of Robert E. Lee....
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
What an obvious but brilliant point.
The Confederates were more American than the Yankees. They were defending the founding principles. Their cause was ultimately a second American Revolution.
All of the Confederate soldiers were given amnesty including, after some controversy, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy and a West Point graduate. Confederate soldiers were allowed to receive pensions, albeit funded by their respective states. Calling them traitors today is revisionist history. They were pardoned by President Johnson.
There was an effort at the end of the war to come together as a people. At the end of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural speech, he said,
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and all nations.“
Bkmk
A further postscript to Mr. Walter’s essay -
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was in response to the American Prohibitory Act of 1775, whereby the Parliament and the King of England declared the American colonies to be outlaws outside the protection of the crown. It prohibited all trade with the colonies and declared any ships found doing so would be declared enemies of Britain and liable for impoundment. After the French Revolution, it became fashionable to call our War of Independence, a “revolution,” but it wasn’t not one in the true sense. It was an attempt to remain British in the face of an out-of-control legislature and a compliant royal.
John Adams wrote:
“It throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties ... It may be fortunate that the act of independence should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.”
Bookmark
History is thier enemy and gets in the way of thier radical take down
Thank you Mr Williams.
Just another example of how subversive and woefully short our education system(along with the MSM) has become.
He’s right. The Founding Fathers WERE actually traitors to the British Empire. The Confederates were not traitors to the US. The difference is the states, unlike the colonies, were sovereign. They never agreed to bind themselves forever. They expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
“We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that 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, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will....”
“We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
“We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.”
Furthermore, even Lincoln’s Secretary of State and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admitted secession is not treason when there was talk of putting Jefferson Davis on trial. The context here is that Davis WANTED a trial. It would enable him to make the argument that secession was perfectly legal and in keeping with the original intent of the Founders.
“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.” Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason” Chief Justice Salmon P Chase [as quoted by Herman S. Frey, in Jefferson Davis, Frey Enterprises, 1977, pp. 69-72]
To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can only exist by the sword?” Alexander Hamilton
“The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson
“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson
Even this guy thought secession “a principle to liberate the world”:
“Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848
FACT: President Abraham Lincoln proposed ending slavery by 1900; the 13th Amendment could have been far different had Congress done what Lincoln proposed.
This is from his Address to Congress December 1, 1862...
“... In this view, I recommend the adoption of the following resolution and articles amendatory to the Constitution of the United States: “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both houses concurring,) That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures (or conventions) of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures (or conventions) to be valid as part or parts of the said Constitution, viz:
“Article -—.
“Every State, wherein slavery now exists, which shall abolish the same therein, at any time, or times, before the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit:
“The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State, bonds of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of -— per cent, per annum, to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of for each slave shown to have been therein, by the eig[h]th census of the United States, said bonds to be delivered to such State by instalments, or in one parcel, at the completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have been gradual, or at one time, within such State; and interest shall begin to run upon any such bond, only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid, and afterwards reintroducing or tolerating slavery therein, shall refund to the United States the bonds so received, or the value thereof, and all interest paid thereon...”
I think an acceptance of the Confederacy would have inevitably led to war between the North and South anyway.
The alliances the South would have made with other nations would have become alliances against the north and a threat to the north in trade, freedom of the seas, expansion west and other international matters. The north would have demanded the South break the alliances that the north held to be threats against it and war would have ensued. There would have been no war to keep the south from seceeding, it would have been a war between two countries, but the industrial north would have won anyway and the price, the peace, would have had the south rejoining the United States, and without slavery.
One way or the other, I don’t think the stars were aligned in favor of the south being separate.
Ping