Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed

The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.

They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.

On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.

The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.

It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.

In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.

But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.

One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.

After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.

This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.

They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.

According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.

Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.

The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.

However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.

White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."

Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.

Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.

I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.

In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.

So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.

You don't have to wonder any longer. The Supreme Court said the president had the power to act. Both the majority and the dissenting opinion in the Prize Cases agreed on this.

Guess again. This is from the majority ruling by Grier:

'By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.'

Nothing about the laws not being executed.

From the dissent by Nelson:

'The truth is, this idea of the existence of any necessity for clothing the President with the war power, under the Act of 1795, is simply a monstrous exaggeration; for, besides having the command of the whole of the army and navy, Congress can be assembled within any thirty days, if the safety of the country requires that the war power shall be brought into operation.'
'I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress 13th of July, 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States and, consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations.'

the reason you don't put up his name is because he can easily be proven to be a deserter.

The records are contained in the Compiled Confederate Service Records, he served in 3 different units between May 1861 and 1864, when he was killed in battle near Atlanta.

Deserters were frequently pressed back into service in emergency situations. No news here. The only real question is who shot him and why. THere's a real chance here that Scarlet O'hara blew him away in the chicken coop.

I still don't understand why you dispute that he was a volunteer, or that his term were not 3 years.

Because no one served for less than three years, and all were rej-impressed for the duracion. Confederate units were organized under martial law before Sumter. Some short term units were formed, but directly after Sumter, Davis got the power to conscript all of these units. Each conscription act, as a bone to state's rights, gave the states 30 days to enroll so called volunteer units from the conscripted population so as to maintain the right of appointed state nominated or elected officers. Lee very hotly opposed this, but Davis couldn't get around it. In any case, everyone who didn't have an exemption was drafted before they could enlist. Everyone. And all of them were taken ulitimately for the duration. Wounded were kept on the rolls of their units and expected to return when recovered. Men were treated in hospital until fit enough to do some sort of light nursing duty, and then sent back when ready to fight. Only deserters got away.

Desertion was so widespread that there simply wasn't the manpower or rope to hang them all, though some were selectted for this duty on occasion. Beyond that, they would be targets for being reconscripted, and as your ancestors probably couldn't write, and their sergeants couldn't either, record keeping was very sloppy until after the war when no one could be hung.

The most important reason so many traitors were given amnesty is that they were too illiterate and ignorant to hold accountable for their actions. They all just said 'I was just following orders.'

This is from the CSA Provisional Act of 28 Feb 1861,

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President be authorized to receive into the service of this Government such forces now in the service of said States as may be tendered, or who may volunteer, by consent of their State, in such numbers as he may require, for any time not less than twelve months, unless sooner discharged

The confederacy gave priority in conscription to fully formed units. Hence, anyone in a state conscripted unit, or a unit formed by men of their own choice after being conscripted were conscripted en masse. That's all it means.

Thanks for the reply!

There is no need for a federal statute banning secession. Secession would violate laws requiring payment of taxes or authorizing the delivery of the mails and other federal acts…

The argument appears to be one regarding the nature of our “federal” government. Some suggest, in essence, that the most critical change embodied in the Constitution was the elimination of a single word found in Article II of the Articles of Confederation:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

The language is quite similar to that of the Tenth Amendment – but the amendment lacks the word “expressly.” Some therefore insist that any conceivable authority related in any way to even the most trivial of federal powers somehow ‘trumps’ any State power, no matter how important – or in effect, that the federal government was essentially delegated all powers not explicitly reserved. The lack of a single word, we are told, somehow magically transformed a federation of States into a national government. In fact, such an interpretation is directly contradicted by the records of the federal and State conventions; the ratification documents of several States; the public writings of men such as Jefferson and Madison; and the most respected legal references of the early republic. Such an interpretation also directly contradicts the language of the Tenth Amendment, and essentially renders that amendment (which was demanded by more States than was any other single element of the Bill of Rights) absolutely meaningless.

If a state can't simply void those laws at its own will, it certainly can't void the Constitution and the whole mass of laws passed pursuant to it.

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison suggested that States could indeed “simply void” federal laws which were considered by the States to be unconstitutional. For example:

”…the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

Each State as a “party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

I don't think a state can pull a right to secede out out of the air or the "emanations and penumbras" of the 10th Amendment…

The terms of the Tenth Amendment are clear. They are likely to be referred to as "emanations and penumbras" only by those interested in evading the restrictions the amendment imposes.

…any more than one can pull a right to scoot away from mortgages, debts or contractual obligations of one's back pocket.

It’s always amusing to see an advocate of essentially unlimited federal power offer an argument based on “contractual obligations.” The Constitution itself is a ‘contract,’ which defines certain “obligations:” yet parts of that contract must be completely ignored in order to reach the conclusion they advocate.

A people can overthrow a tyrant, and arguably a country would be within its rights to cast off an ruinous treaty imposed on it. But the condition of the slave states in 1860 was very different from these cases.

The question can be reduced to this: who shall determine whether a “tyrant” exists, or whether an agreement has become “ruinous?” Some insist (comically enough) that only the federal government may determine whether the States have become subject to ‘tyrannical’ or “ruinous” rule – by the same federal government! Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and others suggested that it was up to the States and their people to make that determination.

Moderation, prudence, good sense and a committment to processes that involved all parties were required, not emotionalism and a violent break with the Constitution.

Two points. First, sending a military expedition to re-supply a useless fort, contrary to the advice of nearly all of one’s advisors, especially when a similar expedition had already ended in violence, hardly qualifies as “moderation, prudence, [or] good sense.” Second, the establishment of the Confederate States of America can hardly be termed a “break with the Constitution:” the United States Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, and the seceding States subsequently adopted a Constitution that was very nearly a copy of the one that was supposedly ‘broken.’

