Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
Oh, you have positive knowledge that the movie was wrong? That's interesting. Can you share it?
Walt
Thanks, that's interesting stuff.
Contrast that with the confederacy which was officially recognized by no country.
The US provisional government was recognized by three countries that had interest in a military alliance against a common foe. Were there any disinterested parties to chime in?
I don't think that's what I said. I said it takes less than the unanimous will of states to change their government. Look at the amendment process. Look at judicial appeals. The Constitution provides many avenues for change.
You speak of the role of states as a check on the national government, but what about the reverse? If all the states agreed to violate the Constitution, what then? The Constitution is the law. The men who exist under it will do a varying job of enforcing it. State and Federal governments will fail from time to time. I am fairly certain the Framers knew this. That is not cause for revolution. It is a fact of life.
Madison's letter does not seem to me to deny the right of revolution by secession,
The water can't get any muddier than you are making it here. Revolution by secession? Talk about having your cake and eating it too! He clearly denounces secession and nullification as illegitimate doctrine. He praises Webster for the most famous pro-Union speech ever delivered in Congress, and goes on to explain exactly why Calhoun was wrong.
and he sporadically uses qualifiers like, whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved in his argument.
That's more than a mere qualifier. What he said is this: "...without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to." The compact in 1860 remained undissolved.
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.
I don't believe it's anything as painfully oversimplified as that. Sectionalism, and its various interests, was the cause of the Civil War. Some of that goes back to the earliest days of the republic--the retirement of the war debt, for one example. Banking, for another. The debate of what is and what is not Constitutional has always existed. Look at the famous Henry-Madison ratification debates. It isn't as if there was clear agreement until the rascally Republicans came along. Our system was never so perfect.
And the abuses of government have occurred at all levels. In some cases, the states have been the villains. Jim Crow comes to mind. In other cases, it has been the Feds. In the best cases, one arm of government has provided a check against the other. In all cases, there has been a lot of bathwater with the baby. That's government. As they say, if you can think of a better system...
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."
Here is the problem. If we have to resort to violence to solve this problem of government abuse, then the American experiment is a failure. Those are the stakes.
We have state representation. We have local representation. We have a US Congress with a Senate and a House. We have a President that we elect. We have a judicial system. We have a Constitution which is amendable, and which has been amended. We have survived assassinations, civil war, corruption, crime, divided public opinion, injustice, racism, etc.
If we as a people cannot use these mechanisms, if we in our prosperous and free land cannot use our system to create sustainable liberty balanced with order, than America is a failure and civilization is back to the drawing board.
So, let's say it gets really obnoxious and we do it your way--the bloody French way--and heads roll. What then?
What disinterested parties were there in 18th century Europe?
LOL. I simply called you on one of your overstatements.
The reverse has never been in question, from the early days of the republic. To my knowledge no effort on the part of the individual states has ever succeeded in checking federal power. The WBTS being a prime example thereof.
All the states would not need to conspire to violate the Constitution, as they have the amendment process available to them. Unfortunately, it takes a simple majority with a willing accomplice in the oval office or the court to dominate the majority through extraconstitutional rule.
The water can't get any muddier than you are making it here. Revolution by secession? Talk about having your cake and eating it too! He clearly denounces secession and nullification as illegitimate doctrine.
I think Madison muddied the water with this line, then: "The latter (secession) is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy..."
Not exctly the resounding denunciation you're making it out to be. Did not Madison believe that revolution was a sacred right of the people?
Sectionalism, and its various interests, was the cause of the Civil War.
Sectionalism has taken on a new meaning in modern America; the 'red map' from the 2K election makes that clear. When urban political ideology begins to dominate all aspects of our lives, what peaceful recourse will we have? Let's all hope that one can be found and that our leaders have learned from lessons past.
Here is the problem. If we have to resort to violence to solve this problem of government abuse, then the American experiment is a failure.
I think you're assuming an outcome. Violence was not the desire of the South, separation was. Is cohesion implied in the American experiment? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since cohesion is, however, one of the most fundamental benefits of Union, it seems likely that any separation would be short-lived (even in the absence of domestic war).
I do not (and likely will never) advocate that heads roll in a bloody French-style revolution. What I see happening, though, is consolidation of political power within urban majorities. Will they be slow to abuse their power? Not likely, and returning government to its constitutionally limited role will preempt them from doing so.
Are these the same Union civilian authorities who let prisoners of both sides die in prison?
LOL !! Maybe to show how inclusive the Scouts can be we can call it the Harvey Firestein or Liberace council.
