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.
I’ll weigh in. (Just donned my flame-proof jammies) Everyone who led and/or fought for the Confederacy were traitors to the Constitution and the United States of America. Most of them were racists and were in favor of black slavery, including Robert E Lee.
Your comment in question was: “...and that no state (operating under the Confederate Constitution) could take any action to end the practice (of slavery). That is why the “State Rights” argument is pure Male Bovine Scat.” See your comment #100.
And when you were asked “Where in the Constitution does it deny the states’ right to amend the Constitution?” And where this comment of yours is supported: “... that no state could take any action to end the practice.”
You admitted that: “It does not.” See comment 220.
You used a pejorative (”male bovine scat”) to make your point which you then contradicted.
So, not statement of fact as you asserted.
“...your”? Were you referring to me?
You also said the following. “The militia didn't ‘walk in there to investigate.’ They walked in there to seize the property.”
The OR did not say that. Did you not see that I gave you the direct passage from the OR? Are you going to own that contradiction?
To directly quote the OR: “Just after retreat four gentlemen (three in military clothing) presented themselves at the gate, and demanded admittance as citizens of Florida and Alabama. They were told that by order no person was permitted to enter the fort. They then asked to see the commanding officer. I immediately went to the gate, accompanied by Lieutenant Gilman. Mr. Abert, engineer of the yard, presented Captain Randolph, Major Marks, and Lieutenant Rutledge. After a pause, Captain Randolph said, “We have been sent to demand a peaceable surrender of this fort by the governors of Florida and Alabama.” To which I replied that I was here under the orders of the President of the United States, and by direction of the General-in-Chief of the Army; that I recognized no right of any governor to demand a surrender of United States property; that my orders were distance and explicit. They immediately withdrew.”
Lieutenant A. J. SLEMMER,
You seem to now be posting information that is opinion, and not based in fact.
“To them (the South), slaves were mere property, just like your horse, your dog, or your mule.”
Your claim brings to mind what a foreign, independent observer at the London Spectator wrote about northern attitudes and actions surrounding the Emancipation Proclamation:
“The Government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict . . . the principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Principle doesn't always work in one direction. Consider how defeating racist regimes in WWII eventually made racist policies in the US untenable.
Also, look up all the stuff Britain was up to in the 19th century before you take any moral condemnations coming from London very seriously.
That is exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was all about. The Southern war effort depended on the existence of slavery. Without it the South would have folded a whole hell of a lot sooner than it did.
Not contradictory. The Confederate Constitution did not allow its states to take any action to limit slavery.
The “Pejorative” you refer to in a much earlier thread dealt with “States Rights”. The only use that the Confederate States of America had for states rights was when it was their rights being questioned. The Southern States went on bended knee and begged the Buchanan administration to enforce the fugitive slave act at the tip of army bayonets, if required. Not a strong statement of states rights. In the swoop of a pen all of the enlistment contracts between the Confederate States and their citizens were voided by the act of the Confederate Government. The Richmond Government forbid any state from selling cotton in 1862. All of these actions point to the fact that the issue of “States Rights” as the driving force for secession was as I claimed “male Bovine Scat”.
You referenced two pages from Vol 1. of OR. Here is the copy of the OR I'm looking at, pages 333 and 334 - Link That doesn't say what you say it says.
I found the text that PeaRidge cited here: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=353;size=100;page=root
I also found this on that page:
“We still labored on the 13th strengthening our position, and at night threw out sentinels beyond the glacis. Men stood at the guns as on the night previous. Night very dark and rainy. On the night of the 13th a body of some ten men were discovered evidently reconnoitering. A shot was fired by them, which was returned by the sergeant. They then retreated. Nothing more could be seen of the party that night.”
It wasn’t an organized assault upon the fort and it wasn’t the US firing upon enemy combatants. It especially wasn’t significant or first blood.
“Wrong and shamefully deceitful.”
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data?
No.
“That is exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was all about.”
Then we can forever dismiss the notion that the North was fighting for some moral cause.
The American Taliban will vote ‘Yes!’ as they help their leftist comrades tear down another Confederate monument.
“Everyone who led and/or fought for the Confederacy were traitors to the Constitution and the United States of America. Most of them were racists and were in favor of black slavery, including Robert E Lee.”
Welcome and thank you for your contribution to the debate.
Someone said that President Lincoln was not really from Illinois but that he was born in Kentucky.
This person also said Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
Do you know if President Lincoln was a racist or not?
So you would expect Massachusetts to pass laws against slavery.
Guess what. They didn't.
I can see why you, as an anti-American, would say something stupid like that. Personally I prefer to forever dismiss you.
Still, it is regrettable that the North didn't pass, or at least attempt to pass, a constitutional amendment peacefully BEFORE the war to “free the slaves” and skip all the killings and destruction.
In saying that, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to those that say the North fought the war to “free the slaves” and not for the North's economic and political self-interest.
“I can see why you, as an anti-American, would say something stupid like that. Personally I prefer to forever dismiss you.”
Hatred is not becoming in a man. You should ditch yours, or at least try to disguise it.
Not hate - perhaps disgust. I’ll leave the subterfuge to you.
I’ve read several Lincoln biographies. His main priority was preserving the union. At one time he thought that returning blacks to Africa would be the right thing to do. He was very much troubled by slavery. I believe Lincoln was fundamentally a good and moral man. He tried to do what was best for the country and for both whites and blacks.
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.