Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "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."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. 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."
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; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. 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." 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 fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
I think you’ve misread the articles of confederation and perpetual union. It clearly does not say the perpetual articles of confederation and union, or even the perpetual articles of confederation and perpetual union. The founders and framers meant for the Union(The United States of America) to be perpetual, Or as perpetual as any man made thing can be. They new when making the articles that the form of government might change.
And the Union, so far, has been perpetual. From it’s creation on July 4th 1776, it has never ceased to exist. It has changed it form of government twice. It has added states and territories, laws and amendments, but it is still the same perpetual union.
Some will point to North Carolina and Rhode Island’s late ratification of the constitution as proof the union was not perpetual. Simple logic will show this is not the case. Though neither state were part of the government under the constitution they were both still states in the United States of America. Neither state declared itself as an independent nation. Neither sent or received ambassadors. etc., etc.
In fact the Senate, in order to force Rhode Island to adopt the constitution, passed a bill to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation in regards to trade. Why would such a bill need to be passed if it was not a part of the Union?
Only in your deluded mind has woodpusher won any of his arguments.
I’ve conclusively proven that the Union(The United States of America) that began it’s existence on 4 July 1776 has continued to exist uninterrupted since that day. There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America.
In other words, nothing.
Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
Wuh?
What had meaning in Bismarck's day (probably coined by the ole rail-splitter) still has relevance for you today: any argument is adequate if one has the majority of bayonets.
You argument wouldn't be valid if you had the whole Prussian army behind you.
I can't remember what I said when I drank my first beer.
“Which were?”
Gee, I thought bigots like you knew everything about the south.
Facts, yes. But I can't keep up with the Lost Cause imagination so I had to ask.
Since you hate the south so much, why are you so happy so many yankees died keeping them in the union?
You are so right about that. Lost causers are the best at deflecting, obfuscating, and distorting things to support their positions. Of course most times their efforts are pathetic and easily proven false, but they never admit when they are wrong.
On another site I had posted James Madison quote about the constitution having to be adopted in toto and forever and someone actually replied what did James Madison know about the constitution. Obviously the person didn’t know that James Madison is considered the father of the constitution.
I’ve gotten to the point where I’m really not arguing with them, I’m just presenting the real evidence so other people aren’t fooled.
“treason in 1860 can only be determined by prior law as developed up to that point in time.”
Article III Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Is that prior enough for this discussion?
Au Contraire. I most certainly can.
Yes they would.
Just as I note yours.Kind of like a Robert Lee statue? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Or a Grant statue or a Lincoln statue....sorry, couldn't resist.
I would only do that if I were portraying you.
Just because the Supreme Court rules something does not mean it is true. The USSC has been wrong many times.
But you did do it and you weren’t “portraying” me - you nit.
Exactly. The North sure as hell wasn't fighting against slavery. They made that expressly clear to everybody.
Vengeance maybe - certainly not justice.
No he didn't.
Under your understanding of the language, every party to ever wage war with the US, from Mexico to Japan, has somehow committed "treason". Clearly, one has to be a US citizen and subject to US constitution jurisdiction to be able to commit treason, and the member states of the CSA had formalized their secession from the union prior the event that I am sure will insist began the war. So, unless "attempting secession" is also mentioned, you've got nothing.
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.