Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.
They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.
On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.
The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.
It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.
In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.
But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.
One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.
To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.
After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.
They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.
This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.
But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.
They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.
According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.
Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.
The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.
However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.
White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."
Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.
Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."
Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.
I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.
In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.
Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.
So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.
To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:
"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves or departed from the principles of the Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....
"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....
Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? ...
We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the properity of this State much depends, will be preservved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....
We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, kindred, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.
I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly, your most obedient, humble servant.
(Signed) John Collins, Governor.
His Excellency, the President of the United States.
[American State Papers, Vol I, Miscellaneous.]
SOURCE: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, Vol I, pp. 112-3.
|LINK|
ESTABLISHED OCTOBER 31, 1783 TO TAKE EFFECT JUNE 2, 1784
AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED AND IN FORCE DECEMBER 1990
BILL OF RIGHTS
Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.]. All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good. June 2, 1784*
*The date on which each article was proclaimed as having been adoptedis given after each article. This is followed by the year in whichamendments were adopted and the subject matter of all the amendments.
* * *
[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.
June 2, 1784
* * *
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784
* * *
[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.
June 2, 1784
* * *
|LINK|
* * *
Art. IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.
* * *
The Frame of Government
The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of Massachusetts Bay do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body-politic or State, by the name of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
|LINK|
In 1777, Vermont's leaders finally declared independence of the New Hampshire Grants not only from Britain, but also from New York. Despite the unresolved conflict with New York and secret negotiations of some political leaders with the British in Canada (Williamson 1949), Vermont actively supported the Revolution. Yet, until its admission to the Union as the fourteenth state in 1791, the Republic of Vermont was effectively a sovereign state. Vermont set a significant precedent, first, because the state was established through secession from another member state of the Union, and second, because the same right to sovereign authority claimed by the Revolutionaries vis-à-vis the British Empire was invoked by Vermont's leaders to justify that secession.
EXTRACT FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS MAGAZINE FOR MARCH, 1789
Summary of American news and politics.
[After reviewing (1) New Hampshire, (2) Massachusetts, (3) Connecticut, (4) New York, (5) New Jersey, (6) Pennsylvania, (7) Delaware, (8) Maryland, (9) Virginia, (10) South Carolina and (11) Georgia -- the ELEVEN states which had ratified the Constitution.]
"VERMONT. This state has expressed a wish to be admitted a member of the union," etc.
"RHODE ISLAND. This foreign state has again refused to accede to a union with her late sisters. * * anxious of enjoying the protection of the union, the inhabitants of Newport, Providence, and other places are determined to sue for its protection, and to be annexed to Massachusetts or Connecticut -- thereby to evince to their perverse legislature, that unless they take measures for a speedy adoption of the constitution their boasted sovereignty as an independent state, will ere long be at an end."
"NORTH CAROLINA. This other foreign state, has lately evinced a disposition to become a member of the united states," etc.
SOURCE: The Republic of Republics, 1878, Benjamin Janin Sage, Appendix A, p. 5.
Let me quote from a well respected source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Confederation, Articles of, first U.S. constitution (1781-1789), which served as a bridge between the initial government by the Continental Congress of the Revolutionary period and the federal government provided under the U.S. Constitution of 1787. Because the experience of overbearing British central authority was vivid in colonial minds, the drafters of the Articles deliberately established a confederation of sovereign states."
"On paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service, to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit."
NC, you would be hard-pressed to say the Congress, under the Articles, did not represent a national government, albeit limited in scope. And, although the individual States retained a degree of sovereignty, under the Articles, they ceded some of there individual powers to the national government - the Congress. Some of these ceded powers included the appointment of foreign ministers (ambassadors), the conduct of a national Army and Navy, etc.
You might also ask yourself, "what is a federal government?" It is a government by compact, in which the members agree to subordinate some or all of their individual rights, powers, and duties to a central authority. Certainly, the government under the Atricles can rightly be described as a federal government of decidely weak central authority.
