Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

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.

[macusa #411] "Due to political expediency, the nations psychical, emotional, industrial, financial cost and staggering death toll on both sides Lincoln saw no point in prosecuting Lee and Davis as the war criminals they were even though Davis wanted to continue the war in a guerrilla style fashion."
[woodpusher #447] "You made all that crap up. See my #437."
[BroKoeK #514] I read your #437, it supports the historical fact that neither Presidents Lincoln, nor Johnson, nor Grant, nor Chief Justice Chase wanted to try Confederates for treason.
[BroKoeK #514] Our FRiend jmacusa wishes to explain that as a form of war-weariness, but I think there is a simpler, more straightforward explanation -- no Union prosecutions for treason was quid pro quo for no continuing guerilla warfare by Confederates.

No, nothing in my #437 can conceivably be construed to support that a dead Lincoln, with a bullet in his head, saw no point in prosecuting Lee and Davis. The war was still ongoing, Davis was still leading the Confederacy, and Lee was on a parole that certainly prevented any indictment at least while the war continued. Lincoln did not, and could not have, taken any part in the decision whether or not to indict Lee or Davis.

woodpusher: "It is impossible to prevent access to the coast of the enemy unless there is an enemy and an enemy coast.
Only by the Confederacy being recognized as an enemy belligerent could there have been an enemy.
A blockade acts on foreign nations or belligerents.
A closing of the ports does not apply to foreign nations.
Under 19th century international law, a blockade presupposes an armed conflict, and a war presupposes an enemy."

Nothing inherent in a blockade presupposes the enemy is a foreign nation.
Indeed, the Brits blockaded American coasts in both the Revolution and the War of 1812, the first time against the rebellion, the second against the American nation.
The blockades were the same, but nothing in the first constituted British recognition of Americans as a separate nation.

This ranges from irrelevant to just wrong.

The Confederacy was recognized as a seperate state. Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. provides the following under nation.

“The nearest we can get to a definition is to say that a nation is a group of people bound together by common history, common sentiment and traditions, and, usually (though not always, as, for example, Belgium or Switzerland) by common heritage. A state, on the other hand, is a society of men united under one government. These two forms of society are not necessarily coincident. A single nation may be divided into several states, and conversely a single state may comprise several nations or parts of nations.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 136 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).
2. A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state. Cf. state (1).

You misapprehend the importance of formal diplomatic recognition of a state, as opposed to international recognition of a belligerent state. Every public was has at least two recognized belligerent states. As stated in Black's Law Dictionary, "public war. A war between two countries under authority of their respective governents." The declaration of a blockade presupposes the existence of two states engaged in a public war. It is a state of fact and not a matter of diplomatic relations. It is an international act and the proclamation is to inform the rest of the foreign states in the world that the blockading and blockaded state are belligerent powers engaged in a public war.

The United States could not lawfully maintain a blockade against foreign nations of its own ports. It could close its ports to foreign commerce, but not blockade them.

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/OKQ/TC-OKQ-7028.pdf

An Analysis of the Legality of Maritime Blockade in the Context of Twenty-First Century Humanitarian Law

By Phillip Jeffrey Drew

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Law In conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, March 2012

At 4 (of 128)

Contending that a properly constituted blockade is an extension of jurisdiction over another nation’s territory, and that the blockading force can exercise significant, if not complete, control over the welfare of the blockaded population, I refer to the growing body of case law emanating from international tribunals. . . .

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=ils

Naval Blockade, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, International Law Studies, Volume 75, International Law Across the Spectrum of Conflict, Michael N. Schmitt (Editor)

At 1 (of 28)

According to a widely accepted definition, blockade is "a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation."² The purpose of establishing a blockade is "to deny the enemy the use of enemy and neutral vessels or aircraft to transport personnel and goods to or from enemy territory."3
^2. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations), THE COMMANDER'S HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF NAVAL OPERA TIONS, NWP I-14M, para. 7.7.1.
^3. Ibid.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/blockade-warfare

Blockade, an act of war whereby one party blocks entry to or departure from a defined part of an enemy’s territory, most often its coasts. Blockades are regulated by international law and custom and require advance warning to neutral states and impartial application.

Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln the Man, copr. 1931, reprint 1997, p. 404-5.

