Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

Townhall.com ^ | July 22, 2020 | Walter E. Williams

[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.

[DoodleDawg]

That government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. You might recognize the language from somewhere.

I do. And you might recognize this language from somewhere as well: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

[DoodleDawg]

The legality and morality of it very much is in doubt.

Most people would disagree.

[FLT-bird]

Which handily explains why the confeds didn't prevail with their treachery.

there was no treachery. They did not prevail because they had fewer men and fewer guns. Unlike in 1776, there was not a rival superpower to provide massive material and military support.

[FLT-bird]

I do. And you might recognize this language from somewhere as well: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

ah but that's false. The union was not indissoluble. The opinion of the Chase court here is no more binding than Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc etc

[scpolitician]

RELEVANT FACT: President Abraham Lincoln proposed ending slavery by 1900; the 13th Amendment could have been far different had Congress done what Lincoln proposed.

This is from his Address to Congress December 1, 1862...

“Article -—.
“Every State, wherein slavery now exists, which shall abolish the same therein, at any time, or times, before the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive compensation from the United State...”

[FLT-bird]

Most people would disagree.

The PC Revisionists in Academia have indeed propagandized many. That doesn't mean they are right. It is notable how you side with the Leftists here though.

[DoodleDawg]

As I’ve said several times, yours is a might makes right argument.

Was the American Revolution a 'might makes right' argument? Or was it, as with the Civil War, a matter of the winning side wanting it more? That the victors found their cause worth fighting for more than the losers did?

[rockrr]

Oh, there was plenty of treachery. Some merely lack the integrity to admit it.

[Bull Snipe]

Might does not make right

True, but might settles the issue. Union might destroyed the Confederacy.

[DoodleDawg]

The PC Revisionists in Academia have indeed propagandized many.

As opposed to the Lost Cause revisionists who have created their own whole alternate reality?

It is notable how you side with the Leftists here though.

Andy your support of Democrats is duly noted.

[DoodleDawg]

ah but that's false.

As you would have us believe.

The union was not indissoluble.

No it is not. Chase mentioned the two methods of dividing the Union: rebellion or with the consent of the other states. The Southern states tried the former and lost. Has they tried the later they may well be separate today. Next time make the right choice.

The opinion of the Chase court here is no more binding than Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc etc

Well Dred Scott was nullified by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al. Texas v. White remains binding today.

[sphinx]

Andrew Jackson settled the doctrine of nullification for 190 years, and the Civil War settled the question of state sovereignty and secession for 150 years. Both of these settlements are now coming unglued. The left is now fully in support of nullification. Formal secession is still not on the table in any serious way, but nullification carried to an extreme becomes de facto secession. California is almost there. When the next democrat administration opens the borders and invites all of Mexico and Central America to move north — with expedited citizenship and voting rights in the offing — the rest of the country will have to make a decision.

[central_va]

Your myopic blackness showing....

[DoodleDawg]

Your myopic blackness showing....

My what?

[central_va]

Your black bile. Stuff it.

[jeffersondem]

“And you might recognize this language from somewhere as well . . .”

Victor’s Justice.

[Bull Snipe]

its just the Brits who call us “Yanks”

More correctly, “its just the folks of the British Empire who call us “Yanks”. Have been referred to as a “Yank” by Canadians, Aussie & New Zealanders. This while operating with their Navies many year ago.

[nathanbedford]

If a Joe Biden Regency is elected this November, I believe we will see a thorough going destruction of the Constitution. You are quite right, flooding the zone with illegal aliens who will presumably vote Democrat is one Sure Way to eclipse conservatism for generations.

But I think we both understand that Joe Biden will be only a figurehead and the real election of the chief executive officer will occur sometime into his administration when one faction or another is able to seize control and run the country. It is the inevitable 2nd phase of a leftist revolution to see the Wolfpack devouring each other. Hitler had his night of the Long knives, Stalin murdered his co-Bolsheviks, Castro and Che Guevara lined them up against the wall. The French Revolution turned on itself and could not stop murdering until the man on horseback directed the murder to foreign countries.

It is inconceivable that a coterie of powermad leftist politicians will permit Biden to stumble unmolested through 4 years. The vacuum will be entirely too tempting. No one will be able to trust the forbearance of the other.

That struggle is likely to break out into wide Civil War with every faction striving to co-opt the institutions that will sustain them. The critical question will be, whether the American military?

[Wuli]

I think an acceptance of the Confederacy would have inevitably led to war between the North and South anyway.

The alliances the South would have made with other nations would have become alliances against the north and a threat to the north in trade, freedom of the seas, expansion west and other international matters. The north would have demanded the South break the alliances that the north held to be threats against it and war would have ensued. There would have been no war to keep the south from seceeding, it would have been a war between two countries, but the industrial north would have won anyway and the price, the peace, would have had the south rejoining the United States, and without slavery.

One way or the other, I don’t think the stars were aligned in favor of the south being separate.

[nathanbedford]

Wither the American military?