Please note also, the Articles of Confederation predate the Treaty of Paris by over a year. The British, fearful of the growth of an impending power in the Western Hemisphere (the United States), were not above a little trouble-making to create dis-unity in the new nation. Nevertheless, one of the three treaties was signed between Britain and the United States, not between Britain and 13 individual States. The four American signatories represented the "United States."
With regard to your spurious arguments concerning the the inclusion of some States into the Union, you stated, "George Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. Perhaps you could explain how the country remained the same from April 30, 1789 to May 29, 1790?" Since April 30, 1789, thirty-nine States have ratified the Constitution (of 1787). Did the country change with every new State? Yes, by way of boundaries, representation in Congress, and so on. But the institutions of government remained. The transition form government under the Articles to government under the Constitution was more or less seemless. That some individual States were hesitant to enter into the new form of government is not surprising. The United States existed in 1776; it existed in 1781; it existed in 1783; it existed in 1787, and; it existed in 1789. It continues to exist today. That is what I mean by the country did not change.
As a matter of fact, from your post 1441, in the third paragraph from the Rhode Island letter, is a very revealing statement. The Governor wrote, "Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity?"
The meaning of the last sentence is clear. Rhode Island wanted to see how the new government worked before they adopted it for "themselves and their posterity." That sounds to me as if the Governor of Rhode Island realized his State's commitment was to a "perpetual union."
I also understood the historical and political context.
I believe it was historian Shelby Foote who observed, "before the Civil War Americans would say "the United States are" rather than "the United States is" as we do today." NC, your Clintonian parsing of grammar does not support your views. If you really want to parse grammar, look up the meaning of the Latin term videlicet. That term is used when specifying parts of a whole. What George III wanted to recognize is not nearly as important as how the United States presented itself in the negotiations.
(Let me correct an error in my earlier post. Hartley, of course, was the British representative. The THREE (not four) Americans were Jay, Franklin, and Adams.)
I found an interesting fact. In the 1st Congress, which convened March 4, 1789, but did not achieve quorums in each of the two Houses until some weeks later, seats were set aside for North Carolina and Rhode Island. It seems the rest of the country anticipated their belated arrival into the new government.
By the way, what is the birthdate of the United States of America? I suggest most people would not say March 4, 1789.
Parse. vt. 1. to resolve (as a sentence) into component parts of speech and describe them grammatically 2. to describe grammatically by stating the part of speech and explaining the inflection and syntactical relationships. vi 1. to give a grammatical description of a word or a group of words. 2. to admit of being parsed.
SOURCE: Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
Viz. Videlicet, that is to say.
SOURCE: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition.
Videlicit. Lat. The words "to-wit," or "that is to say," so frequently used in pleading, are technically called the "videlicit" or "scilicet;" and when any fact alleged in pleading is preceded by, or accompanied with these words, such fact is, in the language of the law, said to be "laid under a videlicit." the use of the videlicit is to point out, particularize, or render more specific that which has been previously stated in general lauguage only; also to explain that which is doubtful or obscure. Its common office is to state time, place, or manner which are of the essence of the matter in issue.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Faulty logic and a poor analogy. The Southern states did not seek to change the government of the United States. They sought to withdraw from the government of the United States; they sought independence. Secession was a revolutionary act, not a legal one.
In the case of the replacement of the Articles by the Constitution of 1787, all of the parties to the Articles did, eventually, ratify the new constitution. The thirteen delegations of the last Congress of the Confederation, in 1788, established March 4, 1789 as the date when the first Congress elected under the new Constituion would convene. They also followed the time tables in the new Constitution for national elections, the choosing of Presidential electors, and the establishment of a national court system.
I don't understand your problem with Chase quoting pre-Constitutional law and historical documentation in his opinion. Pre-Constitutional law is still operative in this country today.
I note that your diversionary response does not address what I said.
[CapnR] I found an interesting fact. In the 1st Congress, which convened March 4, 1789, but did not achieve quorums in each of the two Houses until some weeks later, seats were set aside for North Carolina and Rhode Island. It seems the rest of the country anticipated their belated arrival into the new government.
