"Confederates: Were they traitors?" Topic
123 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2 3
McLaddie | 13 Jul 2020 9:15 p.m. PST |
As I pointed out above, some states reserved the right to leave the union when they ratified the Constitution. Obviously they felt the Union could be dissolved at any time. I'll defer to them on this question. Dn Jackson: If those 'states' signed on, ratifying the Constitution while 'reserving the right to leave', then they signed the Constitution under false pretensions. There were no provisions written in the Constitution covering that 'right.' The Anti-Federalists did demand Amendments, including the Bill of Rights, but any recognition of a state's right to leave the Union was not demanded as a condition for agreeing to the Constitution. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of preemption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. That includes any 'state legislation' to leave the Union. All the states representatives read the contract before signing, agreeing to its terms. There should be no surprise that the Federal government acted with its Constitutionally granted powers, regardless of what any individuals or groups of states felt were their rights. |
Marcus Brutus | 14 Jul 2020 6:22 a.m. PST |
To the original question, whether Confederate officers and soldiers were traitors. I don't think so. The question of Succession was still untested before the Civil War. Could a state sever the relationship between citizens and their Federal government? Certainly those who fought for their state in the Confederacy felt so. I think it is most unfortunate that people today are engaged in revisionist thinking. Personally, I think it speaks well the United States that it could find a way to honour those who fought for the South and bring the South back into the Union, literally and spiritually. Whether military bases should be named after them in 2020 is another question. |
McLaddie | 14 Jul 2020 8:21 a.m. PST |
The question of Succession was still untested before the Civil War. Historically, that isn't true. It had been 'tested' several times to varying degrees between the Articles of Confederation and the Civil War. |
Marcus Brutus | 14 Jul 2020 7:20 p.m. PST |
Historically, that isn't true. It had been 'tested' several times to varying degrees between the Articles of Confederation and the Civil War. Exactly when? And please don't quote the attempts at nullification. That was a different issue and clearly seen by everyone at the time as unconstitutional. |
Murvihill | 15 Jul 2020 8:59 a.m. PST |
I don't believe it follows that the lenient treatment given at the end of the war resulted in 150 years of Jim Crow. Race relations would have been an ongoing issue regardless and harsher treatment may have simply encouraged resentment. Also remember that people of the time believed there was scientific evidence supporting their belief on the inferiority of other races. Obviously proven untrue now but not then. World War Two was really the turning point in race relations as the whole underpinnings of the Axis were based on the idea that they were superior races. To defeat them was to defeat the idea that one race is better than another. Fallout continues. |
xLAVAx | 15 Jul 2020 12:59 p.m. PST |
H@ll no, they weren't traitors. Once the southern states had succeeded from the US, they were no longer bound by the US constitution. They were considered to be rebels, rebelling against Northern rule. Just as when the folks in the colonies rebelled against Britain, they were called rebels, not traitors. The colonists succeeded in their war for independence and are now referred to as patriots. Silly conversation devoid of historical context. |
McLaddie | 15 Jul 2020 6:58 p.m. PST |
Historically, that isn't true. It had been 'tested' several times to varying degrees between the Articles of Confederation and the Civil War. Exactly when? And please don't quote the attempts at nullification. That was a different issue and clearly seen by everyone at the time as unconstitutional. Marcus: I am not sure what history you are referencing. The issue of states rights leading to talk of secession (and even planning) occurred multiple times starting with the debates over the Constitution ratification. To note just a few and explain only two: *The Whiskey Tax (1791) and the Whiskey Rebellion (1793) *Chisholm v Georgia (1793) *The Alien and Sedition Acts (1813) This raised states' rights disputes during the War of 1812. New England Federalists convened the Hartford Convention (1814–15). The Federalists voiced opposition to President Madison's war, and seriously discussed secession from the Union. In the end they stopped short of calls for secession, but when their report appeared at the same time as news of the great American victory at the Battle of New Orleans, the New England Federalists were politically ruined. *McCulloch v Maryland (1819) *Gibbons v Ogden (1824), *The tariffs of 1828 and 1832 The South, particularly South Carolina saw the tariffs as crippling to their international trade in cotton and felt it was specifically done to hurt the need for slaves. South Carolina Governor called the legislature into a special session to consider a convention. The state legislative vote was 96-25 in the House and 31-13 in the Senate. In November 1832, the Nullification Convention met. The convention declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and unenforceable within the state of South Carolina after February 1, 1833. It was asserted that attempts to use force to collect the taxes would lead to the state's secession. Robert Hayne, who succeeded Hamilton as governor in 1833, established a 2,000-man group of mounted minutemen and 25,000 