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.
On the one hand, I would not like to see a separate nation with major ties to Communist China suddenly appearing on the West coast. Purely an issue of defense, of course.
On the other hand, philosophically, I am one who would not mind seeing beachfront property in Nevada and arizona. Let them go, and hope the screen door doesn't bruise their collective fannys.
Contextual tie to the discussion? I imagine there were many in the North who felt the same way about the confederacy. Profound!
Gotta go, enjoyed it all. I'll leave you all something to ponder; If things had turned out differently, either the fortunes of war, or avoidance of war, would the US have been ready, willing and able to kick the snot out of the kaiser a mere generation later? Things that make you go hmmmm....
If the government has eminent domain over private property, then individuals do not have sole sovereignty over that property. I've asked a few times whether people here think that I have the right to, say, declare that my yard is no longer part of the United States but a sovereign nation or part of another sovereign nation and have yet to get a real answer. Do you believe that each property owner has the right to decide what country their land resides in? Do you believe such a right exists on a town level? On a county level? On a state level? At what point does the right to secession come into play?
You might find this article interesting, especially where it talks about natural rights and differentiates between Constitutional rights and the natural right of revolution.
I will however, address your deficient method of constitutional interpretation.
Your argument that the Constitution is "clear" is unsupported by your own contention that the meaning of the language is gleaned from implication. (Love the oxymoron, "clear impliaction") I also love the argument that when a phrase is succeptable to one or more interpretations, we can choose an interpretation completely at odds with the individuals who drafted the language. Somewhere, James Madison is spinning in his grave.
First, if there is another valid interpretation, please tell me what it is. Second, Jefferson and Madison are not the Constitution. The Constitution is a compromise document that does not reflect the pure views of Madison or Jefferson. And Hamilton and others had different views. Please also note that the author of the article referenced above seems to think that Madison had very different views on secession than you do.
Your contention is that the Constitution imparts no personal property rights wrong.
I didn't say that. I said that personal property rights were not absolute. Not the same thing. This, too, is made clear by the 5th Amendment.
Read the Ninth Amendment the enumeration of certain rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." What are these "rights retained by the people".
They are not defined, nor do they need to be, because they are they explicitly protected by this Amendment. This Amendment serves largely to prevent an exclusive reading of the Bill of Rights, which some people at the time feared. This is one reason why the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution but was added by amendment.
A simple canon of constuction is that we look to the intent of the drafter when a phrase is not clear on its face. Evidence shows that the intent of the framers in drafting the Ninth Amendment was to include those rights in the Constitution that were granted by God: including the right to own property or to choose your own government, or even to secede.
Not necessarily. The 9th Amendment served to satisfy those who feared that an enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights would be read as exhaustive. You will note that the 9th Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, just because the Constitution doesn't list a right, that doesn't mean you don't have it. But it also doesn't specify what these rights are nor does it offer them any specific protection or guarantees.
The Amendment you may be thinking of is the 10th Amendment. That reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That does raise the question of whether the power to secede is a legitimate power reserved to the States or whether the Constitution in some way prohibits states from exercising that power. Please read Articles VI and VII and explain how they are compatible with a right to secession.
The framers did leave us room to "construct" and add meaning to ambiguous phrases of the constitution so as to fulfil their intentions.
Of course. But not on the substantive issue of eminent domain.
Even your allegedly clear "just compensation clause" is unclear. (i.e. What compensation, if any, is "just".)
The exact level of compensation may be vague but the fact that the the government can seize private property for public use with compensation requires that private property rights are not absolute. And you have failed to address that point. Do you disagree that the government can take private property for public use? If not, then how do you square that with your views of property ownership that seem to leave no room for government sovereignty?
Aside from your deficient methods of interpreting Constitutional text, your core argument is a nonsensical: the takings clause allows government to take property for public use as long as it gives the owner just compensation, so the South had no right to secede.
One step at a time. Do you agree that individual property owners do not have absolute domain over their property?
You may want to read more on James Madison's comments concerning the Nullification Controvery in the 1830s in which he sided with the Union over secession. You may also find this article interesting.
"The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the states be cherished and perpetuated."
--James Madison, "Advice to my Country," 1834
Context matters. Lincoln wasn't saying he approved of slavery, just that keeping the union together was his priority.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Slavery is a dead issue today. We can freely say that slavery ought to have been abolished and no one would disagree with us. That was far from the situation 140 years ago.
