Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
This past weekend, my son and I went on his troop's annual father-son hike. His troop is one of many in the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which is headquartered in Richmond, VA.
On Sunday, during the church service at the end of the hike, it was announced that the Council directors had voted to change its name from The Robert E. Lee Council, which has been in use for many decades, to something else.
This morning, the news broke on the local radio station: WRVA 1140 AM, Richmond's Morning News with Jimmy Barrett.
OK, that makes sense to me then. I don't believe that I have ever advocated the payment of the tarrif as the cause for secession; its very existence, in the view of the South, was an overstepping of federal authority - their primary complaint.
So those who wish to complain about the South using secession to 'overturn an election' only have to explain to me why the South should have believed that Lincoln, who ran on a platform of tariff power abuse, would not have attempted to carry it out.
Fine by me! You'll notice that Walt never posts it when he makes his claim, or at most excerpts that one line while neglecting the rest.
Oh, I've posted that whole letter before. Think I'll do it again.
This is from a previous thread a hile back:
Lee did write such a letter.
Then post it! Show your evidence and let others check its context!
I've posted it before:
Robert E. Lee
to
Andrew Hunter
Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia
January 11, 1865
Hon. Andrew Hunter
Richmond, Va.:
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.
Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.
Should the war continue under the existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which must be produced upon our social institutions. My opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.
There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength and enable us to relieve our white population to some extent. I think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond.
I can only say in conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at once. Every day's delay increases the difficulty. Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R.E. Lee,
General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Reprinted in Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, series IV, volume III (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), pages 1012-1013.
Also see this website:
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/LeeHunter.html
But Lee is a great hero, and Lincoln is a bum. Neo-rebs are nothing but white supremacists. There is no other rationale for the positions you take.
Walt
No, that wouldn't have been sufficient. As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that is what occurred. The states that seceeded held conventions made up of their state representatives. The Constitution is a national and federal government. That is why there is a US Congress. That is the national body of the people.
The questions of secession--may it be permitted and shall it be permitted--belong to the national government, first to the Congress, and, if challenged, to the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, even though these questions were clearly a controversy between the states, the question was never tested according to the Constitutional means provided. There was a presidential election. The slave states did not care for the outcome. And so they forced the issue.
It was the all the people--nationally--who ratified the Constitution. They did so, however, in the form of the several states, as Madison liked to say, "acting in their most sovereign capacity", which is to say, by the representative will of the people. But as Madison has pointed out:
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy......The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.
It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.
The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.
Letter to Daniel Webster, 1833
Anarchy and despotism, he says. You see, it is the people who gave the Constitution its authority, which, so long as it remains in force, is supreme. Madison mentions two scenarios whereby a state may remove its constitutional obligation: annullment or revolution. The Constitution was not annulled. Therefore, the only Constitutional context for the actions of the slave states was revolution. As I have said, they are judged by history as to whether their case was justifiably extreme or not. They fail that test completely.
Madison's letter to Daniel Webster is a great read. Like a Rosetta stone of the secession question. By the way, the speech Madison praises Webster for is his Second Reply to Haine. You should read it if you haven't.
There were less than a dozen rapes by Sherman's 60,000 men on the march across GA and into the Carolinas. For an operation of this type they were very well behaved.
Walt
"In October, 1864, General Lee wrote to General Grant as follows: "To alleviate the sufferings of our soldiers, I propose the exchange of prisoners of war taken by the armies operating in Virginia man for man, upon the basis established by the Cartel."
On the next day General Grant replied as follows: "I could not of right accept your proposition further than to exchange prisoners captured within the last three days, and who have not yet been delivered to the commanding General of prisoners. Among those lost by the armies around Richmond were a number of colored troops. Before further negotiations can be had upon the subject, I would ask if you propose to exchange these men the same as white soldiers?"
General Lee said, in rejoinder: "Deserters from our service, and Negroes belonging to our citizens, are not considered as subjects of exchange."
-- Getysburg Press
Lee was a strong suppporter of slavery, and no other interpretation will stand up to the record.
Walt
Those who fought in both Blue and Grey did so for God and country. While it is reasonable to question their methods, their motives were pure. Can the same be said of the men (again, on either side) who agitated for war and sent them? Our modern military embraces both armies as their forefathers; and in doing otherwise you do a disservice to all American servicemen.
Lee was a military leader. The military victory of the North was decisive; Lee and the Confederate Army abided by it. The politics of the war remain an interesting topic of debate.
Those who fought in both Blue and Grey did so for God and country. While it is reasonable to question their methods, their motives were pure.
I don't think so. More and more people were becoming uncomfortable with slavery. The British outlawed slavery in 1833. The motives of the slave holders were anything -but- pure. This was noted at the time, it is not a generational judgment.
