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.
Then why were the ex-Confederates given amnesty for treason and rebellion?
If they didn’t commit those crimes, then they would not have needed amnesty granted by the President of the United States.
“Ike had his head up his ass when he wrote this.”
I have wondered when you would show your true colors.
When will you call for the destruction of his monument?
“Then why were the ex-Confederates given amnesty for treason and rebellion?”
Victor’s Justice.
“They were defending slavery.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
In this case, the Victors allowed the losers to escape justice.
“In this case, the Victors allowed the losers to escape justice.”
If you understood the condemnation in the term Victor’s Justice you would not be so quick to cozy up to the term.
But, maybe you would.
Would you have preferred the Victors hold treason trials and executions.
Your contention is that secession was illegal. It is now, but it was not in 1861.
The states were united but separate entities. They claimed the right to leave the union.
I would contend they were not wrong. And they certainly had arguments supporting their position, from Jefferson to Madison and the understandings of the states themselves.
"Whereas, In addition to the well founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in reselutions adopted on the 11th March, A. D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power at Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any state that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such states, until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this, have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshalled to carry out this inhuman design, and to longer submit to such rule or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas."
I would say by definition South Carolina unilaterally seceded from the country known as the USA. When the next state Mississippi seceded it was no longer "unilateral" secession.
923
All states must participate in the decision or else it is unilateral.
Because I don’t agree with his defense of a traitor doesn’t mean I want his monument destroyed, bozo.
They were defending states rights: The right of states to own slaves. Jesus Christ how many time do you Lost Causers have to be told this. Their own God damned Confederate Constitution spelled it out.
Ike had it wrong about Lee.
No, my contention is that secession is legal now, was legal in 1861, and has always been legal. It requires the consent of the other states but there is nothing preventing it.
The states were united but separate entities. They claimed the right to leave the union.
So is it your contention that the Constitution provides protections for the states leaving but absolutely no protection for those remaining?
I would contend they were not wrong. And they certainly had arguments supporting their position, from Jefferson to Madison and the understandings of the states themselves.
In Jefferson's first inaugural he clearly visualized states leaving with the agreement of the other states. Madison said, "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
Unilateral is defines as "(of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others."
One state or ten, their actions were taken without discussion or agreement of the other side. It was unilateral.
That is not what the word "unilateral" means.
If each sate is considered an individual political entity, like our founders intended, then the word unilateral does not work in this case.
But if you look at it as two sides, those leaving and those staying, then unilateral accurately describes it.
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.