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.
Southerners have gone so far as to quote D.D. Eisenhower and his admiration of Lee.
So don't think twice about using W. E. B. Du Bois as a character witness.
Here's some other material from Wikipedia you can work into the narrative:
-After arriving at his new professorship in Atlanta, Du Bois wrote a series of articles generally supportive of Marxism. He was not a strong proponent of labor unions or the Communist Party, but he felt that Marx's scientific explanation of society and the economy were useful for explaining the situation of African Americans in the United States.[195] Marx's atheism also struck a chord with Du Bois, who routinely criticized black churches for dulling blacks’ sensitivity to racism.
-Also in the 1910s the American eugenics movement was in its infancy, and many leading eugenicists were openly racist, defining Blacks as “a lower race”. Du Bois opposed this view as an unscientific aberration, but still maintained the basic principle of eugenics: That different persons have different inborn characteristics that make them more or less suited for specific kinds of employment, and that by encouraging the most talented members of all races to procreate would better the “stocks” of humanity.
-Nine years after the 1917 Russian Revolution, Du Bois extended a trip to Europe to include a visit to the Soviet Union.[181] Du Bois was struck by the poverty and disorganization he encountered in the Soviet Union, yet was impressed by the intense labors of the officials and by the recognition given to workers.[181] Although Du Bois was not yet familiar with the communist theories of Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin, he concluded that socialism may be a better path towards racial equality than capitalism.
-Du Bois took a trip around the world in 1936, which included visits to Nazi Germany, China and Japan.[210] While in Germany, Du Bois remarked that he was treated with warmth and respect.[211] After his return to the United States, he expressed his ambivalence about the Nazi regime.[212] He admired how the Nazis had improved the German economy, but he was horrified by their treatment of the Jewish people, which he described as “an attack on civilization, comparable only to such horrors as the Spanish Inquisition and the African slave trade.”[213]
-Du Bois opposed the U.S. intervention in World War II, particularly in the Pacific, because he believed that China and Japan were emerging from the clutches of white imperialists. He felt that the European Allies waging war against Japan was an opportunity for whites to reestablish their influence in Asia.
-In the words of biographer David Lewis, Du Bois did not endorse communism for its own sake, but did so because “the enemies of his enemies were his friends”.[262] The same ambiguity characterized Du Bois’s opinions of Joseph Stalin: in 1940 he wrote disdainfully of the “Tyrant Stalin”,[263] but when Stalin died in 1953, Du Bois wrote a eulogy characterizing Stalin as “simple, calm, and courageous”, and lauding him for being the “first [to] set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality”.[264]
“Abraham Lincoln was probably the most pragmatic man to ever occupy the Oval office.”
Because nothing says “pragmatic” like killing 300,000 of your economic and political competitors.
That is what happens when you make war on some one.
(*sigh*) OK, I'll play along. Yes.
No - it’s a trap!
Nooooooo!
That is a cavalier way of defending Lincoln's war on the South.
However, it is refreshingly honest.
But only a small one.
This week's yuge trap was to chivvy my good friend into citing W.E.B. Dubois as a character witness for Mr. L.
Ah, young Padawan. Next step? Spring the trap.
At least you now acknowledge that the primary reason for secession was to preserve slavery. That’s a good start!
Yet another failure on your part. You really suck at this!
Maybe Jefferson Davis should not have ordered General Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter, or signed letters of Marque and Reprisal against U.S. flagged shipping.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say lets give them all they want.” Major General William T. Sherman.
“At least you now acknowledge that the primary reason for secession was to preserve slavery. That’s a good start!”
I began my response in post 340 with the word “IF”.
Ponder the significance of the word in the context of that sentence, and the following sentences.
My mistake. I didn’t realize that you didn’t believe the leaders of the secession movement when they said they were seceding in order to retain the right to own other human beings.
Yes, the US census showed no slaves in Massachusetts in 1800.