Lincoln believed that slavery in the states was a question for state governments to deal with (Southern radicals agreed with him, but went much further in demanding federal protection of slavery and its expansion to the territories). He also believed that his oath of office committed him to preserve the Constitution and hence the union. Lincoln's letter to Greeley was about priorities, not an expression of a lack of interest in slavery.
About a month after writing these words, Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, a sign that emancipation was certainly on Lincoln's mind when he wrote to Greeley.
There are rights explictly guaranteed by the Constitution and those that exist without regard to explicit provisions. But when we talk about government entities we are more likely talking about "powers" than "rights." It's folly to think that the Constitution contains an implicit right to break the Constitution. Something so important would have been dealt with explicitly, and not left up to interpretation.
History shows that there was no consensus about this matter at the time. It's necessary to proceed cautiously and prudentially where constitutional questions are concerned. The rebels didn't, and there's little point in whitewashing their rashness and radicalism today.
That's because it's a damn lie. Just like the rest of Held_to_Ransom.'s statements. My Confederates were from Marion County, South Carolina. I think some of those units you mentioned were later in Anderson's Corps, as was the 26th SC. My ancestor in the 26th enlisted at the start of the War and fought all the way to Appomattox where he lost his leg to a minie ball.
Source? Non-Sequitur, the world's greatest (or at least it's most obsessive) authority on Jefferson Davis.
That's what you and the Democratic Party's history of the US say. Here's what his Excellency Benjamin Butler said about it in his autobiography, 'Butler's Book.':
While I was waiting at Ship Island, the rebel authorities in New Orleans had organized two regiments from the free Negroes, called "Native Guards, Colored." When Lovell (the Confederate commander of the defense of New Orleans) ran away with his troops these men stayed at home. The rebels had allowed the company officers to be commissioned from colored men; but for the officers, - colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and majors, and the the staff officers, they were white men.
I found out the names and residences of some twenty of these colored officers, and sent for them to call on me. They came, and a very intelligent looking set of men they were. I asked them if they would like to be organized as part of the United States troops. The unanimously said they would.
In all bodes of men there is a always a spokesman, and while many of my guests were of a very light shade, that spokesman was a Negro nearly as dark as the ace of spades.
"General," he asked, "shall we be officers as we were before?"
"Yes, everyone of you who is fit to be an officer shall be, and all the line officers shall be colored men."
"How soon do you want us to be ready?"
"How soon can you give me two regiments of a thousand each?"
"In ten days."
"But," I said, "I want you to answer me one question. My officers, most of them, believe that Negroes won't fight."
"Oh, but we will." came from the whole of them.
"You seem to be an intelligent man," said I to their spokesman. "Answer me this question: I have found out that you know just as well what this war is about as I do, and if the United States succeed in it, it will put an end to slavery."
They all looked assent.
"Then tell me why some Negroes have not in this war struck a good blow somewhere for their freedom? All over the South the men have been conscripted and driven away to the armies, leaving ten Negroes in some districts to one white man, and the colored men have simply gone on raising corps and taking care of their women and children."
The man's countenance lighted up. He said:--
"You are General here, and I don't like to answer that question."
"Answer it exactly according as the matter lies in your mind, and I pledge you my honor, whatever the answer may be it shall harm no one of you."
"General, will you permit a question?"
"Yes."
"If we colored men had risen to make war on our masters, would not it have been our duty to ourselves, they being our enemies, to kill the enemy where we could find them; and all the white men would have been our enemies to be killed?"
"I don't know but you are right," said I. "I think that would be a logical necessity of insurrection."
"If the colored men had begun such a war as that, General, which general of he Unites States Army would we have called on to help us fight our battles.?"
That was unanswerable.
"Well," I said, "why do you think your men will fight?"
"General, we come of a fighting race. Our fathers were brought here slaves because they were captured in war, and in hand to hand fights, too. We are willing to fight. Pardon me, General, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
"Very well," I said, "recruit your men and let them be mustered into the service at" --I mentioned a large public building --"in a fortnight from today, at ten o'clock in the morning. Report, and I will meet you there. I will give orders that the building be prepared."
On that morning I went there and saw such a sight as I never saw before: Two thousand men ready to enlist as recruits, and not a man of them who had not a white "biled shirt" on.
One regiment was mustered within fourteen days of the call, the first regiment of colored troops ever mustered into the service the United States during the War of the Rebellion, established and became soldier of the United State on the 22d of August, 1862.
In a very short time three regiments of infantry and two batteries of artillery were equipped, drilled, and ready for service. Better soldiers never shouldered a musket.
