Posted on 06/12/2020 12:17:06 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
Since anything having to do with "slavery" is taboo it appears that we must rename all of the original thirteen colonies as well as any other state that once had slavery within it's borders. Just changing the names of a few military bases isn't going to cut the mustard. So far, the name changers and statue destroyers have picked on easy fruit, monuments to dead white folks. What are they waiting for? Let's get right to the main event and start demanding that the States themselves change their names.
Governor Northam, it's your turn to be a hero and have the Virginia state legislature lead the way. Netflix and Youtube can help by deleting any episodes of the television series "the Virginian" as a nice kick starter. The word "South" must be forbidden to be spoken by law. That place was full of slavery and any mention of the word itself probably causes considerable harm to the ancestors of those slaves. "Yankee" must also be stricken and that stadium must be renamed or torn down because "Yankees" won the Civil War and that is another painful reminder about slavery. In fact, blue and grey need to be stricken from the crayola box because everyone associates those colors with that war. One day, once everything has been removed or renamed, the word "slave" can be gotten rid of and there will be NOTHING upon which to look back at in history that could possibly trigger someone. It's time. Let's get started and get the ball rolling by calling your representatives at the local, state, and federal levels. We can do this and feel good about it now.
So tell me how may Confederates were tied as traitors after war?
Some traitor:
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Yeah, yeah, I know.....
Dwight Eisenhower was a nice guy and really liked and admired Robert E Lee. Good to know. Also, immaterial to the question as to whether or not Lee committed treason.
The US Constitution (Article III, Section III) defines treason as “levying war” against the United States. It also talks about providing “aid and comfort”, but we don’t really need to go further that the “levying war” part.
Did Robert E Lee levy war against the United States? My answer is an incontrovertible YES. If you answer is that he didn’t, please provide your rationale for that.
So, Lee levyed war against the United States. Therefore he committed treason. Therefore he is a traitor.
Now we get to the decision as to whether to charge and try him. This is a political decision by the charging attorney. In this case I suspect that would be the Attorney General of the United States. They chose not to charge. This was a political decision and had no bearing on whether or not Lee committed the ACT of treason (he did). Nowhere in the Constitution say you have to be charged, tried and convicted, just that you committed the act.
To use an example. The police find a dead body with multiple fatal gunshot wounds. For whatever reason, they do not charge anyone with the crime. Does that mean a murder was not committed?
Lee, and the other generals in the Confederate Army committed treason. US Army bases should not be named after traitors. The names need to be changed. My preference would be to name them after US Army soldiers from the state where the base is who won Medals of Honor.
US Army bases should be named after US Army heroes.
The government (of which Salmon Chase was the Secretary of the Treasury) called it a rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation referred to “any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States”.
But, we are talking about treason, not rebellion. Tell me how the Confederate generals do not meet the test of treason in the Constitution (levying war against the United States?
BTW, the Constitution of the United States is fairly immune “to the sentiment at the time” Or do you not believe in following the original intent of the writers of the Constitution, and instead believe it should change anytime “the sentiment at the time” changes?
1. Secession is not unconstitutional. Nothing in the USC makes state secession unconstitutional.
2. The CSA was an independent nation making war with the USA.
3. No treason. Quit projecting your liberalism back to the 19th century.
To respond, point by point:
1) There was never a formal court case to determine whether or not it was constitutional. Salmon P Chase’s OPINION notwithstanding, the full Supreme Court never ruled one way or the other. I guess they figured the military court convened at Fort Sumter and closed at Appomattox Court House and Bennett Place made a civil court case kind of moot.
2) The CSA was not, and never was, an independent nation, no matter how much they really (really, really, really) wanted to be one. Name a major nation that recognized them as an independent nation and had an embassy in Richmond. That’s why we fought a war. I would argue that the results of that war means they lost the argument.
3) These Confederate generals, citizens of the United States of America, are subject to the US Constitution and, in accordance with Article III, Section 3, they committed treason.
Finally, I would add an item 4. If in fact the CSA was an independent nation, why are we naming US Army bases after foreign generals? I see no Fort Rommel, or Fort Montgomery among the names of US Army bases, so why should there be a Fort Bragg or a Fort Hood, if these were in fact generals of an independent nation?
US Army bases should be named after US Army heroes, not generals of a nation not part of the US.
PS: The CSA WAS an independent nation no matter what fascists state-ist thugs say about it.
Silly me. I thought this was settled on the battlefield.
Actually, multiple battlefields. At least I think that Bobbie Lee thought it was settled when he surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Court House. And I’m sure Joe Johnston thought it was settled when he surrendered to General Sherman at Bennett Place. I suspect that even ole Jeff Davis thought it was over when he was captured at Irwinville. What did I miss?
The CSA was never an independent nation. They really (really really) wanted to be, but to be an independent nation they would have had to have won their war, like we did with Britain. Until that happened, they were a bunch of states in rebellion. As proof of that, let’s consider that they were not recognized as a separate nation by any of the great powers (or any others I can find, although I’m not sure about Andorra). They were a bunch of states in rebellion. They needed to win the war to be recognized as an independent nation. Until then, not so much. Wishing upon a star only works in Disney movies. In the real world you need to win to get the prize.
Yea dirty dark secret is that NJ didnt free all the remaining “slaves” until 1865. After the passage of the 13th amendment.
The blactivists will find out, and it won’t be a secret anymore. Of course, a woke White anarchist will have to tell them.
I doubt it. It doesnt fit the narrative that the war was over slavery.
Because if northern states still had slaves after the war ended (well june 19) then that means the war couldn’t have been to end slavery.
Or preserve it.
Frederick Douglass reprimanded virtue-signaling Yankees who clearly had no interest in dealing with freed blacks themselves; even today NJ is a perfect depiction of segregation.
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.