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.
“Several decisions handed down during the period referred to the Southern war as a rebellion so that can’t be it.”
By this do you mean federal government courts ruling in favor of the federal government?
Before or after Lincoln began the killings?
At the founding, every state agreed to enshrine slavery in the U.S. Constitution. This included the historically slave states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia voted for slavery too.
When you dislike the rulings then of course the court is biased and under the thumb of the administration. You are nothing if not predictable.
Before or after Lincoln began the killings?
Since they touched on the legitimacy of the Southern action then of course they were handed down after Davis began his rebellion.
Slavery did exist in all the states you mention. But by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut had all outlawed slavery. New York would outlaw slavery in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. Vermont had also outlawed slavery by the time of the Constitutional Convention.
“And retaining the right to own other human beings was the limit for the secessionists.”
Let’s review.
Both the USA and CSA had slaves. Both the USA and CSA had pro-slavery constitutions. Both the USA and CSA had presidents that took oaths to defend their pro-slavery constitutions.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, only one of these nations added a slave state. Do you know which?
Yes, the North had a sordid history making money buying and trading slaves. Yes, the North made money selling slaves. Making money working slaves. Making money trading with other slave states. Making money manufacturing textiles with slave-grown cotton. Making money transporting slave-grown cotton overseas and making money transporting European goods paid for with profits from slave-grown cotton.
And yes, the North made infrastructure improvements with import tax revenue from slave-grown cotton.
But in all of this, the North had a high moral standing because every time a northerner cashed a big slavery dividend check he would turn to the closest Puritan and announce loudly, “I accept this money under protest.”
“Since they touched on the legitimacy of the Southern action then of course they were handed down after Davis began his rebellion.”
In a million years I would have never thought the federal courts would have ruled in favor of the federal government just after the war which cost over 600,000 lives.
The weren't ruling on that. They were ruling on the legality of the Southern rebellion which had cost over 600,000 lives.
Sure. Let's see what lies and distortions you've dreamed up this time.
Both the USA and CSA had slaves.
By "CSA" are you referring to the pretend country made up of insurrectionists?
Both the USA and CSA had pro-slavery constitutions.
Wrong.
Both the USA and CSA had presidents that took oaths to defend their pro-slavery constitutions.
Wrong and shamefully deceitful.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, only one of these nations added a slave state. Do you know which?
Yes. And the answer is that you have nothing to offer but the same old lies.
“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.”
Not without it being pointed out to you that Federal troops fired on Florida militia before your example, and by the same logic, was the first act of aggression and evidence that the North was not interested in a peaceful solution.
And your point?
I believe you were looking for the clauses of the Confederate constitution which prevented non-slave states.
And in the South they made money buying slaves, they made money selling slaves, they made money working slaves to grow cotton, indigo, rice and tobacco. The raped slaves, they had slaves whipped, they murdered slaves. To them, slaves were mere property, just like your horse, your dog, or your mule.
However you want to couch the term armistice, and speculate on the thinking of the leaders, in function the harbor remained in peace, despite “that green goose’s move to Sumter”.
The armistice held until the “Harriet Lane” started firing on private shipping the night before Sumter received fire.
how is a statement of fact pejorative?
(OR Series I, Vol. I, pp. 333-334.)
There was no assault on January 8 by any of the locals on Ft. Pickens. A group of local officials and state militia had heard that the fort was abandoned and walked there to investigate. Union troops, hiding inside the formerly abandoned fort, opened fire on them.
I never addressed that notion.
OK. But even though I was talking about Fort Moultrie and other facilities in Charleston, the OR describes your activities in Florida differently. The militia didn't "walk in there to investigate." They walked in there to seize the property.
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.