Blacks and the Confederacy

Townhall.com ^ | January 20, 2016 | Walter E. Williams

[DiogenesLamp]

"No one would have predicted that a rational man would kill 620,000 people to impose his will."

You are speaking of Jefferson Davis & company, of course.

They could not have stopped the war with a word. The butcher's bill was under Lincoln's control, not under the control of anyone else.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, only in the case of an unjust Union, where a long list of grievances is not lawfully addressed, thus making separation "necessary".

The list of grievances were a courtesy, not a requirement to exercise the right. The right is non conditional. People can leave for whatever reason suits them.

Listen to you. Apply your ideas to individual people. Do you think someone has to provide a reason for why they no longer wish to be with someone? That they can't break off a relationship unless they have a reason that meets the approval of the person with whom they are breaking up?

Since no such conditions existed in November 1860, any "right to leave" was still superseded by obligations accepted with the US Constitution of 1787.

The exercise of a natural right is not contingent upon what a majority of delegates wrote, nor what a majority of legislature's passed. These are acts of man. They hold no weight against natural rights.

The US constitution is no more binding on the states than was English law (which forbade separation) binding on the colonies.

You would think that the principles upon which one's own nation is founded would be recognizable to a government four score and seven years later.

[DiogenesLamp]

Read.

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Not a requirement.

[jmacusa]

I call him and all the other “Confederates In The Attic’’ here Johnny Rebs’’. Actually I sometimes refer to them as “Johnny Reb wannabes’’.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "As I've said repeatedly, the right to form a free and independent nation is NOT DEPENDENT on whether you agree with their morals or not."

But such an alleged unlimited "right" does not exist, never did, not in 1776, not in 1787 nor in 1860.
So regardless of how often, or how loudly, you proclaim it, such an unlimited right was never, in fact, proclaimed by our Founders.

Except, except under two conditions:

1. Mutual consent, meaning all parties agree to it.
   
2. What amounts to a material breach of contract, i.e., "usurpations" or "oppression" having the same effect.

In 1776, our Founders certainly had no "mutual consent", but they just as certainly did have many serious breaches of contract by the Brits, including a formal declaration of war against colonists, and actual waging of war by the Brits.
These breaches are listed in detail in the Declaration of Independence.

By stark contrast, Fire-Eater secessionists in 1860 had neither "mutual consent", nor any serious breach of contract they could point to.
Instead, they seceded, as you so often proclaim their right, "at pleasure", meaning without any particular legal justification.

And while "at pleasure" may be plenty enough reason for DiogenesLamp, it was never considered legal justification by our Founders.

Still, regardless of the legalities -- or illegalities -- of 1861 declarations of secession, none of them caused Civil War.
Instead, Civil War was provoked, started and declared by the Confederacy against the United States long before even one Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "No, the higher principle involved is whether or not the Union was voluntary or coercive.
We found out it is coercive, like a Mafia family."

No, if any, the higher principle was whether the United States was constitutional or lawless.
The issue, if any, was whether a self-proclaimed secessionist power could militarily seize United States property assault the US Army AND formally declare war on the United States, without suffering just consequences.
Turned out, the answer was "no".

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Bullsh*t.
If that were true, Lincoln would not have offered Ft. Sumter in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union.
He would not have gone 'all is forgiven, if Virginia doesn't secede.'
As the old joke goes, 'We've already learned what kind of a girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price.'
No, the decision to go to war was entirely in Lincoln's hands, and he chose to do so."

Pure rubbish.
Lincoln's choices in April 1861 were three, none of which necessarily meant war:

1. Lincoln could surrender Fort Sumter, as demanded by Confederates, under threat of military assault.
   President Buchanan had previously refused to surrender.

2. Lincoln could attempt to "trade" Fort Sumter for something of value, such as Virginia's promise to remain in the Union.

3. Lincoln could, as President Buchanan had previously, attempt to resupply-reinforce Fort Sumter.

Like Buchanan, Lincoln refused to simply surrender Fort Sumter.
Instead, he offered to trade, "a fort for a state", Virginia.
These negotiations went on for weeks, but in the end failed.
Virginia's secession convention would not promise to adjourn after voting to remain in the Union.

So Lincoln simply attempted, as Buchanan had, to resupply Fort Sumter.
The decision to use Lincoln's resupply mission as their excuse for starting Civil War against the United States was strictly in the hands of Confederate President Davis.