The matter of blockading the ports was full of self-contradiction. If the Southern states were not out of the Union, if secession was utterly void, as Lincoln contended, then by what authority was Lincoln giving preference to other ports, by the blockading of the Southern ports? The Constitution reads: "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another." Yet Lincoln claimed in his blockade proclamation that he was blockading the ports in pursuance of law, and in obedience to his oath of office. Nothing can be done with a mind that denies the plainest principles. Afterward Lincoln developed one of his characteristic sophisms. It was that the Southern states were not out of the Union—but out of their practical relation to it. But upon the supposition that the Seceded States were legally out of the Union, then they were a foreign nation, and his proclamation was an act of war; and thus he had usurped power, for the war power is vested in Congress, not in the president. But Lincoln's Merlin arts of reasoning caught him in their own web, and brought him discomfiture. By blockading the ports he made a legal acknowledgment that he was at public war with the Confederate States, and that they were neither in insurrection nor rebellion. This stultification was not all. By his proclamation he visited the punishment for piracy, that is hanging, on anyone who violated it under letters of marque. Thus he made pirates of privateers, against the basic principles of international law. The conclusion is that Lincoln was wrestling, and any hold that he could get, or any tactics that he could adopt to throw his adversary was a part of the game of winning—and saving the Union, supporting the Constitution! That meant the Jackson doctrine to the full: supporting the Constitution as he claimed to understand it, not as it read or had been construed by authority.
This was by no means a new question. In the days of Nullification, in 1832, it was feared that Jackson would blockade the port of Charleston. A political convention was held in Massachusetts, which was addressed by Webster. Among other things Webster said: "Sir, for one I protest in advance against such remedies as I have heard hinted. The administration itself keeps a profound silence, but its friends have spoken for it. We are told, sir, that the President will immediately employ the military force, and at once blockade Charleston. A military remedy, a remedy by direct military operation, has been thus suggested, as the intended means of preserving the Union. Sir, there is little reason to think that this suggestion is true. We cannot be altogether unmindful of the past, and, therefore, we cannot be altogether unapprehensive of the future. For one, sir, I raise my voice beforehand against the unauthorized employment of military power, and against superseding the authority of the law by an armed force, under pretence of putting down Nullification. The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by the civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority. His duty is, if the laws be resisted, to employ the military force of the country if necessary, for their support and execution; but to do all this in compliance only with law, and with the decisions of the tribunals."

Seward to Adams, July 21, 1861

Another subject which, according to your report, was discussed in your late interview with Lord John Russell demands more extended remarks. I refer to the portion of your despatch which is in these words: “His lordship then said something about difficulties in New Grenada, and the intelligence that the insurgents there had passed a law to close their ports. But the law officers here told him that this could not be done as against foreign nations, except by the regular form of a blockade. He did not know what we thought about it; but he had observed that some such plan was said to be likely to be adopted at the coming meeting of Congress in regard to the ports of those whom we considered as insurgents.”
[...]
Lord John Russell said the question is one of considerable importance. The government of New Grenada has announced, not a blockade, but that certain ports of New Grenada are to be closed. The opinion of her Majesty’s government, after taking legal advice, is, that it is perfectly competent for the government of a country in a state of tranquillity to say which ports shall be open to trade and which shall be closed; but in the event of insurrection or civil war in that country, it is not competent for its government to close the ports that are de facto in the hands of the insurgents, as that would be an invasion of international law with regard to blockade. Admiral Milne, acting on instructions from her Majesty’s government, has ordered the commanders of her Majesty’s ships not to recognize the closing of their ports.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Blockade

U.S. State Department
Office of the Historian
South Recognized as a Belligerent
Following the U.S. announcement of its intention to establish an official blockade of Confederate ports, foreign governments began to recognize the Confederacy as a belligerent in the Civil War. Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality.

A proclamation of a blockade was not a proclamation of a closing to the ports. Lincoln knew what he had deliberately done, and just before his death, he attempted to set the stage to undo it and make believe he had not done it.

There was no need to establish formalized diplomatic relations to recognize the Confederacy as a lawful belligerent state. Attainment of recognition as a belligerent state invoked various aspects of international law the the laws of war.

The Law of Armed Conflict, Gary D. Solis, Professor of Law of the United States Military Academy, 2010.

Professor Solis describes the verbal pollution that infested the discourse to invent previously unknown legal manifestations surrounding prisoners from such organizations as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. At 226, footnotes omitted, underscore emphasis as in original.