As North Carolina and Rhode Island were not allowed to have anyone in those seats, it is quite irrelevant. The Union consisted of ELEVEN states.
[CapnR] By the way, what is the birthdate of the United States of America? I suggest most people would not say March 4, 1789.
I would say most people would not say the birthdate of the United States Marine Corps is November 10, 1775. I would say most people cannot correctly answer the question, "Who is buried in Grant's tomb?"
Most Americans would say Iraqis flew the planes into the Twin Towers. I would suggest that citing what most people say is not a very powerful support for your argument.
Videlicet in the quoted phrase means "namely." The listing of the 13 states is a description of the "United States." Remove the text of the phrase from "viz" to "Georgia" and read it again. Get rid of the heirs and successors too" It still makes sense when you consider the grammatical usage of the day; treating "the United States" as a collective noun. Let's see:
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and ... relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
How's that for parsing?
I believe it was the Paris Peace agreement that explicitly gave sovereignty to THIRTEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. That was agreed to, in writing, by ALL parties.
[CapnR] NC, your Clintonian parsing of grammar does not support your views.
You may call this Clintonion parsing of grammar if you choose. You may also choose to believe Clinton was only counseling Monica.
To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:
* * *
We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the properity of this State much depends, will be preservved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....
* * *
(Signed) John Collins, Governor.
His Excellency, the President of the United States.
[American State Papers, Vol I, Miscellaneous.]
SOURCE: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, Vol I, pp. 112-3.
[CapnR] What George III wanted to recognize is not nearly as important as how the United States presented itself in the negotiations.
Article 1:His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., 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, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
That is the language agreed to, in writing, by ALL representatives.
In a written treaty, it is the black letter text within the four corners of the agreement that counts, not someone's later revisionist fantasy.
Let me give you but a few examples of how the "country remained the same" during the time period April 30, 1789 to May 29, 1790 (Washington's inauguration as President to Rhode Island's ratification of the Constitution of 1787):
The United States Army remained intact.
The United States Navy remained intact.
The United States Post Office continued to function as before.
Postage continued to be honored.
The coinage used prior to that time continued to be used after that time.
The boundaries of the States did not change.
The name of the country did not change.
The last of the Congresses of the Confederation, by its actions, anticipated the orderly change over to the 1st Congress under the new Constitution.
The governments of the individual states continued to function as before.
How many more do you want? How do you think it changed? By reserving seats in the new Congress for the tardy Rhode Island and North Carolina, it was apparent the 11 other States were not tossing these two out of the Union. They were providing for them. Similarly, the rebel states of the Civil War Confederacy were not tossed out of the Union. They remained in the Union (as per Texas vs White). Some of these states were without representation until Confederate anarchy could be replaced with the rule of law.
On the contrary. You know as well as I do that treaties are full of "reservations" and "understandings." In earlier posts on this thread, you show examples of "reservations" in individual State's ratifications of the new Constitution. Two parties can read the same passage, such as the one discussed in the Treaty of Paris, and reasonably conclude two different things.
In 1781, the former colonies were acting as a unified country in respect to their foreign policy and international relations. It was in that role that they entered into the Paris negotiations and concluded the provisional agreement and the final agreement. You place way too much emphasis on your reading of the agreement and the issue of State sovereignty. Please tell me who signed the Paris Treaty a total of 13 times, in behalf of each state. I'll make it easy for you. No one. It was signed between Britain and the United States. The Paris agreement did not grant sovereignty - it recognized the sovereignty and independece of the country.
I would say we have 50 sovereign states today - sovereign in state-related functions, but subordinate to the national government in federal affairs.
What is a brain? A brain is an organ. Dogs have organs. Cats have organs. Churches have organs. Your brain is acting as a church organ, playing notes by blowing a lot of air.
[CapnR] "On paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service, to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit."
On paper, the Executive Department and the Judicial Department did not exist. In reality, they did not exist either.
[CapnR] NC, you would be hard-pressed to say the Congress, under the Articles, did not represent a national government, albeit limited in scope.
No problem. It was a FEDERAL government.
