They Were Not Traitors

Abbeville Institute ^ | Sep 16, 2020 | Philip Leigh

[ifinnegan]

It meant he was not oblivious to pros and cons and was a good rhetorician.

[ifinnegan]

“The revolution was secession. Yes it was justified.”

And it was treason. They each and everyone knew that.

The US pardoned the Confederates and they all pledged allegiance again to the U.S. and admitted they were wrong.

[jmacusa]

We’re not all Leftists in NJ. One of the largest Trump rallies was held here in NJ. You know, you don’t have to be ignorant all your life.

[jmacusa]

Good post. I’ve been saying that about this about all these “Confederates in the attic’’’’ for years. They call themselves conservatives and yet they venerate a bunch of treasonous Southern democrats.

[LastDayz]

Spot on FRiend. Now where’s that like button.

The edumacational system has done a fine job of rewriting history.

[Manly Warrior]

No, I think he recognized that the war of northern aggression was a near death blow to the republic and constitution....

But we can argue (as in discuss) all day long. The result is what is telling, not what either of us may think he meant.

Nearly complete national control of states- the end result. The constitution clearly holds both a federal and a national view of government. Certain functions are national, most others are federal (left to the states).

Today we see that more and more. Usually over issues of moral judgement, not legislative process.

(disclaimer: I am by birth a NY Yankee, but a fly over constitutional conservative by choice).

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Drivel. And a confusion of property and sovereignty. Having claimed sovereignty, the South decided to seize property by force because they didn’t like the legal owner.

The election of Donald Trump: Democrats haven’t been so angry since Republicans took away their slaves. Get over it.

[ifinnegan]

“(disclaimer: I am by birth a NY Yankee, but a fly over constitutional conservative by choice).”

I’m a son of the confederacy, descendant of slave owners and non slave owner poor who served in the rebel army and I think it’s ridiculous to call it war of northern aggression.

Ridiculous. It’s broadcasting: “I am not a serious person”.

[Uncle Sham]

"Drivel"

This is how liberals avoid uncomfortable FACTS in discussing things. You can't honestly answer my simple question so you simply disregard the question and impute it's value to the discussion. Eat manure. It might improve your breath.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

If that were all I wrote, you would be right.
Are you are a troll?

[SandwicheGuy]

Yeah, yeah, you are one of those guys who is above it all, refusing to get your hands dirty, good for you. However, the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

[Manly Warrior]

You are entitled to your pov.

It’s much more accurate a term than “civil war”.

Personal attacks on the internet are a sure sign of weakness and self doubt.

Alas, the union is yet again in peril. Social slavery and big brother vice individual choice and responsibility.

[Manly Warrior]

You are entitled to your pov.

It’s much more accurate a term than “civil war”.

Personal attacks on the internet are a sure sign of weakness and self doubt.

Alas, the union is yet again in peril. Social slavery and big brother vice individual choice and responsibility.

[BroJoeK]

Like others here (i.e., rockrr), I wonder why you're doing this -- seriously, what value is added to the conservative movement by constantly picking at such old scabs?
Will this convince some Biden voters to flip for Trump?
Will it motivate some reluctant Trumpers to get out & vote?

I don't think so, do you?

Further, all these points have been argued ad infinitum, certainly to my satisfaction, so why not to yours?

From the article: "A typical calumny directed at Confederate soldiers is that they don’t merit commemoration because they were traitors.
It is a lie... "

The historical truth is that President Andrew Johnson issued thousands of individual pardons to Confederates who requested them, and eventually a blanket pardon to virtually all Confederates.
So legally, the issue of "traitors" is totally mute, and it's strictly a matter of opinion as to whether Confederates waging war against the United States meets the Constitution's definition of "treason".
I would simply notice that if there was no treason, then there'd be no need for pardons.
Case closed, right?

robowombat: "No independent nation would tolerate foreign military bases in the middle of a major city. "

Total nonsense since there are US & other military bases in many foreign countries all over the world.
And not all are friendly invites -- for many years in Berlin US forces there were threatened with war, Communist Cubans today demand US withdrawal from Guantanamo Bay, Spaniards demand Brits withdraw from Gibraltar, etc.

But perhaps the best examples are the long list of British forts & trading posts in US states & Northwest Territories after the Revolutionary War was over and Brits agreed to withdraw -- they didn't, for many years.
And one result of British support for Northwest Indians was the 1791 St. Clair's Defeat, recognized as the greatest single US Army defeat (relatively speaking) in US history.
US Gen. Arthur St. Clair's force of 1,000 men was almost entirely killed near headwaters of the Wabash River in Ohio.

And yet our Founders never used British forts on US territory or British support for Northwest Indians as an excuse to start a war.

robowombat: "Lincoln would not accept secession.
The big, unasked question is why?
Not the usual intoning of saving the union’..."

Why not?
What Marxist brainwashing did you receive which lead you to believe that American ideals and the US Constitution are of no consequence, and only Marxist economics & class warfare can explain "the real reasons"?

