Have We Reconciled

Old Virginia Blog ^ | April 13, 2011 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

This is a perplexing question, as it relates to the WBTS. In some ways, yes. In others, no. I, like many of you, recently (and for the 3rd or 4th time), watched Ken Burns' PBS documentary, The Civil War. Even though I have several criticisms of the Burns' film, I still find it a fascinating piece of work and very educational. I've always thoroughly enjoyed watching the film, despite its shortcomings. One of the more moving parts of this film comes near the end, as shown below. Pay close attention at about 30 seconds in and listen as historian David McCullough narrates the moving "reenactment" of Pickett's charge at the 50th anniversary reunion at Gettysburg. I believe one can detect the emotion in McCullough's voice as it sounds like he almost chokes up in recounting the emotional event. I don't think he's acting. I don't mind admitting that I too was moved with emotion in hearing McCullough recount the story . . .

[rockrr]

(snicker, this oughta be good)

You may want to lean on the words of commies (mistaken, dead, or otherwise), but I think I’ll pass, thank you.

Please share with us what is remotely conservative about abandoning the rule of law, abandoning ones responsibilities and commitments, seizing and subverting assets that don’t belong to you, and waging an undeclared war against your countrymen?

How is perpetuating the Planter Class and the abominable practice of slavery a conservative principle?

[wardaddy]

So is your wife going to leave when she recovers her eyesight?

lol...you got me there...no question

arguably the most common refrain I hear.

she's a great mom to our five children too

but I should warn you.....this man is her great great Uncle...his pic is in our home along with some correspondence between him and his sister Virginia..my wife's great great grandmother

We are not refighting the Civl War...we got that loud and clear but we do wonder why so many Yankees are now streaming in down here fleeing the hellholes some of them and their ancestors created up north and at the same time they call our ancestors Nazis. We will defend against that. It's about that..it always has been for me. When I was a kid we never had to even think about such nonsense....it was aws unfathomable as reparations or homnosexual marriage or gun registration. BTW...I'm happy to grant refuge to decent Yankees..it's not their fault. I pity the loss of their homeland..they must feel like Africaaners or Atlantans (sarc)

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The idea that Southerners are backward and stupid still exists today in some yankee minds, I’ve even see signs of it in some Freepers, most frequently from Massachusetts, of all places, LOL.

[wardaddy]

yep...been a little cadre here all of my 10 years..I never knew there were conservatives like this till FR

[central_va]

I know, you're a white, guilt affected liberal bedwetter, right.

Gee rockrr, you not really a be wetter are you?

[central_va]

Why don’t people like you grow up?

And be a Federal Bootlicker like you? Nevah!!!

[central_va]

Yeah and so would I. That’s what the next elections for. And as to this ‘’fighting’’? Under which flag is this being done, or would it be done? That’s what concerns me the most. I don’t want to live in a divided and Balkanized country. Such an America would be in some way no different than it was one hundred and fifty years ago. Ripe for foreign powers to muscle in and take over or form alliances with God knows what state or territory. Hells Bells, once the secessionist band-wagon gets going, what’s to stop it? Can you imagine this happening today? The central government collapse’s and the nation becomes divided, even broken beyond a simple ‘’north’’, ‘’south’’. And with no super power, no Untied States of America to keep the peace in the world the scumbags of it rise up and all Hell breaks loose

I guess we should annex Canada then rights? /sarc You are so full os S---.

[x]

I think you confuse allegiance to Lincoln with allegiance to the Constitution. At West Point during that era they used Joseph Story’s Commentary on the Constitution to teach government. Story, of Massachusetts, taught what most Americans of that time believed, that secession was a right held by the States. Unsurprising since the New England states had flirted with secession in 1814 with the Hartford Convention.

Justice Story did not believe that secession was a right. He called it a "baneful practice ... which is subversive of all the principles of order and regular government, and which leads directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of republican institutions" Source. In his Commentaries Justice Story cited Jackson's message about secession, and by all indications Story agreed with Jackson's unionist views.

You may have Justice Story confused with William Rawle. Rawle's book was used for perhaps one year or at most two at West Point, for want of a better text. It may have been taught while Davis, Lee, and Johnson were at West Point, or perhaps not -- Davis didn't remember using the book. Most serious scholars agree that the brief period when Rawle was used as a text did not account for the widespread later acceptance of secession as constitutional.

Moreover the authority of States to overrule the national government was a belief expressed by both Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves which they authored in 1798. Those Resolves are a basis of the States Rights doctrine which was espoused by the Confederacy.

Yet Madison later rejected secession and nullification: "The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently" Source.