"Traditionally, the term 'enemy combatant' refers to legitimate combatants who are entitled to prisoner of war status. It is a new usage to describe those who are deemed to be lawful belligerents as such. What term is left for those legitimate combatants belonging to enemy armed forces? Because "a combatant by definition, enjoys a 'privilege of belligerency', the term 'lawful combatant' is redundant, and thus, the term 'unlawful combatant' is an oxymoron."
A definition of "enemy combatant" binding U.S. Armed Forces was found in the same DoD Directive that unsatisfactorily defines "detainee": "Enemy combatant." In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term 'enemy combatant' includes both 'lawful enemy combatants' and 'unlawful enemy combatant.'"

By definition, and pursuant to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), a combatant enjoys the privilege of belligerency. Upon capture, he becomes a prisoner of war, not a criminal defendant, for his lawful acts of war.

woodpusher quoting: "Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
At 596:
Vermont was admitted as a free and independent state."
Only a free and independent state can be admitted as a free and independent state."

That ruling is from 1933, not 1791.
There is no contemporaneous equivalent document.
And the 1933 SCOTUS claim that Vermont was "recognized" by NH, MA & NY, bears some scrutiny -- were ambassadors exchanged?
Were treaties negotiated?
Were tariffs imposed?
So what, exactly, did such "recognition" consist of?
If it was nothing more than withdrawal of their own claims to Vermont territory, that is hardly the same thing as officially recognizing Vermont as a separate country, free & independent from the United States.

Your argument that the ruling is from 1933 has no legal significance or relevance whatsoever.

In 1933, in deciding a boundary dispute, it was necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the status Vermont held in 1791, at the time of entry into the Union. Being a necessity to deciding the issues of the case, it was a holding.

Your argument about there not being a contemporary equivalent document is equally without legal merit or relevance. The holding of the Court in 1933 is the binding legal pronouncement of the highest court on the status of Vermont in 1791, at the time of joining the Union, and how that came to pass from successful revolution in 1777.

The Supreme Court decided that Vermont was a free and independent state from 1777 to 1791.

The Supreme Court decided that Vermont was NOT admitted as a new state formed out of the territory of New York.

The Supreme Court decided that Vermont WAS admitted under Article IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted borders.

It is quite true that the Supreme Court holding, as well as American history, contradicts the the ridiculous statements of President Lincoln while marketing his unlawful and unconstitutional wartime acts.

President Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress.

What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[...]
The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

As is well known and undeniable, the Supreme Court and Ronald Reagan were correct, President Reagan famously stating:

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

It is self-evident from the Articles of Confederate and the Constitution that the states created the Union, not the other way around. It is self-evident that Virginia declared its independence from Great Britain in June 1776. The historical records of the Congress make it self-evident that for a period of time of six months to more than a year during 1789-90, North Carolina and Rhode Island were not part of the Union. It is self-evident that a state is made up of counties or parishes (Louisiana), and that a county does not contain little counties or parishes. It is self-evident that a state legislature has the power to enact statute laws, and a county legislature does not. When there is a case captioned The People vs. Orenthal .J. Simpson, it is needless to state what people. It is the people of the state of California because it cannot possibly be the people of Los Angeles county. State exericse sovereign powers, counties have no such powers to exercise.

The United States Supreme Court decided, as a matter of law, that Vermont existed as a free and independent state from 1777 to 1791. The Court appointed a Special Master to study and report on "the history of the subject from the creaton of New York and New Hampshire as adjoining Royal Provinces to the admission of Vermont into the Union as an independent State, and also the subsequent acts and claims of Vermont and New Hampshire respecting the subject down to the present time," the present time being 1933 as they spoke.

The colonies werecreated by royal grants from the king of England, e.g., the Royal Grant to the Duke of York in 1664 and 1674. When the original states declared their independence, their status changed from colonies to free states. When Vermont declared independence and waged a successful revolution, it became a free state. So sayeth the United States Supreme Court in a case directly on point.

woodpusher "Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3.
You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied.
It did not.
Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777.
Vermont was explicitly found to have been admitted under clause 1."

In 1933!!
There is no contemporaneous document verifying any distinction of the sort.
See, for example here.

As noted above, the United States Supreme Court, in a case directly on point, held as a matter of law, that from 1777 to 1791, Vermont was a free and independent State, by virtue of successful revolution, and that in 1791 Vermont joined the Union as a free and independent state, with self-appointed borders, and not as a carve out of territory of New York.

The information at your link is nothing more than the approval of Vermont's petition to become a new and entire member of the Union. Note that it states, "The state of Vermont having petitioned the Congress...." The petition was submitted by a free and independent state. When it petitioned, and before it joined the Union, it was already a state.