[CapnR] And, although the individual States retained a degree of sovereignty, under the Articles, they ceded some of there individual powers to the national government - the Congress. Some of these ceded powers included the appointment of foreign ministers (ambassadors), the conduct of a national Army and Navy, etc.
They were explicitly recognized as SOVEREIGN STATES. The Congress of the United States had no power to force any of the individual states to do anything.
[CapnR] You might also ask yourself, "what is a federal government?" It is a government by compact, in which the members agree to subordinate some or all of their individual rights, powers, and duties to a central authority.
NO.
[CapnR] Certainly, the government under the Atricles can rightly be described as a federal government of decidely weak central authority.
You are getting there, slow but sure.
[CapnR] Please note also, the Articles of Confederation predate the Treaty of Paris by over a year. The British, fearful of the growth of an impending power in the Western Hemisphere (the United States), were not above a little trouble-making to create dis-unity in the new nation. Nevertheless, one of the three treaties was signed between Britain and the United States, not between Britain and 13 individual States. The four American signatories represented the "United States."
All thirteen of the sovereign and independent states known as the United States. If the European Community chose to change its name tomorrow to The United States of Europe, France would still be France, and liberal actors would still have a place to go when they say they are leaving the USA.
[CapnR] With regard to your spurious arguments concerning the the inclusion of some States into the Union, you stated, "George Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. Perhaps you could explain how the country remained the same from April 30, 1789 to May 29, 1790?" Since April 30, 1789, thirty-nine States have ratified the Constitution (of 1787). Did the country change with every new State? Yes, by way of boundaries, representation in Congress, and so on. But the institutions of government remained. The transition form government under the Articles to government under the Constitution was more or less seemless. That some individual States were hesitant to enter into the new form of government is not surprising. The United States existed in 1776; it existed in 1781; it existed in 1783; it existed in 1787, and; it existed in 1789. It continues to exist today. That is what I mean by the country did not change.
INCLUSION?????
What Lincolnian, Clintonian gobbledygook.
The United States went from 13 states to 11 states. Two former states somehow were no longer in the Union. Did those two states secede? Did the other eleven states secede? Or is there some mystical explanation?
[CapnR] As a matter of fact, from your post 1441, in the third paragraph from the Rhode Island letter, is a very revealing statement. The Governor wrote, "Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity?"
[CapnR] The meaning of the last sentence is clear. Rhode Island wanted to see how the new government worked before they adopted it for "themselves and their posterity." That sounds to me as if the Governor of Rhode Island realized his State's commitment was to a "perpetual union."
They had already been in a so-called perpetual union, past tense, with the eleven states that divorced themselves from that so-called perpetual union. As they were no longer united, it was not all that perpetual.
[CapnR] On the contrary. You know as well as I do that treaties are full of "reservations" and "understandings." In earlier posts on this thread, you show examples of "reservations" in individual State's ratifications of the new Constitution. Two parties can read the same passage, such as the one discussed in the Treaty of Paris, and reasonably conclude two different things.
SHOW ME the reservations of the ratifying parties to the Paris Agreement.
Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.D. HARTLEY (SEAL)
JOHN ADAMS (SEAL)
B. FRANKLIN (SEAL)
JOHN JAY (SEAL)
Article 1:His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., 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, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES
What is your REASONABLE interpretation of that which you assert will hold up under International Law???
RI and NC were OUT. Empty seats mean as much as empty rhetoric. Take your lithium.
This must be the CapnR Legal Dictionary. I note the glaring lack of a citation to any real legal dictionary.
Viz. Videlicet, that is to say.
SOURCE: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition.
Videlicit. Lat. The words "to-wit," or "that is to say," so frequently used in pleading, are technically called the "videlicit" or "scilicet;" and when any fact alleged in pleading is preceded by, or accompanied with these words, such fact is, in the language of the law, said to be "laid under a videlicit." the use of the videlicit is to point out, particularize, or render more specific that which has been previously stated in general lauguage only; also to explain that which is doubtful or obscure. Its common office is to state time, place, or manner which are of the essence of the matter in issue.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
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.