All of those actors are elected and directly accountable to the people of their respective states. If there is abuse, it IS state-sanctioned abuse.
I think Madison muddied the water with this line, then: "The latter (secession) is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy..."
Not exctly the resounding denunciation you're making it out to be. Did not Madison believe that revolution was a sacred right of the people?
Madison does not dispute the right to revolt against "intolerable oppression." This is where I continue to say the Slave states utterly fail the test. His Notes on Virginia Resolutions go more into detail about Madison's thoughts on the subject. No time for it here.
Sectionalism has taken on a new meaning in modern America; the 'red map' from the 2K election makes that clear. When urban political ideology begins to dominate all aspects of our lives, what peaceful recourse will we have? Let's all hope that one can be found and that our leaders have learned from lessons past.
I agree with you about the blue-red map. Sectional interests are a danger, no question. It is not our leaders, however, who need to learn the lesson. This is self-government. It is we the people who need to learn to put their country ahead of sectional interests. If we do, our leaders will. Doesn't give much comfort to ponder, but that;s what I believe.
I think you're assuming an outcome. Violence was not the desire of the South, separation was.
I interpet their actions along the lines Lincoln used when he said "Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
Is cohesion implied in the American experiment? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since cohesion is, however, one of the most fundamental benefits of Union, it seems likely that any separation would be short-lived (even in the absence of domestic war).
Without rehashing the arguments that I trust you are familiar with, I follow the Unionist line in terms of implied powers, Constitutional supremacy, secession as extraconstitutional, perpetuation of the Union, etc etc. I don't believe the Framers themselves believed anything was guarenteed, whether or not they intended a thing or not. I believe they well knew it was up to us to follow it or not. But I believe the intent was that the government would hopefully last and improve in the spirit of liberty.
I do not (and likely will never) advocate that heads roll in a bloody French-style revolution. What I see happening, though, is consolidation of political power within urban majorities. Will they be slow to abuse their power? Not likely, and returning government to its constitutionally limited role will preempt them from doing so.
You may be right in your prognosis. The only quibble I would have would be this idea of "returning" to constitutional limited government. Don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating a "living" constitution as doctrine, but I am acknowledging that there has always always always been controversy over what is or is not in the Constitution. I would prefer we deal closer to reality and endeavor to simply limit the power of the Federal government. Ultimately, the will of the people will prevail, for good or ill.
Are these the same Union civilian authorities who let prisoners of both sides die in prison?
The federal government adopted a policy of treating rebel prisoners the same way that Union prisoners were treated. This in aan attempt to pressure the rebels to treat U.S. prisoners better.
At least rebel prisioners were not shot down in cold blood, as many Union POW's were.
This is an interesting piece of text in regard to the POW issue:
"The experience of one week with the Rebel Army satisfies me that the men are in a high state of discipline and have learned implicit obedience. When separated from their officers they do not show the same self-reliance that our men possess,—do not seem able to discuss with intelligent ease the political subjects which claim every man's attention at this time. All of them show a lack of energy and spirit, a want of thrift and cleanliness, which are altogether paradoxical to our men. A constant fear of their officers is associated with their prompt obedience of orders.
Many, while they expressed their contempt for "the Yankees," would lament the war and express a desire to throw down their arms and return to their homes, if they could only do this without molestation. Jackson's name was always mentioned with a species of veneration, and his orders were obeyed with a slavish obedience unsurpassed by that of Russian serfs.
The men generally looked sturdy when in ranks, yet a cachectic expression of countenance prevailed, which could not be accounted for entirely by the unwashed faces that were, from necessity or choice, the rule. Those who have fallen into our hands show worn-out constitutions, disordered digestions and a total lack of vital stamina. They do not bear pain with any fortitude, and their constitutions seem to have very little power of resistance to disease. The rate of mortality in the rebel sick and wounded is double or treble that found in the Hospitals containing our men.
Three of the buildings on the hospital grounds were taken possession of by the Confederates for the accommodation of their sick. These soon threw themselves on the beds, with their filthy clothing and boots. In a few hours a marked contrast could be noticed between the neatness of the wards containing the Union soldiers and those occupied by the rebels."
-- This was written by a civilian doctor who was in Frederick, MD during its occupation in September, 1862.
Based on this, I'd say the best thing that could happen to a rebel soldier was to be captured.
Walt
I dunno. Weren't we regaled with how fabulous and accurate this movie was? You didn't and I didn't see it for 2-3 weeks after it came out. Did any of the neo-rebs who liked it so much note that Lee was wearing a U.S. ARMY COLONEL'S uniform when he accepted a rebel commission?