The truth, as many have pointed out (i.e., OIFVeteran) is the President has no authority to accept unilateral unapproved declarations of secession, period.
Congress might (it would need to be adjudicated) have that authority, but the President on his own cannot authorize states to come or go.
Lincoln's best offer to secessionists is the one he made in his First Inaugural -- in effect, "peaceful coexistence".
If Confederates would allow the Feds to do their basic functions -- i.e., mail, tariffs -- he'd leave them otherwise alone.

Confederate newspapers called that a Declaration of War.

robowombat: "...why was the US unable to exist without South Carolina."

South Carolina itself contributed virtually nothing to Federal revenues.
The entire seven-state Confederacy contributed well under 10% of Federal tariff revenues.
So the "real reason" was just what they said at the time: President Buchanan announced in February 1861 that the US would not give up Fort Sumter without a fight, and President Lincoln was determined the fort not surrender for lack of basic supplies.

That's it -- Jefferson Davis then used Lincoln's resupply mission has his excuse to start war at Fort Sumter.
No insane Marxist economic theories are required to explain Lincoln's actions.

robowombat: "By 1860, it seemed pretty clear most northerners wanted no part of the South and leading northern intellectuals such as Emerson encouraged feelings of hatred and contempt for Southerners."

Rubbish.
In 1860, just as today, the vast majority of Americans North and South loved their Union, revered their Constitution and respected their Federal government.
But then, just as today, a minority of radical Democrats (then known as "Fire Eaters") began waging political warfare against the United States and were successful in convincing a majority in the Deep South that Republican victory in 1860 meant the utter destruction of life as they knew it.
Perhaps the state of Mississippi said it best:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove..."

[x]

Good post, BroJoe.

I wonder about this:

robowombat: "By 1860, it seemed pretty clear most northerners wanted no part of the South and leading northern intellectuals such as Emerson encouraged feelings of hatred and contempt for Southerners."

Do you really think "leading northern intellectuals" spoke for the average American, then or now -- or even that they had much influence on what most Americans thought and felt? Abolitionists, so we're told, were only a small minority of the population. Whatever hatred and contempt they had for Southerners didn't reach the towns and villages where most Americans lived.

Uncle Tom's Cabin was a major success that convinced many that slavery was wrong, but it didn't inspire hatred or contempt for Southerners. Some in the slaveowning class were portrayed sympathetically, and the major villain was a Northerner.

[rockrr]

In truth there were regional bigots - then same as now. But they tended to be outliers (albeit noisy outliers), not the consensus. It was regrettable that the southern bigots became the regional leaders, who then inflicted so much pain on all of us.

Let’s hope it never happens again.

[CodeToad]

“The refusal to accept the authority of the United States is an act of rebellion”

Not when you elected to leave the union of that federal government.

[ifinnegan]

I Robert E. Lee of Lexington Virginia do solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves, so help me God.

October 2, 1865 - Lee Family Archive

[BroJoeK]

x: "Do you really think "leading northern intellectuals" spoke for the average American, then or now -- or even that they had much influence on what most Americans thought and felt?
Abolitionists, so we're told, were only a small minority of the population."

Right, as recently as 1856 the majority of "Northerners" (meaning non-slaveholding states) were Democrats who totally sympathized with slavery, just like their Presidential candidate, Doughfaced Pennsylvanian, James Buchanan, who won that election.
In 1856 Republicans got only 45% of the Northern vote, only 33% overall.

Then in 1857, to show his love for the South, President Buchanan worked behind-the-scenes helping SCOTUS Chief Justice Crazy Roger Taney craft his Dred Scott decision.
Crazy Roger's Dred Scott words put the United States just one SCOTUS decision away from making abolition unconstitutional!

And that's what drove another 10% of Northerners to flip from Democrat or Know-Nothing to Republicans, giving Republicans 55% of the Northern vote in 1860.

But remember two points here:

1. Most Republicans were not radical abolitionists, they just didn't want slavery in our Western Territories or, in their own states.

2. Even in 1860 nearly half of Northerners voted for non-Republicans, meaning they were totally satisfied with slavery as it then existed, in the South.

So, regardless of what "leading Northern intellectuals" taught in 1860, the vast majority of Northerners had no interest in attacking slavery in the South, plus, for every "intellectual" who decried slavery, there were several wealthy Northerners who well understood the economic benefits of slavery.

Bottom line, there was then (just as today) huge sympathy for Southerners in the North, sympathies which, had they been effectively groomed & managed, could have helped the South accomplish its goals peacefully.

But many Southerners were afflicted with the vision of George Washington defeating the British Empire, and wanted that same glory for themselves -- not some wishy-washy compromised muddle-through endless political wrangling which would have, in the end, peacefully abolished slavery anyway.

Anything, even war, was better than that, they thought.

[Tennessee Nana]

Actually Lincoln did have a prayer...

he won election without the Southern states...