They were intelligent, obedient, highly appreciative of their position, and fully maintained its dignity. They easily learned the school of the soldier. I observed a very remarkable trait about them. They learned to handle arms and to march more readily than the most intelligent white men. My drillmaster could teach a regiment of Negroes the much of the art of war sooner than he could have tough the same number of students from Harvard or Yale.
I see you have swallowed the historic disinformation line of the Democratic Party, hook line and sinker. Don't let them pull on it too much, it will be uncomfortable.
Bingo.
It should be remembered that the rebellion had few major military successes at all and -none- outside Virginia, excepting Chickamauga.
Of diplomatic and economic successes they had none at all.
Walt
President Lincoln strongly opposed treason trials. After his death, a number of rebel leaders -were- indicted for treason.
It was soon realized that hanging them would have been bad for national reconciliation and the idea was dropped.
Walt
That's a lie.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, February 18. 1864.
[To Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts]
Yours of the 12th was received yesterday. If I were to judge from the letter, without any external knowledge, I should suppose that all the colored people South of Washington were struggling to get to Massachusetts; that Massachusetts was anxious to receive and retain the whole of them as permament citizens; and that the United States Government here was interposing and preventing this. But I suppose these are neither really the facts, nor meant to be asserted as true by you. Coming down to what I suppose to be the real facts, you are engaged in trying to raise colored troops for the U. S. and wish to take recruits from Virginia, through Washington, to Massachusetts for that object; and the loyal Governor of Virginia, also trying to raise troops for us, objects to you taking his material away; while we, having to care for all, and being responsible alike to all, have to do as much for him, as we would have to do for you, if he was, by our authority, taking men from Massachusetts to fill up Virginia regiments. No more than this has been intended by me; nor, as I think, by the Secretary of War. There may have been some abuses of this, as a rule, which, if known, should be prevented in future.
If, however, it be really true that Massachusetts wishes to afford a permanent home within her borders, for all, or even a large number of colored persons who will come to her, I shall be only too glad to know it. It would give relief in a very difficult point; and I would not for a moment hinder from going, any person who is free by the terms of the proclamation or any of the acts of Congress."
President Lincoln thought that separating the races might be best for both, but he never suggested that anyone be forced out of the country and he worked to get voting rights for black soldiers.
Neo-confederates will tell any kind of lie.
Walt
The southern rail system began to disintegrate as soon as the war started.
Bruce Catton calls the south "almost helpless".
"To buy at home or abroad the the goods the army needed was one thing; to move them to the places where the army wanted them was quite another. Lacking a financial and industrial system equal to the demands of a large war, the South lacked also a proper transportation system. It had many railroads but no real railroad network, because hardly any of its railroads had been built with through traffic in mind.
Most of them had been conceived of as feeder lines, to move cotton to the wharves at river towns or at seaports...this handicap, to be sure, existed also in the north, but there it was not so serious. It had been recognized earlier, and it was being removed; and the significant point was that in the North it -could- be removed, and in the South, it could not.
The South was almost helpless in this respect. Nearly all its locomotives, spikes, car wheels, car bodies annd other items of equipment had come from the north...
As the nation's need for an adequate transportation increased, the system would grow weaker and weaker, and there was no earthly help for it....these problems , indeed, were so grave and pointed so surely towards final defeat that one is forced to wonder how the founding fathers of the Confederacy could possibly have overlooked them. The answer perhaps is that the problems were not so much unseen as uncomprehended. At bottom they were Yankee problems; concerns of the broker, the money changer, the trader, the mechanic, the grasping man of business; they were matters that such people would think of, not matters that would command the attention of aristocrats who who were familiar with valor, the classics and heroric atttitudes. Secession itself had involved a flight from reality rather than an approach to it....Essentially, this was the reliance of a group that knew little of the modern world but which did not know nearly enough and could never understand that it did not know enough. It ran exactly parallel to Mr. Davis's magnificent statement that the duration of the war could be left up to the enemy--the war would go on until the enemy gave up, and it did not matter how far off that day might be.
The trouble was it did matter. It mattered enormously.
--The Coming Fury, p. 438-439, by Bruce Catton
At a time when the rebels could produce 100 rifles a day, having skilled workmen for only 1/3 of the the machinery, the north was producing 5,000 rifles a day in 44 different plants.
Also remember that the Hunley killed 5 sailors on Housotanic. Twenty-two men died in the Hunley, including Hunley himself.
Very clever.
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.