The leading secessionists had a large part of their net worth in slaves. The FMV of slaves in the south totalled more than the FMV of the land in the south, I believe.
The slave holders hardened their hearts and fought for slavery tooth and nail. There might be some question that the common soldiers were not fighting for slavery, although they seem to have at least been fighting for white supremacy. To the extent they fought -not- for slavery, they were the dupes of the slave power.
Abraham Lincoln, who favored an end to slavery, was vilified in the south -because he opposed slavery.
The situation was -not- what you say it was.
Walt
I am still not able to think directly about that statue. It is one of those things that makes me so angry that I need to try to ignore it. Even now, I am not going to attempt to put my feelings into writing.
I have tremendous respect for Lincoln and I think it is good for the country that the North prevailed. But that statue does not belong there.
Why not?
Walt
France, Spain, Holland, to name just a few......
Speaking with forked tongue again, Walt? What about Beast Butler and the guy he hanged for taking down a US flag? William Mumford was his name.
Here in Virginia, quite a few.
As relatively a new resident of central VA, it has been amusing trying to navigate. The roads all seem to be named "Lee" or "Jackson" or "Lee-Jackson". To make matters even worse, the road numbers don't follow the highway names. They twist around, with no apparent logic or pattern. More than once I have had to navigate off the sun.
If you ever come here, bring a GPS device.
And if anyone ever tells you that their address is 26450 Lee-Jackson Highway, rest assured that you will never find it.
Madison's letter does not seem to me to deny the right of revolution by secession, and he sporadically uses qualifiers like, whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved in his argument.
As for history being the judge of their justification, I would hold out declaring it final - as it's not over yet. If you believe, as I do, that (perceived?) abuse of power was the reason for secession, then we are clearly living the legacy of the war in extraconstitutional federal actions by all three branches of government: Roe, Brady Bill, Assault weapons import ban, affirmative action, on and on.
Clearly at some point along the line of usurpation of power, the level of abuse is no longer justified; nor will it be tolerated by a free people. I would have to say, "Jury's still out on this one."
Walt, I know your position on this. For us to get into a debate would be like pissing in the wind. We don't agree, and we never will.
I consider erecting that statue to be about the same as painting a swastika on the grave of a Jew.
I know you do not agree with or relate to that. And, again, I do have respect for Lincoln and I do think it is good for the country that the North prevailed.
Still, that statue is a desecration.
And like I said, to question the motives of those who agitated for secession is fine and dandy, we can argue about it all day long. Once the Confederacy was formed, its men took arms for defense of their country. As such, they are not deserving of the contempt that you show for them.
Abraham Lincoln, who favored an end to slavery, was vilified in the south -because he opposed slavery.
Perhaps you could call him on the time-phone and tell him that he favored an end to slavery. He certainly favored an end to its territorial expansion, but made no bones about its existence.
Of course, now you've caught yourself in a catch-22. You can post a Lincoln quote that sounds favorable to ending slavery, which is also no doubt genuine. It may be fair to say that the lack of a national press at the time allowed him to "tailor his message to the immediate audience" -- today we call it a "lie."
I am aware that they aided the colonists, but did they recognize it in it's official, independent capacity? I admit that I do not know the answer - just trying to educate myself.
Speaking with forked tongue again, Walt? What about Beast Butler and the guy he hanged for taking down a US flag? William Mumford was his name.
I should have said civilian authorities. Butler's action was not cleared by Washington. If he had done that, Mumford probably would have been spared. Here's a letter of President Lincoln's:
Hon Secretary of War
Executive Mansion
Washington July 28, 1963
My Dear Sir,
A young son of the Senator Brown of Mississippi, not yet twenty, as I understand, was wounded, and made a prisoner at Gettysburg. His mother is sister of Mrs. P. R. Fendall, of this city. Mr. Fendall, on behalf of himself and family, asks that he and they may have charge of the boy, to cure him up, being responsible for his person and good behavior. Would it not be a grateful and graceful thing to let them have him?
Yours Truly,
A. Lincoln
You are putting up blue smoke and mirrors to hide southern atrocities that dwarfed anything ever done by the north.
Here are 40 names for you to note along with Mumford's. They are the loyal Texans hanged simply for being loyal to the old flag
Nathaniel, Clark, Wernell, Richard Martin, Grandpaw Burch, H.J. Esmond, Ward, Evans, Clem Woods, Wolsey, Manon, Leffel, A. B. McNeice, Wash Moirris, Wesley Morris, Thomas Floyd (shot), John Crisp, James Powers, Rama Dye, J. Dawson, Wiley, K. Morris, Barnes, Milburn, W. Anderson, Gross, Ward,, Dr. Johnson, Childs, Senir, Childs, Junior, Hampton, Locke, Foster, Fields, D. Anderson, D. Taylor, R. Manton, Jones, carmichael, Henry Cochran.