infantry who would march to Charleston in the event of a military conflict. These troops were to be armed with $100,000 USD in arms purchased in the North. Senator Calhoun wrote "Exposition and Protest" which started a national debate on the doctrine of nullification. The leading proponents of the nationalistic view included Daniel Webster, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Judge William Alexander Duer, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Chipman, and Nathan Dane. They rejected ‘the compact theory' of the Constitution advanced by Calhoun, claiming that the Constitution was the product of the people, not the states. According to the nationalist position, the Supreme Court had the final say on legislation's constitutionality, and the national union was perpetual and had supreme authority over individual states. The nullifiers, on the other hand, asserted that the central government was not the ultimate arbiter of its own power, and that the states, as the contracting entities, could judge for themselves what was constitutional. While Calhoun's "Exposition" claimed that nullification was based on the reasoning behind the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, an aging James Madison in an August 28, 1830, letter to Edward Everett, intended for publication, disagreed. Madison wrote, denying that any individual state could alter the compact. In the end, there was compromise. Hayne disbanded the militias he had called up, with other Southern states chiding the South Carolinians for being rash. The historian Forrest McDonald, in describing the split over nullification among proponents of states' rights, wrote: "The doctrine of states' rights, as embraced by most Americans, was not concerned exclusively, or even primarily, with state resistance to federal authority." But by the end of the nullification crisis, many Southerners questioned whether Jacksonian Democrats still represented Southern interests. The historian William J. Cooper Jr. notes, "Numerous Southerners had begun to perceive it [the Jacksonian Democratic Party] as a spear aimed at the South rather than a shield defending the South." The question of states' rights and the ability to leave the Union was raised multiple times and widely debated. Conventions were held and legislative actions were made with secession as one of the options identified whether Federalists, Whiskey producers or Southern slave owners. |
McLaddie | 15 Jul 2020 7:20 p.m. PST |
H@ll no, they weren't traitors. Once the southern states had succeeded from the US, they were no longer bound by the US constitution. They were considered to be rebels, rebelling against Northern rule. xLAVAx: Historically, for the British, there was no difference between the terms Rebels and traitors by definition. Rebels: "a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler." 'Rebels' is derived from the word 'Rebellion.' Just as when the folks in the colonies rebelled against Britain, they were called rebels, not traitors. The colonists succeeded in their war for independence and are now referred to as patriots. The British called them traitors during the entire AWI as well as rebels because the two words meant pretty much the same thing. The American colonies did not sign any joint agreement to live under the laws of the British government, and had their own state governments and laws. They did not enjoy the rights of Englishmen, which was the basis for the Rebellion: No taxation without representation. American colonists were not considered English citizens, but English subjects of the Crown. A different set of 'rights.' Not the same as the representatives from each state all signing off on the form of government they agreed to live under, which included the following Articles: Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Article I, Section. 8 ("Dormant Commerce Clause"): The Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Article I, Section. 8 ("Necessary and Proper Clause"): The Congress shall have Power…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Article I, Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports…., No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. The legal and governing situation of the Colonists was quite different from that of the Southern States under the Constitution eighty-five years later. The historical context. |
donlowry | 16 Jul 2020 8:26 a.m. PST |
excellent. Thanks, McLaddie! |
marco56 | 16 Jul 2020 9:20 a.m. PST |
I don't see anything in there that says that they couldn't leave only that they had to observe laws and regulations while they were in the union.What would have been interesting if when the Union was formed if one or more had voted not to join. Mark |
McLaddie | 16 Jul 2020 2:27 p.m. PST |
I don't see anything in there that says that they couldn't leave only that they had to observe laws and regulations while they were in the union. marco56: It isn't what you see, but what you don't see in the Constitution that is pertinent. The government compact before the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, stated: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." You don't see each state retaining its sovereignty in the Constitution. Sovereignty: "Final say". The stated purpose of the Articles was: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." The stated purpose of the Constitution was: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. A very different purpose statement, with 'The People of the United states' speaking about 'ourselves', forming a union. The states aren't even mentioned. It isn't several states joining a league of friendship. It is interesting, as the states did have the option of not joining, and that option certainly was debated among the various states. But they didn't opt to go it alone and thus retain their sovereignty. The original belief was that nine of the 13 colonies needed to join to form the Union, so it wasn't necessary for all the states to join. It is also important to note that the colonies didn't officially become 'states' until 1781-5, Delaware the first colony to become a state. This was when the government of the state officially abandoned the colonial form of government and established a reconstituted government with many 'English laws' being jettisoned. |
marco56 | 16 Jul 2020 6:34 p.m. PST |
I want to thank everyone for their imput. Very interesting topic. Mark |
donlowry | 18 Jul 2020 8:41 a.m. PST |
I don't see anything in there that says that they couldn't leave only that they had to observe laws and regulations while they were in the union. It also doesn't say that you can get away with not obeying the Federal laws if you pretend you are no longer part of the Union. |
arthur1815 | 18 Jul 2020 9:00 a.m. PST |
"It isn't what you see, but what you don't see in the Constitution that is pertinent." I'm not sure that argument would be applied to the interpretation of any statute by a law court. Scotland joined the kingdom of Great Britain by the Act of Union in 1707 – i haven't read it, but I doubt the Act of Union provided Scotland with a right to leave later. Does that mean that those nationalist Scots who seek to become independent of the UK are 'traitors'? And if Scotland does vote to leave the UK in a future referendum, do you believe England and Wales have the right to invade? If not, why not, as the case seems to be remarkably similar to the southern states' desire to secede? Or is it one rule for Uncle Sam; another for everyone else? Personally, I don't find the attitude, 'You joined this union, but you can't leave and if you try, we'll beat the 'bleep' out of you!' either attractive or moral, whatever the minutiae of legal texts might say, and somewhat hypocritical, given the origins of the USA. |
McLaddie | 18 Jul 2020 8:45 p.m. PST |
It isn't what you see, but what you don't see in the Constitution that is pertinent."I'm not sure that argument would be applied to the interpretation of any statute by a law court. arthur: I have no idea…are we talking about the Supreme Court? I simply pointed out the very big difference between the two forms of government and the very disparate descriptions of the purpose and intent of those governments being formed. IF state sovereignty was so important to the various states, why was it stated so plainly in the Articles of Confederation but omitted entirely in the Constitution? The states aren't even mentioned in the Constitutional preamble, just 'We the People', but the states figured as the primary actors joining in a league in the Articles. In law, intent and omission do have some bearing. You have to ask yourself what the thirteen States were thinking when they all joined under the Constitutional framework. A Bill of Rights was demanded by the anti-federalists as a protection against a strong Federal Government and that was added. I don't see why state sovereignty couldn't have been added too, considering how many supposedly felt strongly about state sovereignty. Why the Constitution at all? It was because all the states recognized that state sovereignty was what rendered the federal government under the Articles of Confederation impotent… Federal laws, taxes, trade agreements and military actions were always being overridden, denied or ignored by individually sovereign states whenever they felt the urge. f not, why not, as the case seems to be remarkably similar to the southern states' desire to secede? Or is it one rule for Uncle Sam; another for everyone else? 1. They aren't similar at all, considering the history of England compared to the USA. 2. And yes, it is one rule for Uncle Sam and another for England. You see they are separate countries [by decision 1776] having created different forms of governments by different processes for different reasons over a very different period of time. Personally, I don't find the attitude, 'You joined this union, but you can't leave and if you try, we'll beat the 'bleep' out of you!' either attractive or moral, whatever the minutiae of legal texts might say, and somewhat hypocritical, given the origins of the USA. Minutiae? Really? It would only be hypocritical if the nation was still under the Articles of Confederation or the states hadn't signed the Constitution. It can be seen as just as hypocritical to sign the Constitution with no intention of honoring the stipulations outlined. It was something less that forthright and honorable to sign the Constitution while overtly reserving the right, unspoken and unwritten, to leave the agreement whenever they felt the need to pick up their marbles 'cause they felt they were losing the game and didn't want to play anymore. The Articles of Confederation had an iron-clad pre-nup for the states, 'leave any time you want,' but any 'what happens if we leave' stipulations were entirely omitted in the Constitution. Does that mean that those nationalist Scots who seek to become independent of the UK are 'traitors'? And if Scotland does vote to leave the UK in a future referendum, do you believe England and Wales have the right to invade? It is more important to understand what the English and Scots believe. Neither side has mentioned invasion over the Scots' previous referendums. So, 1. What is the process they are planning to employ to become independent visa vie England? Attack English military bases and seize their ships and property? England has had more than one province [Ireland for instance] and colony [Australia and Canada] leave and form independent governments, so the English must have some peaceful process established for doing that… unlike the U.S. 2. All Scots will decide by referendum, a vote of every citizen, which is quite different from what the Southern States did in deciding to leave… |
smog monster | 19 Jul 2020 3:03 a.m. PST |
I think you are confusing the terms England and The UK. England as an entity has not had any colonies leave and form their own governments. The UK however has. American's in particular seem to equate the term Brit and English as one thing and the Scots as something different. All the term Brit denotes is a person as being a native of the island of Britain, this includes Scots and the welsh ergo they are as much a Brit as the English. also the Scots joined England willingly they were not invaded and conquered. they are an equal partner and as such are just as responsible for all the good and bad the old empire did. |
Trajanus | 19 Jul 2020 4:06 a.m. PST |
In case no one read the earlier post containing the statement by the Head of the Joint Chief's of Staff here's a clip instead. youtu.be/UwhVH3wpuG4 |
Bill N | 19 Jul 2020 6:05 a.m. PST |
I have no desire to wade into the debate of whether Confederates were traitors. There are a few points raised in this conversation that are misleading if not incorrect. It is claimed "the colonies didn't officially become 'states' until 1781-5". The Virginia Constitution of 1776 which among other things declared that colony's independence from George III asserted that it was a state. The 1778 treaty was between Louis XVI of France and "the United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhodes island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia". The Articles of Confederation drafted in 177 were 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". And of course the Declaration of Independence was by "the thirteen united States of America" and asserted "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States". The concept that "states" meant simply a political subdivision of the nation U.S. was an idea that arose much later. Comparing the Articles of Confederation with the text of the Constitution of 1787 as ratified can be a bit misleading. There was a belief even among those that voted to ratify the 1787 Constitution that the arrangement was incomplete, and this lead to the relatively swift modification of that document by the Bill of Rights. Article X of the Bill of Rights stated "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 doesn't mean the power to secede was preserved by the states. It does mean the failure to expressly state the power was not fatal to its existence. Just as the drafters of the Constitution of 1787 left things vague to insure the document's adoption, so also Madison when he drafted the Bill of Rights did the same thing. |
donlowry | 19 Jul 2020 8:27 a.m. PST |
Does that mean that those nationalist Scots who seek to become independent of the UK are 'traitors'? If they do it by force. |
McLaddie | 19 Jul 2020 9:22 a.m. PST |
Bill N. What you wrote is true, but during the war, it was recognized that the wartime governments were 1. Temporary, and some still operating under the provisions of pre-revolutionary charters. 2. A good portion of various states were still under British control 3. The term state was used in the place of 'colony' to separate them from being British colonies, like any independent state, such as France or Britain. The point which THEY recognized that the states were wholly states with their own forms of government and laws was not surprisingly done at the end of the AWI: Colonies to States: Delaware was the 1st of the original 13 colonies to become a state on : December 7, 1787 Pennsylvania was the 2nd of the original 13 colonies to become a state on December 12, 1787 New Jersey was the 3rd of the original 13 colonies to become a state on December 18, 1787 Georgia was the 4th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on January 2, 1788 Connecticut was the 5th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on January 9, 1788 Massachusetts was the 6th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on February 6, 1788 Maryland was the 7th of the original 13 colonies to become a state April 28, 1788 South Carolina was the 8th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on the May 23, 1788 New Hampshire was 9th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on the June 21, 1788 Virginia was the 10th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on the June 25, 1788 New York was the 11th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on July 26, 1788 North Carolina was the 12th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on November 21, 1789 Rhode Island was the 13th of the original 13 colonies to become a state on May 29, 1790 And yes, the signers of the Constitution did so with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would be added, which it was. A number of states wanted written guarantees concerning the power of the Federal Government and the states… but sovereignty wasn't among them. As you say, "It does mean the failure to expressly state the power was not fatal to its existence." I was simply noting that it speaks to intent and omission. |
McLaddie | 19 Jul 2020 9:27 a.m. PST |
I think you are confusing the terms England and The UK. England as an entity has not had any colonies leave and form their own governments. The UK however has. Smog Monster: I stand corrected. I should have been saying the UK. |
Blutarski | 19 Jul 2020 4:40 p.m. PST |
There was absolutely no provision in the Constitution of the united States of America that prohibited or prevented any state from unilaterally seceding. The Constitution was completely silent on the topic. There was no mention anywhere within the Constitution that the union of the several states was an indissoluble contract, nor did the Constitution grant to the federal government any authority whatsoever to prevent or even contest the secession of a state because. Nothing of the kind was included among the powers expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution Anyone who wishes to take the time to examine the history of the nation between the adoption of the Constitution by the original thirteen colonies and 1860 will find that there had already been a number of threats by various states to secede, mostly made by states in the North (New York and Massachusetts, to name two). Both these earlier secession threats and the ultimate actual secession of the southern states were widely discussed among political personages and as perfectly legitimate acts within the legal purview of the states. In no case was there ever any argument made that secession was prohibited under the constitution. It was widely accepted and agreed among informed political and legal classes in both the north and the south that the states possessed a unilateral and unfettered right of secession based upon the formal consent of its citizens. The constitution is presently considered to prohibit secession, based upon a tortuously argued 1868 supreme court interpretation that infers a state of indissolubility where no constitutional language whatsoever even remotely touches upon the subject – see "TEXAS vs WHITE et al". It is a shame that they do not teach history any more. B |
McLaddie | 19 Jul 2020 7:11 p.m. PST |
Both these earlier secession threats and the ultimate actual secession of the southern states were widely discussed among political personages and as perfectly legitimate acts within the legal purview of the states. In no case was there ever any argument made that secession was prohibited under the constitution. B: There certainly were those who believed that, but there were also any number who argued that secession was prohibited. That is history too. IF everyone believed that, there couldn't have been a Civil War. |
donlowry | 20 Jul 2020 8:38 a.m. PST |
Even IF, and I emphasize "IF", secession was legitimate, that did not automatically mean that all Federal property inside a seceded state now belonged to the state. And secession certainly did not give the seceded state the right to fire on U.S. troops. THAT is what started the war! |
Au pas de Charge | 20 Jul 2020 8:42 a.m. PST |
It is true that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved by the States. However, it is not true that those powers need to be "expressed" powers but can also be "implied" powers. Additionally, these "implied" powers are very, very broad. Before it was finally ratified, several States wanted a specific opt-out clause from the Constitution. These opt-out clauses were all considered and rejected from the final document. That speaks volumes about the Founders' intent to create a union that was proof against unilateral secession. Still, if the Southern states believed that the question about unilateral secession was not prohibited, then they should have taken it to the courts. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison established that the SCOUTUS has the sole authority to interpret the Constitution. Thus, although people may have been gossiping about the legality of unilateral secession, unfortunately that chit chat carried zero legal authority. The Southern States could have and, indeed, should have filed a federal preemptive law suit for a determination about the legality/constitutionality of unilateral secession. I suspect they did not both because they weren't interested in the answer and because they truly only wanted one outcome; to do whatever they felt like. This is a similar rationalization any criminal would exhibit; that the law can be decided by them. In summary, if the Southern states had felt they were one hundred percent within their rights and justified under the Constitution, why then, did they not submit themselves to SCOTUS for a legally binding decision? Additionally, when the southern states seceded and made announcements justifying it, they further underlined a guilty mind and both acknowledged a break from the Constitution and created a constitutional crisis which, again, needed to be adjudicated by SCOTUS. Thus, whether or not unilateral secession was legal, it was not for the slave states to make a unilateral decision, it was reserved to SCOTUS to make that determination. Ultimately SCOTUS decided that unilateral secession was unconstitutional. I should remind everyone that SCOTUS cases on the Constitution refer back the provisions' original ratification and thus the law is that unilateral secession was ALWAYS unconstitutional. |
Herkybird | 20 Jul 2020 3:01 p.m. PST |
Were Confederates traitors? – Yes. But only because they lost. |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Jul 2020 8:26 a.m. PST |
It isnt as simple as whether the confederates were traitors. It is also a question about whether confederate mindset ever learned its lesson and admitted wrong doing. Part of the problem, at the end of the war, was that there were lots of confederate sympathizers in the North which bred real fears that there was no guarantee that Jefferson Davis would be convicted of treason in spite of the clarity of the law on the subject. It would be interesting to open this up again and fully litigate questions about whether secession and the confederacy were treasonous. It could be tied to a lawsuit that assesses war reparations owed by the southern states and by former slave owners to the union.
|
Quaama | 22 Jul 2020 12:51 p.m. PST |
"It would be interesting [my emphasis] to open this up again and fully litigate questions about whether secession and the confederacy were treasonous. It could be tied to a lawsuit that assesses war reparations owed by the southern states and by former slave owners to the union." Sounds like a really good way to exacerbate existing divisions within the USA, probably to the point of armed conflict. Any lawsuit that sought war reparations from southern states would doubtless be matched by numerous lawsuits from those states seeking reparations for the major destruction to their economies [the actions of Sherman (and others) come to mind]. The behaviour of CSA forces when present in USA states was in stark contrast to the malicious, brutal and devastating damage metered out by USA forces while in CSA states. |
arthur1815 | 22 Jul 2020 2:22 p.m. PST |
Quaama +1 Also, why throw good money at highly paid lawyers to argue interminably and at enormous expense over something that has, effectively, been decided by force of arms for the foreseeable future? No legalistic pronouncement on the legality or otherwise of secession is going to alter 'hearts and minds' and alter people's admiration for the bravery of their ancestors who fought for either side. |
BW1959 | 22 Jul 2020 7:07 p.m. PST |
So the CSA was more benevolent the few times they travelled north? I guess the burning of Chambersburg PA by Jubal Early doesn't count, or the capturing of free blacks into slavery? PDF link |
Quaama | 22 Jul 2020 8:06 p.m. PST |
I never claimed the CSA were perfect: I think it would be hard to find any nation in any war that did not have some instances where an accusatory finger can be pointed. Such instances are quite different from an orchestrated and calculated path of destruction against civilians and their property hence the claim of their being a "stark contrast". A reference to R. E. Lee's General Orders 72 archives.dickinson.edu/sites/all/files/files_war/I-Original-1863-6.pdf seems quite specific when the first regulation states "While in the enemy's country … No private property shall be injured or destroyed by any person belonging to or connected with the army , or taken, except by the officers herein designated [and then goes on to specify who can requisition necessary supplies and how]. Very different from Sherman telling Grant cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/files/original/5ff2e10d043bd18ed36b3b95443cc040.jpg he would "make Georgia howl" before he set off on his campaign where the stated aim was the "utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people [my emphasis]". |
McLaddie | 22 Jul 2020 9:38 p.m. PST |
I never claimed the CSA were perfect. Good to know. It would be hard to suggest it as they were defending the basest form of slavery. Sounds like a really good way to exacerbate existing divisions within the USA, probably to the point of armed conflict. That sounds like all the issues involving the the Civil War was never 'concluded' and any talk of 'the winners determining the story' doesn't fit. |
Blutarski | 23 Jul 2020 1:12 p.m. PST |
Go to YouTube and search for "Lincoln's Tariff War". It will provide an interesting perspective on the trustworthiness of popular ACW history. B |
Blutarski | 23 Jul 2020 1:26 p.m. PST |
"Even IF, and I emphasize "IF", secession was legitimate, that did not automatically mean that all Federal property inside a seceded state now belonged to the state." The state of SC sent a delegation to Washington DC prepared to reimburse the federal government not only for federal property seized, but also to settle SC's share of the existing national debt. Lincoln absolutely refused to meet with them. People might also be interested to explore in more detail the events and circumstances that led up to the firing upon Fort Sumter. The popular history has been "well massaged" to hide Lincoln's involvement in provoking the event. B
|
Blutarski | 23 Jul 2020 1:32 p.m. PST |
Right of secession, as viewed by those who founded the nation and were actually American citizen leaders and in the 19th century. link |
Quaama | 23 Jul 2020 4:03 p.m. PST |
I never claimed the CSA were perfect. Good to know. It would be hard to suggest it as they were defending the basest form of slavery. But (as argued on other threads) slavery, of course, was not the sole reason for the war: several Union states maintained slaves during the war; the 13th amendment didn't pass both houses until January 1865 (when the war was almost over and it wasn't ratified until after the war (December 1865); the vast majority of the CSA troops were not slave owners whereas some in the Union were slave owners; and I suspect that if a claim had been made by anyone with authority in the USA that they were going to war to free slaves you would have had a few more states join the CSA and insurrections in many cities and towns across the USA. As for the legality of succession the link provided by Blutarski provides some useful quotes on the thinking of leading figures on this matter and as Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"; and "the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext [my emphasis], as among the gravest of crimes". Lincoln, in that same address, argues strongly "that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union" although this contention seems to be based upon his interpretation of the words "to form a more perfect Union" from the Constitution rather than a less unambiguous wording to specifically prohibit a State leaving the Union. |
Au pas de Charge | 23 Jul 2020 8:10 p.m. PST |
Sounds like a really good way to exacerbate existing divisions within the USA, probably to the point of armed conflict. Any lawsuit that sought war reparations from southern states would doubtless be matched by numerous lawsuits from those states seeking reparations for the major destruction to their economies [the actions of Sherman (and others) come to mind]. The behaviour of CSA forces when present in USA states was in stark contrast to the malicious, brutal and devastating damage metered out by USA forces while in CSA states. If there was a final SCOTUS determination about secession and its constitutionality it would provoke armed conflict? How could that be the case? Why wouldn't the confederate supporters want a once and for all determination by SCOTUS? Dont they believe the move of secession was 100% Constitutional? If that's the case, one would think they'd be pushing people over on their way up the courthouse steps to file the brief. Further, are we suggesting that peace exists in this country because the confederate mindset can perpetually self justify itself without challenge?
In any case, I don't see why confederate supporters couldn't also sue the union for damages. I would imagine the reverse would be true as well. And of course for reparations, all descendants of slaves should be allowed to sue both slave holders and those who benefited from a predominantly slave society, and it could include northerners. All union citizens who died as a result of the war, no matter what their color, could also file for reparations. Additional parts of the lawsuit would be whether all flags and symbols of the confederacy (Statues, Seals, art, images etc.) would be considered badges and incidents of slavery. This might violate yet another Constitutional provision and require their removal from any public spaces.
Also, why throw good money at highly paid lawyers to argue interminably and at enormous expense over something that has, effectively, been decided by force of arms for the foreseeable future?No legalistic pronouncement on the legality or otherwise of secession is going to alter 'hearts and minds' and alter people's admiration for the bravery of their ancestors who fought for either side. I would imagine a lot of lawyers would want to do this pro bono. I never would dream to change hearts and minds; merely inform those precious organs whether that cause was or was not an unconstitutional and traitorous cause in a legal, rather than self declaratory, manner. Surely, confederates the world over are nothing if not law abiding? |
McLaddie | 23 Jul 2020 8:37 p.m. PST |
But (as argued on other threads) slavery, of course, was not the sole reason for the war: Quaama: No, not the sole reason, but easily the primary reason, based on the various states' justifications for their declarations of Independence and Stephen's "Cornerstone" Speech. "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"; Lincoln did say that and it is true. Slavery was written into the Constitution, so he didn't have a lawful right to abolish it. In April of 1861 as Blutarski points out, Lincoln had agreed to an amendment guaranteeing slavery. That is not the same as "dissolving" the Constitution and Union, which Lincoln did have the responsibility of defending. It is also true that if the Union started as a war to free the slaves, there would have been far less support. But that wasn't the cause that drew the hundreds of thousands of 1861 volunteers. It was the belief that no state had the right to secede. I can throw out a lot of Northern and some Southern politicians who agreed with that sentiment, starting with the founding fathers such as Madison. However, it really isn't necessary. There were enough Northerners who believed that the South did not have the right to secede to prosecute the War and that it was traitorous to attempt secession, let alone fight against the Union. |
Quaama | 23 Jul 2020 11:38 p.m. PST |
In terms of the lawsuit matter, I suppose the point I was trying to make is that if one group sues then an opposing one will find their own reasons to sue and so on. It would just seem to fill the pockets of the legal fraternity (as mentioned by arthur1815 above) and cause a lot of friction and disharmony for no real gain. In terms of "Additional parts of the lawsuit would be whether all flags and symbols of the confederacy (Statues, Seals, art, images etc.) would be considered badges and incidents of slavery" I'd say that's a slippery slop of censorship. It already annoys me that political correctness seeks to do this with wargaming and other hobbies where it is deemed sinful to have swastikas on WWII models or any depiction of such things on boardgames simulating that era. Will it be an offence for some of my 15mm ACW figures to be holding a flag of the stars and bars (or early troops with the bonnie blue flag). Any such ban would then probably have to extend to any flag of a State that was part of the CSA as they could also fall under the "Statues, Seals, art, images etc." as they could also "be considered badges and incidents of slavery" As Lincoln had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists" and had "no inclination to do so" it must be presumed that his statues can be placed on the list for statue vandals to target. Their targets have been somewhat surprising in a number of instances already. All that being said, such bans are hard to enforce. I came across this news item abc.net.au/news/2020-07-22/australian-soldiers-signal-with-confederate-flag-in-afghanistan/12476530 a couple of days ago (it wasn't widely reported and I don't even remember the swastika flag incident from 2007 that the article references). [The SAS are the elite fighting unit of the Australian Army (like the British SAS).] I doubt they were holding it up in support of slavery and they were probably given a formal caution and then sent on their way (more a case of 'boys being boys' rather than any deep political statement). Then, a couple of hours ago I saw on television that some well known Australian products will have their names changed because they might give offence to some, including Coon (a popular cheddar cheese named after its founder, a Dr Coon [this is not a standard offensive term for indigenous black Australians, there are others] – my children eat a a lot of this cheese), Redskins (a red coloured lolly [I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of Native Americans in all of Australia if indeed there are any] and Chicos (a chocolate jelly baby [apparently offensive to some Latin Americans which I was previously unaware]). For as long as I can I will continue to have my CSA troops fly the Stars and Bars while the USA holds high their Stars and Stripes. |
Old Pete | 24 Jul 2020 1:18 p.m. PST |
Scotland is a country part of the United Kingdom with England being the other country within the Union. Scotland seems increasingly determined to regain its sovereignty from English domination. The right wing English/UK Tory government which is attempting to ignore Scottish opinions is detested by the vast majority of Scots, also 54% of voters in Scotland at present want an Independent Scotland. I know this because I live in Scotland. As regards Confederates being traitors, they didn't seem to think so at the time. At least within the states that seceded from the Union they felt the traitors were Southerners who fought against the South. As was stated already the winners decide who were traitors and after all did the north not pardon the vast majority of southerners which must imply they considered them traitors. |
arthur1815 | 24 Jul 2020 2:31 p.m. PST |
"did the north not pardon the vast majority of southerners which must imply they considered them traitors." Since the Union position was that states had no right to secede, they could hardly do otherwise than consider them traitors in law, but also choose to pardon them in the interests of reconciliation and future peace. |
arthur1815 | 24 Jul 2020 2:43 p.m. PST |
"I would imagine a lot of lawyers would want to do this pro bono." You clearly have a higher opinion of lawyers than I do! Or perhaps American lawyers are a different species from those in the UK? I don't see that the legal action proposed would be of any real public benefit and I doubt that SCOTUS would actually dare publicly state the CSA was legally right, even if examination of all the relevant documents led to such a conclusion, because that would open up a whole 'can of worms' best left undisturbed now. |
smog monster | 25 Jul 2020 7:05 a.m. PST |
Old Pete if the Scots really want to be Free? all the have to do is let the English have a vote. We just want rid of the moaning lot. |
Au pas de Charge | 25 Jul 2020 9:50 a.m. PST |
Although I find some of the hesitant reactions here odd, I dont think an actual suit based solely on the question of unilateral secession is going to originate and get decided on. Rather, as part of a wave of coming reparations lawsuits for descendants of slaves (and perhaps other parties in both the Union and the South ), there may very well need to be decided what the status of the confederate states was in order to determine the extent and size of the monies they need to pay and, also, whether it should be a assessed as a levy across the tax base of the entire former confederate state, on just the descendants of people who owned slaves or on all descendants of citizens (whether slave owning or not) of the state during the period of secession. These questions might actually be brought up by parties adverse to reparations. In any case, whomever brings it up, a federal court would have to decide once and for all both the citizenship and traitorous status of the Confederate states. |
Sad Old Pete | 26 Jul 2020 4:22 a.m. PST |
Thanks snog monster only wish you could vote tomorrow and my Country would finally be rid of English domination. |
smog monster | 26 Jul 2020 4:57 a.m. PST |
Your welcome. I hope you and wee krankie are very happy together. I hear she is banning free speech now. |
Sad Old Pete | 26 Jul 2020 4:04 p.m. PST |
Tut tut how base from a BoJo loving right wing Britnat. It's no surprise most of the rest of the world hate the English so much. Still if you want us out the dreadful UK then we will be more than happy to go. Sooner the better please. |
marco56 | 26 Jul 2020 5:41 p.m. PST |
I hear 15 counties in Oregon have petitions to leave Oregon and join Idaho.If they end up voting on this and vote to leave I wonder if Oregon has to allow it? Can you secede from one state to go to another?Any thoughts? Mark |
Fredloan | 26 Jul 2020 8:35 p.m. PST |
As a history major it amazes me how contemporary people always look back at history with judgement based on current standards and beliefs. I take no side in this matter because one can never convince or reason with a zealot. Yes we have zealots today that their belief is the only correct belief. History cannot be erased it happened and it is done, why bury it out of sight. Learn from it, and understand opposing views and be tolerant. The French still revere Napoleon, the rest of Europe thought him a monster. Should we take down the great pyramids and remove all pharaoh likenesses because they were built by slaves. Italians are still proud of their Roman heritage, built by conquering and enslaving people. Jews throughout history were treated like dogs throughout Christian Europe,and the Middle East. I do not hear them crying the blues and making excuses for their lot in life. They put on their Big Boy pants and create a life and career. The Far Left today will not stop at Confederate leaders or Generals. Next will be all the Founding Fathers who had slaves. Very slippery slope. |
Quaama | 26 Jul 2020 9:31 p.m. PST |
+1 Fredloan it amazes me how contemporary people always look back at history with judgement based on current standards and beliefs Yes, it amazes me too. Although I suppose this wide-spread inability to acknowledge that standards and beliefs could be any different from now (or to even remember [be taught] the past – see videos mentioned on other TMP threads about young people from the USA being asked 'Who won the Civil War') is why we are condemned to repeat history. Looks like the current generation growing up will live in interesting times (as per the expression/curse 'May you live in interesting times'). |
Pages: 1 2 3
|