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a good analogy: Commie Cubans claim the US has no right to be there and demand our withdrawal.
We dispute their claims and continue to resupply or reinforce Guantanamo at will.
If Cubans launch a military assault on US forces at Guantanamo, then Cubans have started war, not the USA.

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "They could not have stopped the war with a word.
The butcher's bill was under Lincoln's control, not under the control of anyone else. "

Nonsence.
The Confederacy could have asked for peace, and received it, at any time between their formal declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861, and their ultimate Unconditional Surrender on April 9, 1865.

I have mentioned before the Hampton Roads Conference, barely two months before ultimate Unconditional Surrender.
At Hampton Roads Confederates could have negotiated much better terms than they got, just two months later.

But Confederates refused to negotiate, continued fighting, lost thousands more killed & wounded, before surrendering with no serious terms whatever, resulting in:

• Federal troops stationed throughout the Confederacy,
• No compensation for slave-holders,
• Jefferson Davis' capture & imprisonment, and
• Three new Constitutional Amendments to free & protect civil rights of all former slaves.

Refusal to negotiate is prima facie evidence of Confederate President Davis' raving insanity.

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The list of grievances were a courtesy, not a requirement to exercise the right.
The right is non conditional.
People can leave for whatever reason suits them."

So says DiogenesLamp, but that's not what any of our Founders said, ever.
The Declaration's key words are "necessary" and "necessity", it's key argument is a list of dozens of major breaches of contract by the King, offenses which make separation necessary.

So there is no sense, anywhere, in any Founder's writings that disunion "at pleasure" is "A-OK" by them.

DiogenesLamp: "Apply your ideas to individual people.
Do you think someone has to provide a reason for why they no longer wish to be with someone?
That they can't break off a relationship unless they have a reason that meets the approval of the person with whom they are breaking up?"

Yes, "no fault" divorce laws in many states are not what they used to be, way back when.
But certainly in our Founders' time, contract law & divorce required "mutual consent" or some major breach of contract, such as infidelity.
They also required a legal process in court.

DiogenesLamp: "The exercise of a natural right is not contingent upon what a majority of delegates wrote, nor what a majority of legislature's passed.
These are acts of man.
They hold no weight against natural rights."

But DiogenesLamp's declaration of some unnatural right as "natural" does not make it so.
You are simply mistaken in asserting our Founders' Declaration, Constitution, Original Intent or other writings somehow authorized an unlimited "right of separation".

They don't, and your words have no effect on that.

DiogenesLamp: "The US constitution is no more binding on the states than was English law (which forbade separation) binding on the colonies."

But English law was binding on the colonies, until the Brits themselves broke, abrogated and breached their own contract-laws.
Our Founders never asserted an unlimited "right of separation", only the "necessity" when under extreme conditions.

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: Read: "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And while we're at it, let's look at other statements:

• "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands..."

• "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

• "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

The key words in the Declaration are "necessity", "necessary" "impel" and "must".
There is no sense, anywhere in our Founding documents -- none -- of justifying secession "at pleasure".

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "I call him and all the other 'Confederates In The Attic' here 'Johnny Rebs'.
Actually I sometimes refer to them as 'Johnny Reb wannabes'. "

Seems to me our FRiend DiogenesLamp wishes to not just redefine & refight the Civil War, but also the Revolutionary War.
Indeed, the sense I'm getting is that DiogenesLamp is actually a British sympathizer, whose major conceptual achievement is to "grasp" that our Founders' Declaration of Independence should apply to all times and all places anyone for any reason, or for no reasons at all, wishes to declare their independence from whatever authority they're subject to.
I suspect DiogenesLamp thinks that is a great idea for destroying the United States as we know it.

Then his true love, the Brits, could perhaps return to their rightful position atop the world, it seems.

Of course, I too love the Brits, but would not wish to return to our Revolution's ante-bellum.

[DiogenesLamp]

But such an alleged unlimited "right" does not exist, never did, not in 1776, not in 1787 nor in 1860.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. We come at this thing from completely different foundational assumptions.

There are no "limits" or "conditions" on a natural right. It is inherent, granted by nature and nature's God, and no one may gainsay it.

