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.
Actually it is binding and was used as precedent as recently as 2010 by the Alaska Supreme Court in Kohlass vs the Lt Governer of Alaska.
https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2010/s-13024-1.html
Really? No lack of arrogance on your part, is there?
Lack of motivation for the cause had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy’s defeat. If anything the South was much more united in support of its cause than the North.
And yet it was the North who held together and won.
The idea of going to war to prevent secession was Lincoln’s goal, but neither that idea nor Lincoln himself were particularly popular at the beginning of the war.
I submit that once the South started the war then the Union united to a greater extent than the South did.
This became even more pronounced with the seemingly endless string of Southern military victories in the Eastern theater. The South’s best chance to win was to parley those victories into increased Nothern opposition to the war and force a negotiated peace recognizing an independent Confederacy. It was only Union successes at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that began to turn the tide.
I would submit that it was actually the prior year, when Lee was defeated at Antietam and Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, that guaranteed the rebel defeat because that ended forever any chance that Great Britain, or any other European power, would recognize Confederate independence or interfere in the Confederate side.
But I really need to study some history so what the heck do I know, right?
The a South lost primarily because of the larger population and industrial base of the North.
The colonists faced a larger population and a larger industrial base in Great Britain and yet the wanted their independence enough to overcome those obstacles and win their rebellion. The Southern state made poor decision after poor decision and by the end and lost their desire to win. That is the basic difference between the two 'American Revolutions'.
The insistence of states on maintaining control of their own troops often was harmful to the war effort, but was a consequence of the cause, not an abandonment of it.
Nonsense. Davis took control of the state troops when he passed conscription in 1862 and extended all enlistments for the duration of the war. It was the Union where states retained control. The Union army could have faded away to nothing in 1864 when the three year enlistments ran out. Yet the overwhelming majority re-enlisted and served to the end.
The beauty of state session is that it requires no packing.
SCOTUS decisions are the final word, until a constitutional amendment is passed negating the ruling, or the supreme court reverses it’s ruling in another case. That is how are system works.
Most certainly the United States was meant to be a nation and has been a nation since July 4th 1776. George Washington himself told us in his farewell address that “The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”
In other words we should think of ourselves as Americans first before anything else.
You really seem to hate America. Perhaps your on the wrong website? Perhaps Democratic Underground or DailyKos would be more your speed? I’ve heard they really hate America over there.
Well I can tell you this. If California, Texas, or any other state decides to secede because they don’t like who won a free and fair election then I will volunteer to come out of retirement and defend America against such treasonous acts. Hell, if I have to I’ll resign my commission and enlist as an almost 50 years old private to do so.
You can love your state and you local region and despise the Federal government and still be a great American. This is possible. But to a state-ist thug savage like you that is not a possibility.
You will find me on the other side of that line.
“Think of the recent Brexit vote.”
Poor analogy.
The EU treaty’s paragraph 50, lays out the procedures for formal and legal withdrawal from the European Union by a member state.. Great Britain is following the required procedures.
Did South Carolina follow the procedures laid out in the Consitution for withdrawing from the United States?
“If you hate America so much you should probably leave.”
You have misunderstood and imaged more.
Now go read your entire Federal Register.
For the first time.
I guess the irony of your posting on a website called FREE REPUBLIC is lost on you.
The Constitution is still silent on state secession.
Tolerated is the correct verb, at least among the Founders’ generation. Many of the Founders were well aware that slavery was morally wrong. Most believed that it should be ended. However economics and factionalism prevented them from doing more to end it. By the time of the Civil War, the system was so entrenched in the Southern economy that there was no hope of voluntary abolition. It is true that Southerners argued for slavery as a positive good, but at least IMO, that was in response to the moral arguments that the abolition movement put forth. Without the economic basis slavery would probably have disappeared. Certainly people in the North, despite the overly simplistic understanding of the Civil War currently prevalent, were not more morally enlightened than those in the South. Northerners, even most abolitionists, would never have favored equality for Black people. Why then was slavery eliminated in the North long before the war? Simple economics, the industrial economy worked better with paid labor.