It's more a matter of readings and interpretations than of black ink on white paper. That's why it came down to war.

Some of the “black ink on white paper” is quite explicit. The Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, nor does it claim to establish a “perpetual” union. The States of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia explicitly reserved the right of secession when they ratified the Constitution, and their ratifications were accepted. The most respected legal references of the early republic, including Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1803, recognized the right of State secession. And men such as Thomas Jefferson recognized the right of secession, in writing, as well.

That is precisely why we are having this discussion. I am not a Southerner: I’ve never lived or worked in the South, nor (to the best of my knowledge) have any of my ancestors come from that region. I am, however, someone who can read – and the only conclusion consistent with the mass of historical documentation is that the secession of the Southern States was not unconstitutional.

The evidence I've seen is that the Framers of the Constitution wanted something more than a mere league of independent states, and that the rise of a national interest wasn't unwanted or unexpected.

The trouble arises when “something more than a mere league of independent states” is mysteriously transmogrified into ‘a national government of unlimited power.’ A national government was specifically debated at the federal convention – and explicitly rejected, indicating that any “national interest” subsequently established by the new Constitution was much more limited than many unionists suggest.

The federal government was quite small, but nationhood was a reality and one cherished by those who had established it. They certainly didn't picture how their child would grow, but they didn't want to throttle it in the cradle. Of course there were Anti-Federalists who opposed such developments and complicated the picture.

The bottom line is this: ratification was not a foregone conclusion, and many States might never have acceded to a Constitution that explicitly prohibited secession. Virginia and New York, as noted previously, both reserved the right of secession, in writing, in their ratification documents. What would the ‘United States’ have been without Virginia and New York? To suggest after ratification that the Constitution somehow prohibits State secession amounts to the most monumental case of ‘bait and switch’ fraud ever perpetrated in (and upon) the United States.

I don't underestimate the dangers and bad effects of bloated goverment, but the other side of the argument tends to get ignored.

As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that a strict (or ‘literal’) interpretation of the Constitution is quite applicable to the political problems we face today (and that such an interpretation is also the most ‘honest’ as well, since it is most consistent with antebellum historical documentation). Compare the liberal and conservative ‘agendas’ – which do you believe would be promoted by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? And which is best advanced by a broad interpretation – offered up by activist political appointees, serving for life, who in essence amend the Constitution at will from the federal bench?

You can't have it both ways: either the Constitution meant what it said in 1798 AND 1998 - or it means whatever federal judges say it means, no matter what the date. Is it a 'living document,' subject to the 'interpretation' of a Justice Clinton or a Justice Schumer - or does it simply mean what it says?

;>)

he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.

That was Lincoln. Now compare Lincoln's power on this subject to Davis. In March, 1861, Davis was granted the authority to call state militia's into national service over state objections. After Sumtner, all southerners of draft age were classified as conscripts subject to Davis's calls, though subject to specific draft exemptions such as jobs deemed necessary to defense. The states were denied the right to select 'volunteers' to go to the national army. States too had asked for short terms of a year or less, and these too were eliminated, either for three year minimums or for the duration. If you were southern, you were drafted until you died, were completely disabled, or until you deserted. Not surprisingly, there were more deserters than their were men in service.

Commonly overlooked is the fact that the south carried about one million men at arms at all times. Over half of them were the very young and old folded into local militia's deemed necessary to control the slave population. Counting such militia's, the North actually fieled on average only 60% of the number of southern men under arms either in the national army or in the state militia's. State militia's were all controlled by manditory conscription and had been for many years before the Civil War. In fact, due to the fear of servile insurrection and the fears attached to runaway slaves, the whole south had lived under martial law for decades.

Just as it had been in the Revolution of 1775, the south was only able to supply about half the manpower in the field than they would have had they not been so involved in the pernicious and debilitating institution of southern slavery. Calculate into that the 200,000 Americans of African heritage who volunteered to fight for their freedom versus the paltry numbers of blacks who elected servility in the name of shame, and you have a remarkable record of military ineptitude in the south.

I've also read Akhil Reed Amar and others who makes it clear that powers are explicitly and implicitly reserved to Congress.

Two points. First, Congress can 'reserve' absolutely nothing - it was a party to neither the Articles nor the Constitution. Any powers possessed by Congress were delegated by the States, and Congress possesses absolutely no power that was not so delegated.

Second, to imply that Dr. Amar advocates your 'anything the court says is constitutional' position is utter hogwash. Dr. Amar has observed that:

"The careful reader will no doubt notice that judges are not exactly the heroes and heroines of my tale. Federal judges, after all, enthusiastically enforced the infamous Sedition Act of 1798, cheerfully sending men to prison [for simply criticizing the President] and neutering juries along the way. It is hard to imagine a bigger betrayal of the Bill of Rights..."

Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, 1998

Looks like you're not a "careful reader" (no surprise there, given the fact that you missed both of my posts answering the question you posed earlier ;>).

Dr. Amar, by the way, also suggests that Mr. Lincoln's draft was entirely unconstitutional.

;>)

One of those powers is the the power to change the status of a state.

ROTFLMAO! As I noted earlier, your suggestion that the federal government may eliminate or expel a State is a 'nonsequitur' - it is a "conclusion that does not follow from the premises." If your reasoning were correct, the power to create a child would somehow endow parents with the power to kill a child. That, quite obviously, is incorrect.

(Perhaps you should select a different 'screen name' - it applies to too many of your posts! LOL! ;>)

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.