Posted on 10/15/2020 10:58:01 PM PDT by robowombat
“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.” Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason” Chief Justice Salmon P Chase [as quoted by Herman S. Frey, in Jefferson Davis, Frey Enterprises, 1977, pp. 69-72]
The Constitution of the United States would never have been ratified if the right to secession was not understood. New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia would never have signed on to the new government.
(Were the colonists in those states simply traitors in waiting?)
“Another 400+ thread with half pro-Confederacy and half anti-Confederacy.”
A little off topic, but your post reminded me of a quilt show I attended in Tennessee. The maker — a Tennessean — had a divided family (as did many) during the CW. Her quilt was a tribute to all of the soldiers with their names, broken down by north and south. Kind of sobering, really.
Bump
You can always go and not read me on Twitter and Facebook (if you knew those nics).
I want to read stuff I disagree with so that I can disagree with it. I don’t care whether it is popular.
If you are a citizen of a nation, and then fight to throw out that nation in order to create a new one—-that pretty much tells me they are a traitor to the first country, and a patriot to the second.
But when you take a shot at the king...you better kill them. They failed.
That said, the day to day soldier and 99% of the rebels were pardoned. And it was proper to do so.
Debating this 155 years later is kind of an academic exercise.
You nailed it. Bigger fish to fry...
As if we didn’t have enough going on right now and didn’t need to “keep the troops together”. Point in fact, these WBTS threads aren’t just picking the scab of North vs. South - in reality they’re a fanciful (delusional?!) indulgence in historical revisionism between “The South” and everybody else.
I keep reading these inciteful statements about “The North felt..” or “The South said...” as though they were holistic sentient beings, but in truth there were (and remain) gradations to affinities, alliances, and attitudes. These threads boil them down to a silly simplistic stew, designed to inspire enmity amongst fellow FReepers.
I would urge FReepers to keep their eye on the real ball - the marxists who wish to enslave us all.
excellent post
Just advising you that it’s Fort Sumter, not Fort Sumpter.
Thank you!
This is pretty much what I’ve been saying. The Gaia worshiping, gun grabbing, global socialists are the real threat to us all.
This article sounds to me like an attempt to re-brand the Confederate traitors-—who should have been declared such by Lincoln whereby he could have taken the planters’ land constitutionally and followed through with “40 acres and a mule,” then pardoned everyone.
What would be the purpose of this now?
While I don’t believe this will happen, this could be the beginning of the effort to take the sting out of the word “traitor” in advance of DOJ/Durham indictments.
Again, I don’t see that happening-—but when you see articles like this, they are allowed out there for a reason.
Appreciate it.
Spoken like a gentleman, sir.
Exactly
“The Congress shall have Power: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.“
Did then legislature of S. Carolina consent to Fort Sumter being built in the harbor? If so, I don’t see how the case can be made that the South was in the right to attack the fort when the garrison refused to give it up to them, considering that S. Carolina had assented to the fort.
You are really confused
David Barton is no Larry Schweikart
Wrong answer. Try again. Firing on Fort Sumter was every bit the aggressive action that claiming ownership of Fort Sumter by the north was. Which of these came first? Also, name ONE military installation not in the Confederacy that the South claimed part ownership of AFTER secession. One. Just ONE. There are always two sides to a story. Your side isn't being truthful to the facts.
Another point, did the South, after secession have a moral right to defend itself against northern aggression? Continuing to claim ownership of a fort no longer in your country is certainly an aggressive act. The South didn't do this to the north. They just wanted to be left alone to chart their own course. They had no intention of getting into a war with the north because they knew that they were at a severe disadvantage and would likely lose over the long run. The north wanted war and thus provoked it.
My family history had soldiers on both sides
I don’t hate Southerners. I do think the actually history should be taught
“No they weren’t. Dred Scot was a Supreme Court decision. “
Lol.
So was sodomite marriage.
Do you even know what the Demicrats do and how they use the courts to legislate.
They did it in the 1850’s and they do it now.
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.