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.
Pretty ironic that the slaveholding South had a battle cry of “Freedom”.... don’t you think?
Freedom for who?
It did from New Hampshire on.
Speaking of sad . . . slavery was enshrined in the USA constitution by the votes of historically slave states New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland.
It seems there were others. Yes, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.
Interesting...
“United States” is still a plural description that can be used to describe a united group of sovereign countries, but the preamble does indeed say “between the two countries”. That is interesting.
THat's big of you.... Maybe you realize if you tried it you would get your teeth knocked out and your head bashed-in.
“My understanding is that the Confederate constitution did not allow secession. Interesting that.”
That is an interesting comment. Can you post the provision in the CSA constitution that “did not allow secession”?
In your reply 31 you said exit should be no harder than entry. You were mistaken in your belief that entry is merely voluntary, but I agree with you that leaving should be no more difficult than entry. Same process, just in reverse.
1. Coercion in 1861 at Charleston and Pensacola harbors, which was a violation of Article 4. And of course that’s where Lincoln tried to coerce the South into fighting and of course into surrendering to him.
2. Lincoln violated the Constitution's Laws of Neutrality, i.e. the Trent Affair, Article 6, Clause 2, which was a violation of international law. The Trent Affair is very interesting because the Confederate Government had sent representatives to England to define the cause before the English Parliament. The Confederate representatives were on an English ship named the Trent. The United States Government came and took the Confederate men off a British ship and imprisoned them. The War of 1812 was fought over the same issue because the English was doing that to our citizens. And what happened, the North was humiliated in this. Those men had to be released and William Seward had to write an apology to the English Government because the English Government would not even negotiate. They said you will either release those men or there is going to be war between you and England as well as the South and England. Lincoln openly, and without Congressional oversight, violated the Constitution.
3. He suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2.
4. He declared war with the announcement of the blockade and the call up of state militias without the consent of Congress in 1861, which is a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 and 12.
5. The Emancipation Proclamation, which is a violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
6. He made West Virginia a State in violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1. He just separated Virginia and made West Virginia a State all by himself.
7. He denied the freedom of speech in the Valandeham Imprisonment, which was a violation of the first Amendment.
8. He blockaded Ports of the States that were held by the Federal Government to still be in the Union. You don't block your own Ports.
10. Violation of the Fugitive slave law, which was a violation of Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.
Actually the most accurate name is the official name give by the US Army, the war of rebellion. The United States had a constitutionally mandated election for president of the United States. During this election there were no claims of malfeasance by anyone. However, some states attempted to influence the election by threatening to leave the Union if one candidate in particular was elected.
After the election was done, but even before the new president was inaugurated, some states decided to rebel and breakaway from the US. While breaking away they grabbed every piece of federal property they could. These states even sent envoys to other states to convince them to rebel. They also suppressed their own citizens that did not want to rebel.
They then, without provocation, fired on US forces and then declared war against the US. If that’s not rebellion and treason, I don’t know what is.
“Have you never read of the “Sugar Triangle” about Slaves, Rum, Sugar, and money ?”
Are you serious?
You think people don’t know about the slave trade?
"We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately"? - Ben Franklin
There is so much wrong with your post I don’t know where to begin. I’ll start with this, war was never declared by congress because there was no war between two countries. There was a rebellion, or insurrection, if you will, which the constitution gives the President broad powers to suppress.
aid and comfort to the enemies of the US in fact he led the enemy army.
Is their oath that each made to the United States upon commissioning or enlisting in the US Army/US Navy erased with their resignation or voluntary termination of service?
If it is, where does that leave those of us now who have retired/resigned from the military? Some of us .. most of us? .. believe that our oath still applies, even though we're no longer on active service.
If it does not, then a violation of that oath is something that must be faced. I'm reasonably sure that most, if not all, of the ex-US Army/US Navy officers and enlisted believed that the circumstances facing them required their "violation" of that oath, but, as such, they should be willing to face the consequences of that act in the event that their rebellion failed.
So, to me, that is the main question: what is the effect of their prior oath to the United States that they made when commissioned or enlisted in the US Army or US Navy?
All I can say is that I'm very happy that it's not something that I've had to face yet. If it reaches the stage where I have to consider that sustaining my oath is effectively violating it, it's not going to be an easy decision.
Your interpretation of which is generally agreed by reputable historians to be nonsense.
Lincoln violated the Constitution's Laws of Neutrality, i.e. the Trent Affair, Article 6, Clause 2, which was a violation of international law.
Not a wise move on the part of the captain of the USS San Jacinto, but not a violation of the Constitution. And the U.S. admitted they were in the wrong and made compensation agreed to by the UK.
He suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2.
The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of which has never been decided by the Supreme Court.
He declared war with the announcement of the blockade and the call up of state militias without the consent of Congress in 1861, which is a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 and 12.
But legal under the various Militia Acts passed by Congress beginning in 1792.
The Emancipation Proclamation, which is a violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
But legal under the authority granted by the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862. The constitutionality of which were upheld by the Supreme Court in the Prize Cases decision in 1863.
He made West Virginia a State in violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1. He just separated Virginia and made West Virginia a State all by himself.
Well no, it was the Virginia legislature that remained loyal to the U.S. which approved partition and Congress which admitted West Virginia. The constitutionality of which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Virginia v. West Virginia decision of 1871.
He denied the freedom of speech in the Valandeham Imprisonment, which was a violation of the first Amendment.
The legality of which may have been resolved by the Ex Parte Milligan decision of 1865, but at the time General Burnside was acting under the authority granted by Congress and the constitutionality of that power had not been determined by the courts.
He blockaded Ports of the States that were held by the Federal Government to still be in the Union. You don't block your own Ports.
What clause of the Constitution says you can't if said ports are in rebellion?
Violation of the Fugitive slave law, which was a violation of Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.
Depending on what you are referring to, Lincoln's actions were legal under the Confiscation Acts or the Emancipation Proclamation.
There was still a Union after the war started. A really powerful one with 11 less states but still there and functioning. Nothing was destroyed when the South seceded.
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.