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.
“Just FYI...Every Nation on Earth recognized Slavery at the time.” In 1860, the following nations In Europe had outlawed slavery: Britain France Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria,Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. In Asia: China and Japan. In Latin America: Chile, Uruguay,Peru, Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela.
While they may have “recognized slavery” it was illegal in the countries listed. The other thing that every nation on did recognize was that the Confederate States of America was not a real country.
Lee and others took an oath of loyalty to country and constitution and then led armies against what had been the US.
If Southern officers in the army and navy had made it clear from the beginning that they weren't going to take up arms against the United States, the country they'd sworn an oath of allegiance to, it would have taken the wind out of the movement for unilateral secession and the country's problems could have been resolved peacefully and amicably.
But they were too hungry for military glory. Or perhaps they were so used to not thinking about politics that at the one time when they needed to make a clear statement they couldn't do it.
As it was, plenty of Southerners in the navy and marines stayed in, notably David Farragut and Lee's cousin Samuel Phillips Lee. So did generals Winfield Scott and George Thomas.
According to today’s standards most Americans were white supremacist’s in the 1860’s. Abolitionist who believed in equality between the races were a very small minority. However, there is a huge moral chasm between Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery and the southern leaders views on slavery.
As far as your second point, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, I actually agree that it is shameful that the north, and the Republican Party, abandoned the freedmen to the tender mercies of southern whites. It would take over 100 years for blacks to finally be able to exercise their basic constitutional rights.
“Lincoln was trying to counter an unconstitutional secession.”
That is an interesting comment. Can you cite the constitutional provision prohibiting secession?
“. . . there is a huge moral chasm between Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery and the southern leaders views on slavery.”
Southern leaders wanted the pro-slavery U.S. constitution enforced. Lincoln took an oath - twice in fact - to uphold the pro-slavery U.S. constitution.
Arguably, Lincoln took up arms to overthrow the U.S. constitution but he did pay lip service to it.
“In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery.”
That’s a pretty major claim.
That's one reason I don't think voters are going to respond to any Republican strategies to Play the Race Card. It is a bad idea.
Trump's current strategy calling out the Dems about their real-time failures will work much better.
Only to an idiot.
You're the only one I know who says that.
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." - Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700)
Your attempts to smear Lincoln with the racist card will fail as well. As bad as his opinions were when compared to today's standards, they were still better than any Southern leader you care to name.
Robert E. Lee.
Lee supported slavery, Lincoln did not.
You didn’t answer the question. The battle cry was “freedom”. Freedom for who?
Yes, the Civil War began because the North was determined to impose its will on the South. And one of the things it wished to impose was that you can’t own human beings. But you go ahead and keep thinking that slavery had nothing to do with it....
While there’s really no point in engaging you after that pointedly ignorant answer, I’m going to point out that Robert E. Lee inherited the slaves that he held and freed them years before the war began. I’ll also point out that the Federal government offered him command of their army, which he refused because he could not take up arms against his family, friends and neighbors. He was an honorable man.
Regarding Lincoln, there are more than a few cites and quotes that highlight the error of your statement. He believed black people to be inferior. He said he’d keep slavery if it meant keeping the Union together. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military document, intended to foment insurrection in the “rebel” states of the Confederacy, it did not free any slaves outside of it in Union states. Is this the behavior of an opponent of slavery? No, it is not.
Oh I do love it when the denizens of FreeRepublic decide to keep fighting the Civil War. The war where Democrats decided they wanted to keep owning human beings, and tried to break the country in half to retain that right. Ahhh.... the good ol’ days, right fellas?
“Can you cite the constitutional provision prohibiting secession?”
In response to that question, you reply Texas v. White.
Texas v White was a Supreme Court ruling that occurred in 1869 - after 300,000 Southern soldiers had been safely buried.
Victors’ Justice.
Again, can you cite the constitutional provision prohibiting secession?
“You’re the only one I know who says that.”
Then we can forever dismiss the notion that the North fought for some high moral cause like “freeing the slaves.”
There are a great number of myths and historical injustices that continue to be perpetuated on these threads and so I’ll continue to respond to correct them. That’s where I’m coming from. Are you sure you really intend to ping me to this somewhat silly reply?
The last slave Lee’s had control of, was freed in December of 1862. Hardly “years before the war began.”
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.