Even Jefferson took different views of constitutional questions depending on whether he was in or out of office. Certainly, the old boy proved to be quite high-handed and authoritarian in imposing his embargo. I don't know what he would have done had a state refused to go along.

In a similar vein Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial for treason despite his repeated requests that he either be charged or released. Davis was certain that he had broken no law and it appears to be a belief shared by his captors who refused to charge him.

Hanging the b*st*rd would have set back sectional reconciliation. He was lucky that the government showed him leniency and didn't hold him to account for his actions.

Davis showed his ingratitude by inflicting his mammoth Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government on an unsuspecting country. Why that wasn't considered another hanging offense, I don't know.

[x]

The idea that Southerners are backward and stupid still exists today in some yankee minds, I’ve even see signs of it in some Freepers, most frequently from Massachusetts, of all places, LOL.

Maybe. But Hee Haw wasn't produced in Boston or Cambridge. It didn't even find it's biggest audience there.

New York and Hollywood have been quick to pick up on Southern stereotypes, but they were only picking up on comic routines created by Southerners -- Jim Nabors, Andy Griffith, Minnie Pearl, Ray Stevens. New Englanders didn't play a role in that.

New York and Los Angeles and Chicago didn't need Boston to teach them to make fun of Southerners. There were enough Southerners around to do the job.

Of course if you want to look further back for the roots of the stereotypes, you find the comic "stage Yankee" of the 19th century, the fellow from backwoods Vermont who might not have much book larnin' but who puts the city slickers in their place, and behind him all the comic rustics of the British and classical theater.

In any case, you guys give it as well as get it. A lot of it is laughter at the snobbish Yankees, but lately I notice a lot of Southern snobbery at the expense of rustbelt Northerners.

[Pelham]

You're right, I was confusing Story's text with Rawle's 'A View of the Constitution of the United States'. Rawle was published a bit before Story, 1825 vs 1833, and Rawle explicitly defends the right of states to secede:

"It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

And while there is no hard record of what particular texts were taught at West Point, Charles Francis Adams wrote that Rawle's view was taught at West Point right up to 1840.

Charles Francis Adams' view on the subject is well worth considering. Adams was about as Yankee as you can get, the great grandson of John Adams and a Union General to boot. He made a speech in 1902 'The Constitutional Ethics of Secession' where he examines the very subject we debate:

"When the Federal Constitution was framed and adopted, — an indissoluble Union of indestructible States, — what was the law of treason; to what or to whom, in case of final issue, did the average citizen owe allegiance? Was it to the Union or to his State? As a practical question, seeing things as they then were, — sweeping aside all incontrovertible legal arguments and metaphysical disquisitions, — I do not think the answer admits of doubt. If put in 1788, or indeed at any time anterior to 1825, the immediate reply of nine men out of ten in the Northern States, and of ninety-nine out of a hundred in the Southern States, would have been that, as between the Union and the State, ultimate allegiance was due to the State."

The whole speech can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/3e5a9re

[Pelham]

“There was never a dime in tariffs collected at Fort Sumter.”

Which is a distinction without a difference. Tariff collection took place in a separate facility. Possession of the Fort ensured that Lincoln could continue to enforce the tariff despite the objection of South Carolina.

[jmacusa]

Well I see you have a sense of humor anyway. Don’t upset your ancestors? Mine were the Fightin’ Irish’’, Rebs don’t scare me. :-) As to people streaming down there from here? You mean to say you folks aren’t capable of making your own hell-holes? I dunno, ask them. Where aren’t there any ‘’Hellholes’’ in America? I’ve never called anyone a Nazi in my life other than those of history. All the things you speak of as changing from the America you grew up didn’t happen to you alone. You don’t think I didn’t grow up in a suburban neighborhood in New Jersey(Kearny NJ, named after it’s most famous son Union General Philip J. Kearny, Hero of The Wilderness) and not get hassles for carrying my Daisy BB rifle? I did live in an America like that. I never heard of ‘’homosexuals’’ or saw every other damn month on the calender being turned into a month long celebration in ethnic and gender chauvinism ., Hells Bells, lets just add a few more months to the bloody calender to celebrate more stupid bs. I’m fifty-five years old and I saw as you saw America change. I’ll tell you plain, I’m sick and tired of hyphens, of people calling themselves something else first and an American when it suits them. I don’t care if it’s Irish-American, African, Hispanic, north, south, whatever! Enough!! When are we just going to AMERICANS?? Countrys going to Hell in a handbasket with Obozo at the helm, that’s the fight here. Oh and btw, I’ve a wife, a step-son, a beautiful daughter-in-law and two beautiful grandsons.(did I say ‘’beautiful?) Have a nice week-end now.