Walt
Yes. France recognized the United States and signed treaties of commerce and friendship and a formal alliance in February 1778. Benjamin Franklin was accorded ministerial status. The U.S. Congress ratified the treaties in May and by June 14, 1778 France was at war with Great Britain in accordance with the terms of the treaty. Spain followed with formal recognition and war with Great Britain shortly thereafter.
Contrast that with the confederacy which was officially recognized by no country.
That's hate speech.
Gee, maybe I should suggest that you be banned.
Oh well.
"Mr. WINIK: Yeah. Yeah, Cit--City Point is--is in Virginia, and it's where U.S. Grant, the commanding general of the Union armies--where he had his floating--his floating fortress. City Camp was, in effect, an armed command post for the Northern Army as they were encircling the--Lee's army in--in Petersburg and in Richmond. And they met it on March 27th and March 28th, where Lincoln actually wanted to see the front lines and confer with his commanding generals.
And it was from City Point that--that Lincoln, in that same meeting that he--he talks about his fears of guerrilla warfare, in the same meeting where he talks about his fear that this--there will be a final bloody Armageddon, he does something quite unique. Abraham Lincoln says--he says, `When this war is over, there must be no hangings, there must be no bloody work.' And, of course, what is--what is sort of looming large in his mind is the specter of the French Revolution, because it--it loomed large in the minds of all Americans. And, of course, to remind our listeners and our viewers here, in the French Revolution, the revolutionaries started out with the best of intentions, and before everybody knew it, they were guillotining the opposition, and before everybody knew it, they were guillotining each other, and before everybody knew it, it would engulf all of a continent.
-- Interview with Jay Winek, author of "April, 1865"
------------------------------------------------------------ "Once the three stood agreed on the terms, Sherman and Johnston signed it and Sherman called for copies to be made for their two governments. He then he spoke to the two Confederates of Lincoln's assassination. [General Joe]Johnston confided to Sherman his horror at the deed, fearing it would be blamed on the Confederates, and that Lincoln might have been their greatest ally in reconstruction." Stepping outside to their now mingled escorts, they found the news generally known, as Sherman introduced the two of them to his staff, and Breckinridge and Reagan discussed it with some of their followers. The postmaster said he hoped no connection between the murdered and their cause would be found, or it should go hard for them, while [Secretary of War] Breckinridge said Lincoln's death at this time and in this manner must precipitate great calamity for them. "Gentlemen," he told them, “the South has lost its best friend." At once he wrote a message to be taken by courier to Davis, announcing the assassination and what he called the "dastardly attempt" on Seward. As soon as he got back to Goldsboro and the telegraph, he would send a wire with more details Sherman also took Breckinridge aside privately and advised him that despite the provision for universal amnesty in their agreement, he doubted that the North would allow it to apply o the civil leaders. If they could, they had all better leave the country especially Davis. Noting that there was particular hostility toward Breckinridge since, as one-time vice president, he was the highest ranking living civilian to go over to the rebellion he advised the Kentuckian to be sure to get away. Breckinridge replied that he would give the Yankees no more trouble on his own account, and that he would attempt to get Davis and himself and the rest out of the country as soon as possible.
-"An Honorable Defeat" pp.166-67 by William C. Davis
"...in the wake of the assasination, editors, generals and public officials across the South voiced the opinion that the region had lost its best friend. Indignation meetings, so-called, were convened in many places. Lincoln stood for peace, mercy, and forgiveness. His loss, therefore, was a calamity for the defeated states. This opinion was sometimes ascribed to Jefferson Davis, even though he stood accused of complicity in the assasination....He [Davis] read the telegram [bringing news of Lincoln's death] and when it brought an exultant shout raised his hand to check the demonstration..."He had power over the Northern people," Davis wrote in his memoir of the war," and was without malignity to the southern people."
...Alone of the southern apologists, [Alexander] Stephens held Lincoln in high regard. "The Union with him in sentiment," said the Georgian, "rose to the sublimnity of religious mysticism...in 1873 "Little Elick" Stephens, who again represented his Georgia district in Congress, praised Lincoln for his wisdom, kindness and generosity in a well-publicized speech seconding the acceptance of the gift of Francis B. Carpenter's famous painting of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation."...[in 1880] a young law student at the University of Virginia, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, speaking for the southern generation that grew to maturity after the war, declared, "I yield to no one precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy".
...the leading proponent of that creed was Henry W. Grady, editor of the Atlanta Constitution. In 1886 Grady, thirty-six years old, was invited to address the New England Society of New York, on the 266th anniversary to the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. General Sherman, seated on the platform, was an honored guest, and the band played [I am not making this up] "Marching Through Georgia" before Grady was introduced. Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character. "Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
I think Mr. Lincoln's memory can withstand your assault.
Walt
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.