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.
Not directly, which is why I said it is merely my understanding.
One source for what is merely my understanding (not absolute certainty) is the following, however there is a good discussion and others make the point that since it (secession) was never mentioned it was implicitly allowed.
“It was proposed that the new [Confederate] Constitution explicitly recognize the right of secession, but the idea was dropped after others suggested that ‘its inclusion would discredit the claim that the right had been inherent under the old government.’ [Wilfred B.] Yearns, [The Confederate Congress (1960)], at 29; see also [Charles Robert] Lee [Jr., The Confederate Constitutions (1963)], at 101-02 (citing the relevant portions of the Journal and arguing that the right to secede was ‘implied in the specific phraseology of the Preamble,’ which in what seems to me a less than conclusive manner declared that the Constitution was the work of ‘the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character’ . . .).”
David P. Currie, Through the Looking Glass: The Confederate Constitution in Congress, 1861 - 1865, fn. 39.
Also this:
Dixie Betrayed: How The South Really Lost The Civil War, by David J. Eicher,in Chapter 11, Jockying For Position, pages 158-159:
“Meanwhile, an even greater shocker rose to the floor of the Senate. On February 5 [1863], the Senate heard a proposed amendment to the Confederate Constitution that would allow an aggrieved state to secede from the Confederacy. “It shall do so in peace,” read the proposal, “but shall be entitled to its pro rata share of property and be liable for its pro rata share of public debt to be determined by negotiation.” The idea was referred to the Judicial Committee. Two days later senators failed to recommend the amendment, and the whole thing was dropped as a dangerous idea.”
The source given for the above was listed in the book “As quoted in Southern Historical Society Papers, 48: 60, 80.”x
Both are from a discussion at the following link:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/csa-constitution-did-not-permit-secession.8924/
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.
Then we have the 1777 "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. " ratified as of 1781 by all the States.
To make it even more fun.....
Look up The Hartford Convention.
The North thought about seceding.
No expert here, but a bigger scam though history is that the Republican party was behind the founding and atrocities by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). That racist murderous sick organization was founded by Democrats in the south who were against "reconstruction" by the Repubs after the Civil War.
And then there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two guesses who mostly voted against it.
I have never understood why the Pubs let the Dimms get away with such nonsense as if their Pubs bills will kill old people, women and children. It's the same story again with Obamacare repeal. Everyone is going to die!...and RINOs step in line to be part of the good ole club, and the idiot voters fall for it. Guess it's too hard to understand that a rising tide lifts all boats. Sheesh!
Let me put into words the low information voters (LIV) can understand: You live in a town where Walmart has put mom&pop out of business and the businesses they used to frequent from their small business profits have to close. Some large company comes in and not only provides new jobs (with benefits), but also new and needed ancillary jobs/businesses like hair salons, car repair, construction/remodeling, boutique stores, eateries, and on and on for those that had to close.
Why don't you people get that the profits from that evil large corporation is lifting everyone up? So what if they make a shit load of money? Are you so enamored with the Karcrapions or just too stupid to see your own benefit?
I've owned 3 small businesses and know trickle down economics work. Wish you could ask my many employees who had no jobs or health care, and were ashamed to be on welfare, how bad it was to have an employer.
Per your quote from Grant which is exact, he felt that the war was nearly over and that was it. The rest gave up soon after and Sherman got into it with the scum in DC who demanded he rewrite his conditions to Johnston.
Sherman retorted to. I believe it was Stanton, that he had better watch it because some rash person might do something to him. Grant was sent to Sherman with orders to relieve him, but Grant simply gave Sherman the new terms he was to propose to Johnston. This he did in secrete.
Grant, Sherman, Lee and Johnston saved this nation in those few days. I really believe that if the scum in DC persisted in their determination of hanging Lee and others, that Grant would have led a coup and ordered the arrest of those trying to do the deed.
Grant felt it was OVER and that was that.
Great man.
I agree. Most of the Confederate Generals had served this country faithfully in the military prior to the Civil War. And like our Patriot forefathers, who believed they were being oppressed by the British monarchy, these southern Patriots believed they were being similarly oppressed by an over-bearing government.
Old New England family fortunes were made on the slave trade, definitely.
A lot of rich liberals benefit to this day from it.
I am arguing that the post-Civil War actions of the Southern Democrats were far harmful, Jim Crow, government decreed and enforced segregation, second-class citizenship.
All foisted upon us by big government Democrats. It gave the reds real things to criticize.
It’s like all sin, it has been very harmful. It’s hurt our country more than anything else and without it the left never would have even got a foothold here.
And now the same people and spirit uses these past sins to gain power and influence as champions against what they themselves did.
“There was some jackwad here years ago who would that term as a sarcastic insult in diatribes about how much the South sucked. I don’t miss that loser one bit.”
Let’s refresh some memories.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~asouthron/
http://www.freerepublic.com/~southronpatriot/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/594292/posts?page=303#303
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695073/posts?page=251#251
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/688281/posts?page=633#633
I never even heard the term “Southron” til these guys started posting here.
It got so bad JimRob even had say that this isn’t a forum for the South Will Rise Again types.
The KKK was started in the deep south state of Illinois.
“Southern Cry was literally Slavery”
Legalized slavery in the CSA-1861-1864 4 yrs
legalized slavery in the USA 1775-1865 90 yrs
This is why the “slavery” argument is lazy and weak
This is why no one takes you (not you personally per se) seriously and communists can demagogue and use your stupidity to hurt all of us....
“Legalized slavery in the CSA-1861-1864 4 yrs”
I wasn’t aware the CSA freed slaves and made slavery illegal in 1864.
“communists can demagogue”
Very true. Southern Democrsts definitely gave the left a lot to demagogue about.
The post-war policies were even more useful for the commies.
There’d’ve been no Obama if the Southern Democrats hadn’t done their Jim Crow and segregation and racial based oppression.
And all Democrats were fine with it for decades.
“There was some jackwad here years ago who would that term as a sarcastic insult in diatribes about how much the South sucked. I don’t miss that loser one bit.”
There was a poster a few years ago with the moniker “non-sequitur” who would seem to fit that description.
Technically, yes, they were, per the definition by the US Constitution.
“n 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.”
Not just generals. President Andrew Johnson issued “a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason” to “all and every person” involved, on Christmas 1868.
It also required slavery be allowed and that no state could take any action to end the practice. That is why the “State Rights” argument is pure Male Bovine Scat.
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.