I dare say they got this right. In the film, Lee went pretty much directly from the interview with Montgomery Blair where he declined the command of US forces to the scene where he accepted the commission from the rebel government of VA. He had the same uniform on in both scenes. It seems odd that the film crew would mess that up.
Walt
LOL. I simply called you on one of your overstatements.
Show that in the record.
Baxter Springs, Kansas - 10/6/63 - William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson at their finest. Anderson's men attacked a group of about 90 USCT attached to the 3rd Wisconsin Cavalry, preparing lunch near their fort at Baxter Springs. As the men were unarmed, they broke and ran for the safety of the fort nearby. Anderson's men rode them down and shot them.
Meanwhile, Quantrill road out of the woods, his men wearing captured Union uniforms, and tricked a Union General into thinking they were an honor guard sent from Baxter Springs to escort his wagon train. Instead, the men manning the wagon train, including a band, were executed, most of them found shot in the head.
Centralia, Missouri - 9/27/64 - Bloody Bill Anderson murders 24 of 25 unarmed Union soldiers on furlough. Then ambushes and kills a detachment of the 39th Missouri Infantry outside of town, followed by an assault on the rest of the regiment at Centralia itself, murdering all of the remainder.
Fort Pillow, Tennessee - 4/12/64
2-300 Union POW's executed
Poison Springs, Arkansas - 4/18/64 - massacre of the 4th Kansas Colored Militia.
Saltville, Virginia - 10/2/64 - Champ Ferguson and Brigadier General Felix Robertson executed over 100 wounded members of the 5th USCT Cavalry, the morning after the battle there. (They essentially drove their wagons across the fields where the wounded USCT were, crushing them under their wheels.) While Ferguson was captured some months later, and tried and executed for this (and other) crimes, Robertson lived until 1928, the last surviving Confederate general.
There's a lot more.
I'd be glad for you to cite an incident where Union troops shot rebel troops out of hand in this manner.
Walt
Hello Walt,
I was under the impression that was a much earlier letter.
As early as 1856 Lee was on record as indicating his belief that slavery was in the natural course of eventual extinction.
As to the larger point of his stance on race relations: I wonder what your opinion is of Lee's taking of communion with the black parishioner in St. Paul's Episcopal shortly after Appomattox. Consensus was fairly universal that it was regarded as a surprising action which virtually no other Richmonder would have dared.
I have had my share of run-ins with the neo-confederates here. But unless your last name is El-Amin or Connally I think the universal educated consensus is that Lee was a man of great integrity and charity who well merited his reputation.
Lee single-handedly set the example for peaceful reconciliation with the north against the instincts of Davis and a considerable part of the Confederate general staff (to say nothing of the populace). Had he not done so, this would be a far different country today. We owe him no small thanks for that.
Lee was willing to see the work of centuries end slavery.
Lincoln was willing to extend the vote immediately to black soldiers who fought under the flag.
Here is the 1865 letter to which I was referring:
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
Walt
Amen to that. Probably a good note to end this on, since I've gotta take off soon. Been fun, see ya around (I'm sure).
Here is the letter which I believe you are referring to. Lee may have given lukewarm disapproval, more out of concern for the slaveowner than the slave, but it doesn't indicate any belief that slavery was doomed to an early end. Unless someone prayed hard enough, that is.
"I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
See the following 1864 letter:
Gen. Wilde [Yankee], commanding Colored Brigade, Norfolk, Va.Sir – Probably no expedition, during the progress of this war, has been attended with more utter disregard for the long-established usages of civilization or the dictates of humanity, than was your late raid into the country bordering the Albemarle. Your stay, though short, was marked by crimes and enormities. You burned houses over the heads of defenseless women and children, carried off private property of every description, arrested non-combatants, and carried off ladies in irons, whom you confined with negro men. Your negro troops fired on Confederates after they surrendered, and they were only saved by the exertions of the more humane of your white officers. Last, but not least, under the pretext that he was a guerrilla, you hanged Daniel Bright, a private of Company L, 62d Georgia Regiment (cavalry), forcing the ladies and gentlemen whom you held in arrest to witness the execution. Therefore, I have obtained an order from the general commanding for the execution of Samuel Jones, a private of Company B, 5th Ohio, whom I hang in retaliation. I hold two more of your men -in irons- as hostages for Mrs. Weeks and Mrs. Mundin. When these ladies are released, these men will be relieved and treated as prisoners of war.
Col. Joel R. Griffin [CSA]
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.