But I think we can cut to the chase, if we simply compare Vermont to Texas.
Texas was a recognized independent country, with all the trappings & courtesies afforded a real country by foreign powers, including the United States.
Vermont achieved no such status, it called itself a "state" or "commonwealth", its chief executive was a "governor" and it only failed admission to the United States because New York opposed it, pending settlement of boundary claims.
Once those claims were settled -- Vermont paid $30,000 to settle -- then Vermont was quickly admitted, without any navel-gazing over whether clause 1 or clause 2 applied!

Texas cannot be compared to any other state. It was not admitted to the Union. It was annexed.

While your navel-gazing about clause one holds you in thrall, the United States Supreme Court, as a matter of law, in a case directly on point, held that Vermont was NOT admitted pursuant to Clause 1, but was admitted pursuant to Clause 2, as a free and independent state with self-appointed borders.

A commonwealth is "an independent country or community, esp. a demorcratic republic," also "a formal title of some of the states of the U.S., esp. Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia." A governor is "the elected executive head of a state of the U.S.; an official appointed to govern a town or region; the representative of the British Crown in a colony or Commonwealth state that regards the monarch as a head of state."

Whether a state chooses the title of state or commonwealth changes nothing. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is still a state. Whether an independent state chooses to call its chief executive Governor, Grand Poobah, is irrelevant. Whether a state has parishes or counties is irrelevant.

The United States Supreme Court decided the issue with a holding directly on point. That is relevant.

So why does this even matter?
Because our Lost Causers love, love to claim examples of successful secession from the United States and Vermont seems an ideal candidate, to them.
But in fact, Vermont was never officially recognized as a country separate from the United States, and it applied & became a US state at the first possible opportunity.

It matters because some Lincoln idolators cannot admit that their idol lied his ass off and frequently violated the constitution and the statute law. Even when Lincoln's proclamation flies in the face of history and the founding era documents, they will tie themselves in knots trying to defend his most patent falsehoods.

They deny Lincoln used the N-word, but there multiple examples of his usage of that term in public speeches.

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, page 495

Speech at Elwood, Kansas
December 1 [November 30?], 1859

People often ask, "why make such a fuss about a few *******?"

It matters because a false narrative of history is not history.

woodpusher: "I am not the one who (#403) posted: [BroJoeK #403 quoting] OIFVeteran: "There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America."

To which you responded, "...what branch of the Federal government the States are a part of?"
Now, FRiend, you well know that is a stupid question, intended not to enlighten but to befuddle.
The answer is not "what branch of government", but rather "which constitution" governed which states.

NO, it is your attempt to defend the absurd which is stupid.

There are three branches of the federal government. If the States are part of the Government, which branch are they in?

Let us assume clerks in the United States Postal Service (USPS) created a Union and called it the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). [They did.] And let us assume that said Clerks are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the USPS and the APWU. Does it mean clerks are members of the APWU? NO, it does not. Does it mean the APWU created the clerks? NO, it does not. Does it mean the USPS created the clerks? NO, it does not.

The governing document was created by the States. The States created the Union. The members of the Union are the States who chose to join the Union.

There cannot be, and there has not been, any coherent explanation of how a state can be a part of the government.

There cannot be, and there has not been, any coherent explanation of the claim that "two states were not part of the government operating at the time, but they were still a part of the United States of America."

It does not really help to phrase it more coherently to two states not being under jurisdiction of the government, as opposed to being part of the government.

Two states were definitely not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Only states that had ratified the Constitution were members of that Union. Nor were they under the jurisdiction of the Articles of Confederation. That Union had been dissolved. Its unicameral existence had been dissolved.

The Congress under the AoC met September 13, 1788 and Resolved That the first Wednesday in Jany next be the day for appointing Electors in the several states, which before the said day shall have ratified the said Constitution; that the first Wednesday in feby next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective states and vote for a president; And that the first Wednesday in March next be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution.

The Union under the AoC ceased to exist on the first Wednesday in March, 1789. After that, nobody was under its jurisdiction.

[woodpusher #507]: "It does not matter that the U.S. government, when there was one, did not officially recognize Vermont's independence until it entered the union. At the time of admission, and thereafter, they were officially recognized by the U.S. Government to have been previously, and at the time of admission, a free and independent state. Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3. You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied. It did not. Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777."

That is total & complete rubbish, sure, concocted by SCOTUS in 1933, but not by our Founders in 1791.
In fact, the 1791 US law admitting Vermont as the 14th state says nothing -- zero, zip -- about any of it.