The Constitution is good in many ways, but it really should have had an “escape clause” or else a flat statement that no state can ever leave. Either way. The Founders gave us a way to Amend the articles but no way to reduce the membership in the union. To me, that was a major mistake.
I guess, since the Constitution is silent on the subject, the Supreme Court decision on the secession of Texas is the final word on the issue. At least for the time being.
Imagine how things would have turned out if the Founding Fathers had put a specific paragraph in the Constitution as to whether slavery was legal, or illegal .
The power to determine whether or not a state wishing you secede may do so is not specifically granted to the Federal Government. The Tenth Amendment states that any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the states or the people. Therefore, the power to determine whether a state may secede belongs to the state government.
Therefore there is a legal argument for secession. Where people have a problem is that we tend to judge historical events through the lens of our own perspective. The US simply wasn’t seen as a true nation by the people living here prior to the war. If you asked a farmer in the Shenandoah Valley where he was from, it would never have even crossed his mind to say “America”. His natural response would have been “Virginia”. That’s where the analogy to the EU comes in. I would guess that nobody in Europe calls themselves Europeans. It just isn’t a country. Admittedly the modern EU is more loosely united than the antebellum US was, but the political and legal analogy remains. It’s kind of an ex post facto justification to condemn the Confederacy for being traitorous since the legality of secession was an open question at the time it happened.
Nowhere in the 10th Amendment or in the Constitution itself will you find the word 'specifically'. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in the McCulloch v. Maryland decision, in the Constitution "here is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument." The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to admit a state. Once allowed to join, Congressional approval is needed for a state to split, combine with another state, or alter their borders in any way at all. It is not great stretch to conclude that Congressional approval is needed to leave entirely as well. The power to approve secession is a power delegated to the United States and not the states themselves.
Try a different analogy, namely the modernn EU and Brexit: (B = Brexit)
Was the leaving party a full member of the body politic
ACW yes, B yes
Did the leaving party enter willfully and freely into the government
ACW yes B yes
Did the leaving party have full representation in that government
ACW yes. B yes
Did the leaving party attempt to have their grievances redressed (Leaving our the beginning of hostilities here since it’s not applicable to Brexit)
ACW yes*. B yes
The leaving party left because of substantial disagreement with the government over what they believed to be a critical issue
ACW yes (slavery). B yes (immigration policy)
* I take issue with your judgement that the South did not try to have their grievances redressed before resorting to war. Most of the significant historical events of the first half of the 19th century dealt with the South trying to secure its interests through the political process and the compromises that were reached with the North that postponed hostilities. The war would have likely begun at least 40 years sooner had the South truly not attempted to have their grievances peacefully redressed.
I also am not addressing the legitimacy of the reason for secession in these two cases, only the legitimacy of the act of secession. The act of secession itself can be legitimate even if the reason for that secession is repugnant (as was the case for the Confederacy). There are those who might argue the same for Brexit as well, claiming it’s based on xenophobia and white supremacy. I reject that characterization, however. A sovereign state has the right to control it’s borders and immigration policies.
“The Confederacy lost the war against the United States, the charge of treason against the principal Confederate leaders, is not unreasonable to consider.”
It was considered and was rejected. The objective on both sides after the surrenders was to achieve reconciliation and to heal the wounds (emotional and psychological) on both sides. Lee and Grant both worked toward those ends. Radical Republicans wanted revenge but cooler heads, fortunately, prevailed.
Today, it appears that the Black political movement wants both emotional and psychological revenge regardless of the wounds it will open. Their “feelings” are being exploited by radical left-wing politicians (Pelosi, Schumer) in order to cast President Trump as a modern “boogie man” threatening people of color. DJT is fighting uphill against the neurolinguistic programming the media is producing against him and in support of the Black politicians as well as radical left-wingers. God help us if they succeed.
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.