There is legitimate self-interest and mercenary self-interest. The latter is not a good reason to start a war.
For Diogenes, it's always about mercenary self-interest for the North. He never examines Southern motives closely enough to see the mercenary component.
Remember, it hadn't been that long since New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland had voted to enshrine slavery in the U.S. constitution.
I'm not sure what theat has to do with anything, but what "enshrine"? They accepted the status quo and gave South Carolina and Georgia the guarantees they wanted.
And actually, it had been a long time. Consider what the US was like in your grandfather's day and what it is today.
Everyone agrees the 1800 census shows no slaves. That doesn’t mean there were no slaves.
Actually there even were white slaves. In those days if you couldn’t support yourself or your family the town would hold a slave auction. People in the town would bid to provide food and a roof over your head. In return the town would pay the buyer to take you in. The lowest bidder won you. It was even worse if you owed money. In that case they would put you in prison.
Because Massachusetts was the first of the colonies to have slavery over the years, there were a lot of blacks who were not able to support themselves on their own. In those days you needed many acres of farm land to provide your own food and wood for the winter. Plus you needed the skills to farm and support yourself. There were few ‘jobs’ to go to. Most of Massachusetts was farmland.
The very liberal Massachusetts didn’t know what to do with the slaves. For the most part they were not literate and had no farming skills. The towns didn’t want the slaves emancipated because they’d have to support them. Most towns had no poor house. So the slaves continued to live with the families and they were called servants.
You forgot Article 5. Convenient and intentional?
Legitimate self-interest is what we do. Mercenary self-interest is what our opponents do.
That is not a very sophisticated distinction but that's seems to be how we think.
And consider what Kasper Gutman told Sam Spade in the “Maltese Falcon”:
“That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. Because, as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.”
” . . . in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie . . .”
Today is the 154th anniversary of the third day of the battle of Gettysburg. Casualties (dead, wounded, and missing) an estimated 50,000.
I salute the courage and sacrifice of the men on both sides.
Didn’t forget it or omit it. Not salient to the discussion at hand. As the Confederate Constitution was written and ratified,by all eleven states of the Confederacy, a Confederate state could not make slavery illegal. Yes they could amend the Constitution if seven states supported the amendment. How many times did they amend the their Constitution? So, at the demise of the Confederacy it was still illegal for a Confederate State to outlaw slavery.
“This week’s yuge trap was to chivvy my good friend into citing W.E.B. Dubois as a character witness for Mr. L.”
rockrr, thank you for your words of encouragement during my moment of weakness.
jeffersondem, it was not through anything, that you can take any credit for, that I put myself in a most compromising position. I was merely trying to present the perspective of a black man, to counter your misrepresentation of Lincoln’s snippet from a debate.
In fact, it was the astute attention of two other Freepers who immediately saw and pointed out my blunder. Where were you then?
I will have more to say about your little nugget of fools gold when I have more time. For now, please understand that Abe was speaking off-the-cuff to address the fact that before the debate at Charleston, Democrats held up a banner that read “Negro equality” with a picture of a white man, a negro woman and a mulatto child. At this debate Lincoln went further than before in denying the charge that he was an abolitionist. Note well that following the cherry-picked portion that you foist, Abe also said, “I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.” That was the commonly held “mainstream” opinion among his audience.
Further along in the debates, (from wiki, your protocol):
“Douglas also charged Lincoln with opposing the Dred Scott decision because “it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship.” Lincoln responded that “the next Dred Scott decision” could allow slavery to spread into free states. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to overthrow state laws that excluded blacks from states such as Illinois, which were popular with the northern Democrats. Lincoln did not argue for complete social equality. However, he did say Douglas ignored the basic humanity of blacks, and that slaves did have an equal right to liberty. As Lincoln said,
I agree with Judge Douglas that he (the black) is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”
Lincoln worked on these themes long before the Gettysburg Address. They were all pulled together in the Gettysburg Address.
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.