While you are replying to #505 on generally the same topic, the quote is from #507. At my #507, the quoted comment is preceded by:

But the key point in all these discussions is that changes to state or territory status & boundaries were accomplished by mutual consent, just as James Madison and the US Constitution require.

Mutual consent, or as the U.S. Supreme Court put it, successful revolution.

Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)

Our conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the Order-in-Council of 1764 would be decisive of the boundary of Vermont upon her admission to the Union were it not for the history of Vermont as a revolutionary government and the consequent uncertainty whether she was admitted under the second clause of Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution as a new state formed out of the territory of New York, with her boundary accordingly determined by that of New York, or whether she was admitted under the first clause of Art. IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries.
The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries. But he also found, as we have said, that Vermont's claims of jurisdiction to the thread of the river were restricted to the low water mark on the western side by resolutions of Congress of August 20, 21, 1781, and their acceptance by resolution of the Vermont Legislature, February 22, 1782. In addition, he found that Vermont was not recognized as an independent state by Congress either under the Articles of Confederation or under the Constitution, but that her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790.

And in my #507, the quoted comment was followed up by:

Article 4, Section 3:

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

The boldfaced part did not apply.

That you are dissatisfied and disagree with the holding of the United States Supreme Court, in a case directly on point, and which decided the precise issue in a manner not to your liking is duly noted.

I would note that the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of abortion in Roe v. Wade in a manner not to the liking of very many, including myself. All of those disagreements with the holding the the Supreme Court amount to bupkus. Roe is still the law of the land.

The Court in 1933 decided the status of Vermont from 1777 to 1791. Vermont joined the union as a free and independent state with self-appointed borders. It achieved independence by its revolution of 1777. When it joined the Union, it did NOT admitted as a part of New York, upon consent of New York.

woodpusher: "How do you invite a state to join a confederacy if it is a member of said confederacy?
How does the legislature of Rhode Island reject said invitation unless it is not a member of said confederacy?"

Before ratifications, each state remained under the United States Articles of Confederation.
The issue was, which constitution would govern them, not which country did they belong to.

That is an ahistorical absurdity. As noted above, the Congress under the AoC (the one and only branch of that government) met September 13, 1788 and Resolved That the first Wednesday in Jany next be the day for appointing Electors in the several states, which before the said day shall have ratified the said Constitution; that the first Wednesday in feby next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective states and vote for a president; And that the first Wednesday in March next be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution.

The AoC ceased effect on the first Wednesday in March 1789. That constitution ceased to be in effect. That Union ceased to exist. That government consisted of only a legislature, and it had been dissolved and governed nobody.

The members of the Union after March 4, 1789 were the state who had ratified the new Constitution. That did not include North Carolina, Rhode Island or Vermont.

woodpusher: "In have not seen it and generally do not take Broadway or Hollywood as historically accurate.
For example, there are many stirring examples of congressional dabate in the Spielberg movie, Lincoln.
Not a word of it was taken from the verbatim records of the actual debates."

In both examples, the dramatized words catch the essence of historical event.

That was the excuse of the gay, liberal writer.

It was ahistorical nonsense. Thaddeus Stevens' most forceful reparteé occurred with an opponent who did not get within a hundred pages of him in the actual transcripts. The alleged debates occurred when Congress was not in session.

For dramatic purposes, two of four Connecticut congressmen voted against the 13th Amendment. In real life all four Connecticut congressmen voted for it. Writer Kushner explained that he changed the names of the two congressmen so no action would be ascribed to them that they had not performed. The essence of the real event was that Connecticut voted all in favor, not a 2-2 dramatic split. The typical viewer would never realize he was conned.

I had provided links to the official Journals of the Continental Congress and asked for a link, cite, quote to the relevant matter.

Standard histories of the time put it this way:

There is not even an oblique reference to the actual records, but to an anonymous Virginia source. As support for you contention, is is sorely wanting.

Virginia's Fifth Revolutionary Convention, meeting in the Capitol at Williamsburg between May 6-July 5, 1776, was the first in North America to write a constitution.
It defined the shape of an independent state government, one that owed no allegiance to King George III.
On May 15, 1776, the convention delegates decided in a unanimous vote to instruct Richard Henry Lee and the other Virginia delegates at the Second Continental Congress to propose that the colonies declare themselves to be independent of Great Britain.
The Fifth Revolutionary Convention also appointed a committee to draft a new form of government for the colony, and that led to adoption of Virginia's first constitution....
Jefferson prepared three drafts of a constitution for Virginia, and even proposed the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia return to Williamsburg to participate in the debate and decision process.

