Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
Creators ^ | June 28, 2017 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater

My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.

Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held "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." Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.

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.

At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The 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."

America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. 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." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. 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 were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George III would have agreed.


TOPICS: History; Society
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; confederate; dixie; freedom; liberty; southerndemocrats; traitors; virginia; walterwilliams; yes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 461 next last
To: jeffersondem

But the Constitution of the United States is supreme over any State constitution. Where did the United States Constitution “enshrining slavery”, as you put it,grant the states the right to outlaw slavery?


221 posted on 06/29/2017 2:28:09 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

big difference between buying a joint on the street and keeping a human being as a piece of property like a horse or a mule. If a person chose not to buy drugs, there are those that would go somewhere else to sell them. If no chose to buy a slave, those people that profit from selling slave would go somewhere else to sell them.


222 posted on 06/29/2017 2:32:30 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Would you?


223 posted on 06/29/2017 3:27:49 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: x
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Thank you. This is one of my favorite parts of the Constitution. It explains why the U.S. Department of Education and so much more of our bloated, corrupt feral government is unconstitutional.

Note well: “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”. If something - DOE for example - is not granted to the federal government within the enumerated powers of the constitution, it is not constitutional. Period.

Any feral law, or theory, prohibiting secession is not constitutional (under the original constitution) because the states did not give the federal government the power to prohibit it.

But the prohibition against secession is part of the synthetic constitution now.

Author Garry Wills explains how that came about: Lincoln, at Gettysburg, “performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting. Everyone in that vast throng of thousands was having his or her intellectual pocket picked. The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological luggage, that new constitution Lincoln had substituted for the one they brought there with them. They walked off, from those curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky, into a different America. Lincoln had revolutionized the Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely.”

224 posted on 06/29/2017 3:35:38 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; DoodleDawg
It's only logical that if a state can't override a federal law then it can't override all federal laws through unilateral secession.

It's illogical to think that among the powers a state retains is the power to nullify all federal laws through secession.

That would make the Constitution a mere scrap of paper that a state could throw away whenever it wanted to.

Author Garry Wills explains how that came about: Lincoln, at Gettysburg, “performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting. Everyone in that vast throng of thousands was having his or her intellectual pocket picked. The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological luggage, that new constitution Lincoln had substituted for the one they brought there with them. They walked off, from those curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky, into a different America. Lincoln had revolutionized the Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely.”

Garry Wills sure loves to hear himself talk. Maybe the idea that Lincoln was a rhetorical trickster comes naturally to him because he is just that himself.

In 1812 and 1846 we went to war as a country. The idea that we were only a loose league of independent states before Lincoln came around just doesn't fly. Americans increasingly thought of themselves as citizens of one country until agitation over slavery got them thinking differently.

225 posted on 06/29/2017 3:48:51 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Example one of Lincoln's manipulation toward war.

Again, opinion. One could just as easily say that South Carolina's firing on the Star of the West was the first act of aggression and evidence that the South was not interested in a peaceful solution.

As for the Crittenden Compromise they were voted down in Congress. And when a later convention was held in Virginia to try and bring them back again none of the deep South states participated. So the simple fact is that neither side saw them as a solution.

226 posted on 06/29/2017 4:00:00 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
But the prohibition against secession is part of the synthetic constitution now.

Why? The Texas v. White decision made it clear that secession as legal if done correctly.

You claim that everyone says Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. You claim that secession is illegal. Have you not done any research on the subject at all?

227 posted on 06/29/2017 4:04:51 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe; PeaRidge
Article 1 section 9 clause 4 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. “No bill of Attainder, ex-post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

Add two additional clauses.

Article 4, section 1, clause 1: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." This guaranteed that states could not end slavery within their borders because they could not legally prevent citizens from other states from bringing them in or leasing their slaves to citizens of the state.

And section 3, clause 3 stated: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States." This guaranteed any state admitted to the Confederacy would begin as a slave state.

228 posted on 06/29/2017 4:10:56 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
South Carolina Governor Gist had, on December 6, 1860, through state representatives meeting with President Buchanan, obtained an Armistice agreement between the State of South Carolina and the Federal Government that was designed to maintain peace in Charleston harbor as well as with the State of Florida. All parties agreed not to make improvements in their facilities, nor to act aggressively toward each other.

This was done to give negotiations for peace a chance by enabling the Governors to present to the people and politicians of South Carolina and Florida tangible proof of the peaceful intentions of the government.

That "armistice" was a verbal agreement of sorts. Buchanan didn't want to put anything in writing. The agreement was regarded by Gist as a temporary measure. Buchanan regarded it as a statement of his present intentions that was not intended to be permanently binding.