[jmacusa]

Oh jeez, look who’s crawling about.

[rockrr]

But there is a difference and it’s filled with conjecture and supposition on your part. If that is was you meant to say why didn’t you say it in the first place?

[rockrr]

Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to #71 ;-)

[jmacusa]

I know what got you out of your cage. There’s a full moon rising right now, just coming up above the pine trees in my backyard. Yup, full moon fever. That’s what got you to the keyboard.

[Idabilly]

Yet Madison later rejected secession and nullification:

"Later" is the operative word in your statement.

When the States acceded to the Constitution there was an understanding, which Madison spells out in the Federalist papers. Madison was also in agreement with the State of Virgina's understanding of what was delegated and what was reserved. All these understandings were brought to the forefront in the Report of 1799 when he said:

It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

Madison's Virginia report is very consistent with what he said this during Virgina's ratification:

That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.

[Earthdweller]

"Have we reconciled? The Civil War was not just about slavery and racism but also about the federal government sticking their nose into how states did their business. So no, we haven’t reconciled. Many blacks still have great anger over the past and the federal government is still like a hungry monster, seeking to gobble up as much power from the states as possible. The only good thing Obama and his administration has done is to bring this to the surface."

They will use any tool at their disposal to take...if they can. Well said...

[Pelham]

“(snicker, this oughta be good)”

It might be. Be careful what you wish for.

“You may want to lean on the words of commies (mistaken, dead, or otherwise), but I think I’ll pass, thank you.”

I’m not surprised you want to “pass” on dealing with Marx and Engels. Radical support for the Union cause does complicate your effort to rewrite history, or redefine terms, or whatever the hell it is you’re trying to do. Sometimes it’s hard to put a proper name on ignorance.

The two original communist godfathers were only two of many revolutionaries who saw the cause of Lincoln and the North as their own. They were veterans of the Revolutions of 1848 that had swept Europe. Many had emigrated to the US. For them cause of the North meant progress and a chance to reorganize society. Radicals have always longed for the chance to be able to tell other people how to live and the Civil War looked like a crisis that shouldn’t be allowed to go to waste.

The Union Army had at least a couple of ‘48ers that were general officers, Franz Sigel and Carl Schurz. A full one fourth of the Union Army was foreign born and many of them were 48ers. By contrast the Confederate Army was over 90% American born and many of their generals were sons of Revolutionary War soldiers. A whole different sort of revolutionary heritage than the 48ers of the North. I don’t know of any European revolutionaries who supported the Confederacy, but maybe you can produce a few to buttress your argument that ‘There was nothing “conservative” about the confederacy.’

Domestically, the Republican Party had a large radical faction in it, the powerful Sumner-Stevens faction. Oddly enough they are known to history as the Radical Republicans. Maybe they could have called themselves the Conservative Republicans to help your version of history, but they didn’t. The Radical Republicans became the dominant power in the Republican Party and the whole country after Lincoln’s death. America was a one-party state for years with southern states dissolved and run as military districts. It was a model that would be greatly admired by progressive political organizers to come who would regard elections as unnecessary.

In the lead up to the war radicals played a role in both popular culture and behind the scenes political activism. The transcendentalist literary circle of Boston did both, in print aggravating the sectional conflict and in secret funding John Brown’s terrorist campaign. Now perhaps someone regards John Brown as a model conservative, but I’d say he is more like a role model for modern terrorists who think that they are on a mission from God. He was certainly lionized in the North whatever he was.

The Confederacy was attempting to preserve the same traditional slave-holding agrarian society that it had been since the Planter Class was composed of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Which makes me wonder what you have to say about those early Presidents, in light of your opinion of their practices:

“How is perpetuating the Planter Class and the abominable practice of slavery a conservative principle?”

Doesn’t sound like these men get to be conservatives in your world. Sounds like in the Great Class Struggle the Planter Class ends up in the dustbin of history. So, are you consistent and condemn them for their abominable practice of slavery? Or do they get the usual free pass where slavery is abominable in 1860 but not 1800?

And another thought concerning these men comes to mind; the British granted freedom to any slaves who would fight as loyalists against the rebels during the Revolution. Moreover these Planter Class rebels were waging war against the rule of law, the legitimate government, and they had unlawfully seized assets including arms that rightfully belonged to the Crown. Sounds a good deal like what you condemn the Confederacy for doing a few decades later. Looking back at all this do you side with America’s Planter Class or poor old King George?

[rockrr]

Does that mean you openly admit that it was a rebellion and not a secession?