According to him, creating a good alternative to the royal form of government was: 'the whole object of the present controversy'. "
My point is: leadership here came from Congress and Virginians acted "in compliance" with Congress's wishes.

Your "point" is to creatively render the passage to something it emphatically is not. It says not one thing about what the Continental Congress did or did not do. It states that the Virginia Fifth Revolutioary Convention delegates decided to do something, that said Virginia delegates to said convention appointed a committee to draft a new form of government for the colony of Virginia, and Jefferson, a very prominent Virginian, prepared three drafts of a constitution for Virginia for that Convention, and Jefferson even proposed that the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia return to Wiliamsburg, Virginia to participate in the debate and decision process in Virginia.

There is not a word about the leadership of the Continental Congress on the issue.

I gave you the direct links to the records of the Journals of the Continental Congress. Your using an unrelated narrative source seems to be an admission that you could not find any agreeable record of the matter in those records. It does not involve a great deal of reading. It is only about a month and a half of proceedings.

I also provided a link to John Adams Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, 13–15 May 1776.

[from the Diary of John Adams]

(footnotes omitted - some interesting content but subject to copyright)

[Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, 13–15 May 1776.] 1
Mr. Duane moves that the Delegation from N. York might be read.2
When We were invited by Mass. Bay to the first Congress an Objection was made to binding ourselves by Votes of Congress.
Congress ought not to determine a Point of this Sort, about instituting Government. What is it to Congress, how Justice is administered. You have no Right to pass the Resolution—any more than Parliament has.
How does it appear that no favourable Answer is likely to be given to our Petitions? Every Account of foreign Aid, is accompanied with an Account of Commissioners.3
Why all this Haste? Why this Urging? Why this driving?—Disputes about Independence are in all the Colonies. What is this owing to, but our Indiscretion?
I shall take the Liberty of informing my Constituents that I have not been guilty of a Breach of Trust. I do protest vs. this Piece of Mechanism, this Preamble.
If the Facts in this Preamble should prove to be true, there will not be one Voice vs. Independence.
I suppose the Votes have been numbered and there is to be a Majority.4
McKean. Construes the Instructions from N. York as Mr. Sherman does, and thinks this Measure the best to produce Harmony with G. Britain. There are now 2 Governments in direct Opposition to each other. Dont doubt that foreign Mercenaries are coming to destroy Us. I do think We shall loose our Liberties, Properties and Lives too, if We do not take this Step.
S. Adams. We have been favoured with a Reading of the Instructions from N. York. I am glad of it. The first Object of that Colony is no doubt the Establishment of their Rights. Our Petitions have not been heard—yet answered with Fleets and Armies and are to be answered with Mirmidons from abroad. The Gentleman from N. York, Mr. Duane, has not objected to the Preamble, but this—he has not a Right to vote for it.5 We cant go upon stronger Reasons, than that the King has thrown us out of his Protection. Why should We support Governments under his Authority? I wonder the People have conducted so well as they have.
Mr. Wilson. Was not present in Congress when the Resolution pass’d, to which this Preamble is proposed. I was present and one of the Committee, who reported the Advice to Mass. Bay.6 N. Hampshire, Carolina and Virginia, had the same Advice, and with my hearty Concurrence.
The Claims of Parliament will meet with Resistance to the last Extremity. Those Colonies were Royal Governments. They could not subsist without some Government.
A Maxim, that all Government originates from the People. We are the Servants of the People sent here to act under a delegated Authority. If we exceed it, voluntarily, We deserve neither Excuse nor Justification.
Some have been put under Restraints by their Constituents. They cannot vote, without transgressing this Line. Suppose they should hereafter be called to an Account for it. This Province has not by any public Act, authorized us to vote upon this Question. This Province has done much and asked little from this Congress. The Assembly, largely increased, will [not]7 meet till next Monday. Will the Cause suffer much, if this Preamble is not published at this Time? If the Resolve is published without the Preamble. The Preamble contains a Reflection upon the Conduct of some People in America. It was equally irreconcileable to good Conscience Nine Months ago, to take the Oaths of Allegiance, as it is now. Two respectable Members last February, took the Oath of Allegiance in our Assembly. Why should We expose any Gentlemen to such an invidious Reflection?
In Magna Charta, there is a Clause, which authorises the People to seize the K[ing]’s Castles, and opposes his Arms when he exceeds his duty.
In this Province if that Preamble passes there will be an immediate Dissolution of every Kind of Authority. The People will be instantly in a State of Nature. Why then precipitate this Measure. Before We are prepared to build the new House, why should We pull down the old one, and expose ourselves to all the Inclemencies of the Season.8
R. H. Lee. Most of the Arguments apply to the Resolve and not to the Preamble.

The instruction to the New York delegates stated, “to concert and determine upon such measures, as shall be judged most effectual for the preservation and reestablishment of American rights and priviledges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies.” The New York delegates were held to this restriction until July 9, 1776.

Note the Founder statement that if it passes, the people will instantly be in a state of nature. It does not state that they will become members of indestructible, indissolluble states united in an indestructible, indissoluble union with an undecided, unknown form of government. The leadership of the Convention was to affirm that they had not been authorized to vote on such a thing.

The Continental Congress was not the moving force. It was Virginia's adoption of a constitution, declaring its independence from Great Britain, that was the impelling force that got the Continental Congress to act.

The First Inaugural Address of President Davis to the Provisional Congress was delivered Febuary 19, 1861.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(cc00118)):

Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 [Volume I]
TUESDAY, February 19, 1861.
Page 64 | Page image
[...]
The inaugural address of the President was received, spread upon the Journal, and is as follows:
Gentlemen of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, Friends, and Fellow Citizens:
Called to the difficult and responsible station of Chief Executive of the Provisional Government which yen have instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned to me with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with a sustaining confidence in the wisdom of those who are to guide and to aid me in the administration of public affairs and an abiding faith in the virtue and patriotism of the people.
Looking forward to the speedy establishment of a permanent government to take the place of this, and which by its greater moral and physical power will be better able to combat with the many difficulties which arise from the conflicting interests of separate nations, I enter upon the duties of the office to which I have been chosen with the hope that the beginning of our career as a Confederacy may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our enjoyment of the separate existence and independence which we have asserted, and, with the blessing of Providence, intend to maintain. Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea, that governments rest upon the consenter the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.
The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned the Government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise they, as sovereigns, were the final judges,
Page 65 | Page image
each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.
Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional duty, moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal teeny measures of defense which honor and security may require.
An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but. little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued. Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity, and to obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause.
As a consequence of our new condition and with a view to meet anticipated wants, it will be necessary to provide for the speedy and efficient organization of branches of the executive department, having special charge of foreign intercourse, finance, military affairs, and the postal service.
For purposes of defense, the Confederate States may, under ordinary circumstances, rely mainly upon their militia, but it is deemed advisable, in the present condition of affairs, that there should be a well-instructed and disciplined army, more numerous than would usually be required on a peace establishment. I also suggest that for the protection of our harbors and commerce on the high seas a navy adapted to those objects will be required. These necessities have doubtless engaged the attention of Congress.
With a Constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known intent, freed from the sectional conflicts which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare, it is not unreasonable to expect that States from which we have recently parted may seek to unite their fortunes with ours under the Government which we have instituted. For this your Constitution makes adequate provision; but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will of the people, a reunion with the States from which we have separated is neither practicable nordesirable. To increase the power, develop the resources, and promote the happiness of a confederacy, it is requisite that there should be so much of homogeneity that the welfare of every portion shall be the aim of the whole. Where this does not exist, antagonisms are engendered which must and should result in separation.
Page 66 | Page image
Actuated solely by the desire to preserve on r own rights and promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others and followed by no domestic convulsion. Our industrial pursuits have received no check. The cultivation of our fields has progressed as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports and in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. This common interest of the producer and consumer can only be interrupted by an exterior force which should obstruct its transmission to foreign markets—a course of conduct which would be as unjust toward us as it would be detrimental to manufacturing and commercial interests abroad. Should reason guide the action of the Government from which we have separated, a policy so detrimental to the civilized world, the Northern States included, could not be dictated by even the strongest desire to inflict injury upon us; but otherwise a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our aggressors. In the meantime there will remain to us, besides the ordinary means before suggested, the well-known resources for retaliation upon the commerce of an enemy.
Experience in public stations, of subordinate grade to this which your kindness has conferred, has taught me that care and toil and disappointment are the price of official elevation. You will see many errors to forgive, many deficiencies to tolerate, but you shall not find in me either a want of zeal or fidelity to the cause that is to me highest in hope and of most enduring affection. Your generosity has bestowed upon me an undeserved distinction, one which I neither sought nor desired. Upon the continuance of that sentiment and upon your wisdom and patriotism I rely to direct and support me in the performance of the duty required at my hands.
We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system of our Government. The Constitution formed by our fathers is that of these Confederate States, in their exposition of it, and in the judicial construction it has received, we have a light which reveals its true meaning.
Thus instructed as to the just interpretation of the instrument, and ever remembering that all offices are but trusts held for the people, and that delegated powers are to be strictly construed, I will hope, by due diligence in the performance of my duties, though I may disappoint your expectations yet to retain when retiring, something of the good will and confidence winch welcome my entrance into office.
It is joyous, in the midst of perilous times, to look around upon a people united in heart, where one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole--where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honor and right and liberty and equality. Obstacles may retard, they can not long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice, and sustained by a virtuous people. Reverently let us invoke the God of our fathers to guide and protect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles which, by His blessing, they were able to vindicate, establish and transmit to their posterity, and with a continuance of His favor, ever gratefully acknowledged, we may hopefully look forward to success, to peace, and to prosperity.
On motion of Mr. Nisbet,
Congress went into secret session; and after spending some time therein, adjourned till 12 o'clock to-morrow.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

President Davis again addressed the Provisional Congress on April 29, 1861. He did address the centralization or consolidation of the government and the States, and he did use the word slave or some variant thereof 24 times.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(cc00141))

Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 [Volume I]
PROVISIONAL CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES.
Page 159 | Page image
SECOND SESSION (CALLED), APRIL 29, 1861, TO MAY 21, 1861.
Montgomery, Monday, April 29, 1861.
OPEN SESSION.
In response to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, the Congress convened in extra session at the Capitol in Montgomery at the hour of noon on the 29th day of April, A. D. 1861.
[...]
Page 160 | Page image
In order to guard against any misconstruction of their compact, the several States made explicit declaration, in a distinct article, that "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."
Under this contract of alliance, the war of the Revolution was successfully waged, and resulted in the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783, by the terms of which the several States were, each by name, recognized to be independent.
The articles of confederation contained a clause whereby all alterations were prohibited, unless confirmed by the legislatures of every State, after being agreed to by the Congress; and in obedience to this provision, under the resolution of Congress of the 21st February, 1787, the several States appointed delegates who attended a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
It was by the delegates chosen by the several States under the resolution just quoted that the Constitution of the United States was framed in 1787, and submitted to the several States for ratification, as shown by the seventh article, which is in these words:
"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."
I have italicised certain words in the quotations just made for the purpose of attracting attention to the singular and marked caution with which the States endeavored, in every possible form, to exclude the idea that the separate and independent sovereignty of each State was merged into one common government and nation, and the earnest desire they evinced to impress on the Constitution its true character--that of a compact BETWEEN independent States.
Page 161 | Page image
The Constitution of 1787 having, however, omitted the clause already recited from the articles of confederation, which provided in explicit terms that each State retained its sovereignty and independence, some alarm was felt in the States when invited to ratify the Constitution lest this omission should be construed into an abandonment of their cherished principle, and they refused to be satisfied until amendments were added to the Constitution placing beyond any pretense of doubt the reservation by the States of all their sovereign rights and powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true, that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs; the creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.
[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

President Davis delivered his Second Inaugural address on February 22, 1862.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(cc0028))

Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 [Volume 2
] SATURDAY, February 22, 1862.
OPEN SESSION.
Mr. Orr, from the joint committee to superintend the arrangements for the inauguration of the President and Vice-President of the Confederate States, presented a report in relation thereto; which was read.
Ordered, That it lie upon the table.
Page 15 | Page image
On motion by Mr. Orr,
Ordered, That the Senate take a recess until 25 minutes past 11 o'clock.
11 O'CLOCK AND 25 MINUTES.
On motion by Mr. Barnwell,
The Senate proceeded, in the order prescribed by the report of the committee of arrangements, to the hall of the house of delegates of Virginia, thence by the eastern door of the capitol to the statute of Washington, on the public square, where, after the delivery of his inaugural address, the oath of office was administered to the President of the Confederate States by the Hon. J. D. Halyburton, judge of the district court for the eastern judicial district of the Confederate States of America in Virginia; and to the Vice-President by the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, President pro tempore of the Senate.
The Senate having returned to their Chamber,
On motion by Mr. Clay,
The Senate adjourned until Monday morning at 12 o'clock.

The text of the Second Inaugural speech may be viewed here.

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.