Neither side was primarily focused on negotiations. For Gist, the "armistice" or "truce" was a tactical measure. South Carolina was certainly prepared to demand the forts and use force to get them once the secessionists' position was stronger. Buchanan wasn't committed to negotiations either.

229 posted on 06/29/2017 4:16:05 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

In and around all that you ignore acts of aggression on the part of the Confederacy in South Carolina. Like seizing Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinkney, the Charleston Arsenal, and all other federal property in the area. Like firing on the Star of the West. There was no interest in a peaceful solution on the part of the South.


230 posted on 06/29/2017 4:51:51 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
Then AGAIN, we should ... BLAME THE NORTHERNERS for BUYING THOSE SLAVES ... in Africa !
231 posted on 06/29/2017 5:00:11 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Be my guest.


232 posted on 06/29/2017 5:04:51 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

thanks. Was going to cite these clause, but decided to keep it short.


233 posted on 06/29/2017 5:06:38 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
“Why? The Texas v. White decision made it clear that secession as legal if done correctly.”

Victor's Justice.

I always wondered why Lincoln didn't go to court and get an order requiring the southern states to return to the union and then, if necessary, enforce the court order. It possibly could have avoided war.

Maybe because at the time he was threatening to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court arrested?

Maybe Lincoln didn't want a ruling on the constitutionality of secession until 300,000 or so Southerners were safely buried.

For that Lincoln needed a pretext for war, which he found using the navy in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Err, I meant to say in the Fort Sumter incident.

234 posted on 06/29/2017 7:30:12 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: x

“The idea that we were only a loose league of independent states before Lincoln came around just doesn’t fly.”

Right. Southerners loved the union created by southerners George Washington (Father of the Country); Thomas Jefferson (Author Declaration of Independence); James Madison (Father of the Constitution); George Mason (Father of the Bill of Rights). Southerners wanted to preserve the original union and compromised their own best interest at times in order to keep the union intact. There were limits.


235 posted on 06/29/2017 8:26:11 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: John Locke

Indeed... And think about this: Why on Earth would the North want to associate with the South in the first place? It makes no sense. One party says, “Hey, you think we suck, we don’t want to live here anymore, so we’re going to do our own thing.” The other party says, “NO! You ain’t going anywhere you racist sack of shite!’ It... is... ALWAYS... about power.


236 posted on 06/29/2017 8:46:24 PM PDT by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran

Hey genius, the North could have said, “It’s a free country, go in peace.”


237 posted on 06/29/2017 8:47:50 PM PDT by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran; DoodleDawg; RegulatorCountry; freedomjusticeruleoflaw; central_va; rockrr
“The civil war should be remembered as the most embarrassing chapter in American history . . .”

Arguably, the votes of the states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland to enshrine slavery into the U.S. constitution was the most embarrassing chapter.

Many of the people in these states - we are told - believed slavery was morally wrong but voted to include it in the U.S. constitution anyway because they concluded it was in their state's economic and political best interests.

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”

238 posted on 06/29/2017 8:56:51 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

The formation of the country was about the formation of the country.... Imagine that you and I wanted to form a corporation tomorrow. Would we start by talking about family medical leave? And then if we disagree on that decide that we weren’t going to form the new company at all? Thank God you weren’t around to cause chaos at the founding.


239 posted on 06/29/2017 9:02:28 PM PDT by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
I always wondered why Lincoln didn't go to court and get an order requiring the southern states to return to the union and then, if necessary, enforce the court order. It possibly could have avoided war.

Two likely reasons. The first is that the Supreme Court was not in session and the president does not have the authority to call them into session. And two, the Confederacy started their war within five weeks of the inauguration so there really wasn't any time.

Maybe because at the time he was threatening to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court arrested?

Total nonsense. As I have pointed out before on this forum, Roger Taney has been the subject of a number of biographies. And in not a single one has any of the biographers mentioned anything about Lincoln's plan or attempt to arrest him. Not a single one. So there are three possible reasons for this. One, all these men are incompetent. Two, and no doubt this is the reason you will sign on to, all these men conspired to hide the truth to make Lincoln look good. Or three, it never happened.

Maybe Lincoln didn't want a ruling on the constitutionality of secession until 300,000 or so Southerners were safely buried.

Several decisions handed down during the period referred to the Southern war as a rebellion so that can't be it.

For that Lincoln needed a pretext for war, which he found using the navy in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Err, I meant to say in the Fort Sumter incident.

Lincoln fought the war that Davis started.

240 posted on 06/30/2017 3:46:01 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 461 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson