Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.
Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held "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." Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.
At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George III would have agreed.
No. That was settled by Andrew Johnson through four clemency proclamations in May 1865, September 1867, July 1868, and December 1868 that basically pardoned everyone.
Lol.
These guys are jokes. It’s hilarious. As detached from reality as any SJW.
Well for two-thirds of their population anyway.
They defended their homeland from invasion by a foreign power.
Hence the war’s proper name: The War of Northern Aggression.
That would be Lincoln and his numerous unconstitutional acts.
Actually the south’s battle cry would have been “slavery!”. Or perhaps a better battle cry would (with stomping feet) have been “Someone won the presidential election we don’t like so we are going to destroy the union.” Much like democrats of today.
Which ones were those?
“Southern Cry was literally Slavery.”
Both the USA and CSA had slaves. Both the USA and CSA had pro-slavery constitutions. Both the USA and CSA had presidents that took oaths to defend their pro-slavery constitutions.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, only one of these nations added a slave state. Do you know which?
I think you have made a good point on what really created the federal behemoth we have today. Because southern states were denying some of their citizens their constitutional rights the federal government had to step in and secure those rights. Everything else is history.
So would that mean that the proper name for World War II would be The War of Polish Aggression?
Exactly. If entry was voluntary, then it would be assumed that staying was voluntary.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Every so often, when some progressives act like they would have been among the patriots in the 18th century, I point out their error.
It goes something like this:
The colonials who were okay with Arbitrary government were the Tories.
Since Arbitrary governance is the core of “progressivism” in the United States — the Constitution otherwise would prevent progressivism at the federal level and progressives feel no need to amend it to make their mad schemes lawful — it follows that this lot would have had no issues with the abuses of the Crown.
And it isn’t just that they are okay with Arbitrary government, but that in every particular they demand far more of government than the George and his Parliament ever considered or even dreamed of.
As a consequence if we consider how they might have acted upon the Patriot’s complaint of the crown sending innumerable officials to lord it over the colonies ... well, I’m sure they’d understand it was meant for our own good just as their bureaucratic hordes are claimed to be. Same with the taxes.
In fact, today’s nut burgers might be howling that George wasn’t taxing and spending enough!
You can’t want to exceed the Crown’s supposed abuses in EVERY respect and think you’d somehow have been against them had you been there.
Simply: an ideology that demands far worse than the worst of the Crown’s supposed abuses would never side with those who wanted less of it all, and the pretense that today’s left wouldn’t have been Tories back in the day is untenable.
Heck, if the colonies had been as far left as the DNC is now the King might have been trying to protest THEM!
Not the crews of the Hunley. Not yet.
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Entry is not voluntary. A territory cannot proclaim themselves a state and send a congressional delegation to Washington. Entry is allowed only with the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. I'm OK if leaving only requires the same thing.
I don’t believe that you can call them traitors because they were being loyal to their state. In those days Americans’ allegiance was primarily to the state they lived in and were born in than to America as a whole. Most Americans don’t realize that at the time of the Civil War people were citizens of their state as if it was its own country. In those days politics was truly local.
Yup. If Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin et al had lost, they would have been hung as traitors to the crown.
Unfortunately, not all revolutions are for the best...Cuba, Russia for example. However, the American Revolution and Constitution provided the template for true LIBERTY that the World has copied many times over. Too bad so many of the Western world have forgotten the sacrifices those old wig-wearing men did so you socialists, wannabe commies, anarchists, muslimes can piss on them. You dumbasss are only free to do such because of us.
Keep giving them a lesson, President Trump! Don't bow; don't apologize; don't give aid to enemies (Iran), and don't be politically afraid to use American power! The United States of America created the free modern prosperous world. It needs to be reminded. MAGA!
Last thought President Trump, please no more of our children's live/limbs for Syria, Iraq, Aftganiscrap. Bomb them back to their beloved 7th century and bomb the rubble again.
As a tax-paying Navy veteran, I no longer give one shit about collateral damage. Kill them all as we did in Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, etc. You really think Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emigrates, Oman, Jordan will really care? Hell, they'd be happy to see that mess gone. They'll just make plans for the land and resources. Let them have it. Just give Putin 20 minutes that we are destroying everything. He may get pissed, but won't start a war with us. He's a smart man.
And while we're at it, send some MOABs to Iranian nuke facilities.
“I think you have made a good point on what really created the federal behemoth we have today. Because southern states were denying some of their citizens their constitutional rights the federal government had to step in and secure those rights. Everything else is history.”
And it gave real fodder for the Communists who have been working a century to take over.
It was hard to argue with them when the US had Jim Crow. It made them seem as if they had a moral high ground.
And these Southern Dems were all also big government liberals who supported Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Clinton came directly from this tradition under his segregationist mentor, Fulbright.
Democrats have been absolutely diabolical in first creating true social injustice and then acting as champion for those they oppressed in the first place and then winning over others who admired their social justice fighting.
It’s among the greatest scams in history.
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.