Read some John Locke, or Samuel Rutherford. Read some of the natural law philosophers our founders studied when they asserted their independence, contrary to England's consent and contrary to England's established law.

[rockrr]

DegenerateLamp’s assertion is framed as a strawman. If you look at it’s assertion sans context it makes sense: “the right to form a free and independent nation is NOT DEPENDENT on whether you agree with their morals or not.”

Should a person find a corner of the earth that isn’t inhabited and wishes to set up their own little empire they should have the “right” to do so (I’m deliberately leaving out the natural consequences of such an endeavor if it is toxic to its neighbors).

The part he conveniently leaves out is the context to which the saner amongst us have been speaking. There is no right to form a nation at another nation’s expense. None. The only (singular) exception to this is the formation of a state through force of arms. That is what the slavers attempted (and failed) to do.

Like all lefties, DL likes to split hairs. I bet it’s got a yuge bald spot!

[jmacusa]

“Johnny Reb’’ is a comique nom de guerrre I’ve given to DiogenesLamp’’ and all the other “Johnny Reb wannabes. I call ‘’’centra va;; “General’’ He is the Little General . That and his veneration of general lee. That’s all. Heck of lot tamer then what I’ve been called from them. What do you suppose America wold look lie today if the South had won the war. What are your thoughts on that?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "There are no "limits" or "conditions" on a natural right.
It is inherent, granted by nature and nature's God, and no one may gainsay it."

So repeats DiogenesLamp, endlessly.
But no Founder ever asserted such a natural, unlimited "right of separation".
Instead, the 1776 Declaration was in response to an itemized list of dozens of, in effect, British breaches of contract, including a formal declaration of war and launching of war against the colonists.

By 1776 Benjamin Franklin alone had spent ten years in Britain trying to negotiate better conditions for colonies within the British Empire.
He was in no sense eager for separation and accepted its necessity only reluctantly, after many years.

Of course, DiogenesLamp's assertion that you believe in an unlimited "right of separation" is just fine: believe whatever you wish, so long as you obey the laws.

But there's no evidence suggesting that's what our Founders believed.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "DegenerateLamp's assertion is framed as a strawman.
If you look at it's assertion sans context it makes sense: 'the right to form a free and independent nation is NOT DEPENDENT on whether you agree with their morals or not.' "

And, it's not just a straw man, it's also a huge red herring.
That's because it implicitly asserts, and so is argued on the grounds that Lincoln's Union started Civil War to suppress the alleged unlimited "right of separation".

That's the reason pro-Confederates keep throwing this out.
They of course didn't believe a word of it, as demonstrated by the Confederate war to prevent western Virginia from seceding Virginia.
But they hope it works to force d*mn-dumb-Yankees into arguing that our Founders shouldn't have declared independence in 1776, since they had no natural "right to secede".

Two general points can be made in response:

1. In fact, our Founders never declared an unlimited "right to secede", but only acted after many years, when forced by necessity.

2. Regardless of any "right to secede", neither secession nor forming a new Confederacy started Civil War in 1861.
   It is even conceivable that had Jefferson Davis understood his own best interests, and delayed the start of war by, say, a year or two, he could have avoided it all-together or won it after more careful preparations.
   But Davis didn't.
   Instead he rushed into war at his earliest opportunity.
   That's what makes DiogenesLamp's argument over his alleged unlimited "right of separation" not only a straw man, but also a huge red herring.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "What do you suppose America wold look lie today if the South had won the war.
What are your thoughts on that?"

Something like this, plus CSA colonies in the Caribbean, Central & South America.

And the world would look more like this:

[DiogenesLamp]

So repeats DiogenesLamp, endlessly.
But no Founder ever asserted such a natural, unlimited "right of separation".

So repeats BroJoeK endlessly.

Let me make it clear for you. No one has a right to force someone to associate with them. That would be slavery.

No one has to have a good reason to refuse to associate with someone else. It is simply enough that they no longer wish to associate.

I would prefer not to be a member of a coercive state that imposes it's current fad of morality on me.

"Gay Marriage" is but a recent example.

[jmacusa]

How long would generations of slaves, African-Americans by birth, those bought over first in chains, those who had fought for the Union have been willing to go back to the lash? Would has a have risen up? A slave revolt in a victorious south would have been a horrifying situation, most especially for the slave population.

[jmacusa]

Sorry for the typos. Middle aged eyesight.