"Confederates: Were they traitors?" Topic

Old Pete I thought my handle may have given you a clue. I'm from the North East which is hardly Tory territory now is it. My beef with the Scots is their none stop moaning about being dominated by the English.
1 You joined the union willingly. In fact we got a Scottish King out of the deal.
2 you took part in the Empire with glee. In fact a larger number of Governors and Generals were Scots than there should have been. Now it's as it you were never there, keep your heads down and let the English take all the flak.
3 the highland clearances were conducted by Scottish lairds not English lords.
4 You have your own Government the English don't, and through such you get free pescriptions and University tuition, as well as other things, We oppressive English don't.

No not for a couple of hundred years, have you been anything like been oppressed, but hey lets not let the truth get in the way of having someone to blame for everything.

Smog monster I have nothing against ordinary English folk two of my best wargame chums are English who have moved to Scotland and I have many friends who are English. I am more interested in the government and establishment control by Governments we don't vote for or want.
Please read;
link

link

I am well aware of Scotland's roll in the British Empire.

At the recent election England voted in a right wing Tory government. Scotland voted against this government, we don't wish to leave the EU and we welcome immigrants to our country.
Also the UK government is also the English government as the pandemic has highlighted.
As the First Minister has ably shown during the pandemic Scotland is more than capable of surviving on its own, without English government interference.

Anyway, I still think the losers in any civil war would be considered traitors by the winners. If Washington had lost the war of Independence he would surely have been hung as a traitor by the British.

old Pete I too have nothing against your Average Scot, indeed when I joined the RN way back in 1980 my best mate was from Dundee, I spent a lot of my time at Rosyth and Faslane and as such a lot of my pals were Scottish. Since leaving I meet a Scot from Glasgow whilst watching football in Germany and since then were have travelled the country watching football and cricket, (I know been a Scot he's not supposed to like cricket but he does). It's not the average I don't like, its the rabid anti English mob that blame us for everything. If a Tory party won the election and gained seats in my neck of the woods, the labour heartland, I would think there is something wrong with labours message ie they have been taken over by far left marxist, your average person just will not buy it. Anyway I shall put away my sword and call it a draw.
Washington was a traitor winner or loser.

Quaama,

It is sad to say the least. They say ignorance is bliss, I say it is dangerous because so many protesters have no clue about the facts. They just want to be a part of something. Here in the US it has completely gone from an equality movement to an anarchist movement and that is the only way Democrats can win by causing fear and dependency. These young people want to end our democracy yet everyone from around the world runs here because of it. We do not need anymore lazy socialists in this country.

These young people want to end our democracy…

You mean like the Confederates tried to do? With the exception of course that the protesters aren't deploying massed fire arms and killing. Oh, and the protests are Constitutionally protected speech and thus, the protests are proof of participation in a democracy.

Maybe the Confederates should have tried protests instead of resorting to warfare and murder.

Here in the US it has completely gone from an equality movement to an anarchist movement and that is the only way Democrats can win by causing fear and dependency.

Are you implying that a political party is responsible for the protests?

No, Minipgs ……. The states of the Confederacy simply desired to govern itself as a separate nation upon the very same democratic principles.

BTW, if anyone wants to better understand why no prohibition against secession can be found in the Constitution, read the Declaration of Independence.

B

Like most things that involve politics, the U.S. Constitution was a compromise -- Had it included a clause allowing secession, it probably would not have been ratified (certainly, it would have involved a lot of wrangling over how and why it could be done); and if it had included a clause forbidding secession it probably would not have been ratified that way either; so the surest way to get it adopted was to not mention the possibility of secession at all.

But I repeat that secession itself was not treason (whether legal/constitutional or not). It was the seizing of U.S. property and especially the firing upon U.S. troops that was treason.

I can't see how the CSA was out to end democracy: just their association with the USA.
If it were thought at the time that anyone in the CSA was guilty of treason then Jefferson Davis would have been tried and hanged; he wasn't (although he was imprisoned for it for two years before the case was dismissed and he was granted a pardon and amnesty against any such charge).
It needs to be understood that, before the ACW started, many people did not venture much further than their county and even fewer outside their state (border towns excepted). When faced with a decision of their loyalty there was little question that they would serve their state before the USA because to do otherwise would have been treason in their eyes. This also explains why regiments and brigades were mainly composed of people from the same state because that was where their loyalty lay. [As most would be aware, the composition of regiments and brigades could cause great grief when a regiment met with heavy casualties as most of the young males of a particular town or county would be lost in a day, or a few hours.]

No, Minipgs ……. The states of the Confederacy simply desired to govern itself as a separate nation upon the very same democratic principles.

It's a more complex issue than this and I doubt really that the Confederate States wanted to run themselves in a democratic manner. However, in context to what Fredloan was saying, i find it hard to imagine that some demonstrators are a bigger threat to democracy than the concept that membership in that democracy is terminable at will. Especially when the demonstrators are participating in a Constitutionally enumerated right which suggests reinforcement and not destruction of democracy whereas, the act of secession is in its essence the end for a democracy. unless of course, you believe that to terminate a democracy is itself a democratic act. If that is the case then the demonstrators have even more justification to their behaviors, not less. Thus, what Fredloan says can make no possible sense unless he means that any perceived threat to the status quo is worthy of defamation. That might be his personal viewpoint but it carries absolutely no Constitutional or legal weight.

BTW, if anyone wants to better understand why no prohibition against secession can be found in the Constitution, read the Declaration of Independence.

B

I dont know that i follow this perfectly but if you examine the legislative histories behind both this, the articles of confederation and the Constitution it is clear many influential voices from the South fought tooth and nail against the elimination of slavery and that the rest needed to bow to that pressure to avoid even worse outside pressures to get the documents signed.

At best, the question of secession is ambiguous and the Supreme Court should've been consulted or an Amendment passed. Any other move is by its definition, unconstitutional.

I can't see how the CSA was out to end democracy: just their association with the USA.

Most of the Southern States maintain that they weren't getting their way via legal means because the majority was against them. The confederacy went to great lengths to justify its secession and that suggests they felt they weren't completely within their rights.

Secession was not pursued legally by the Confederacy but, rather, unilaterally, specifically to protect its property, social system and economic structure from the majority which is the very core of anti-democratic behavior. Indeed the Confederacy desired to inflate and extend slavery into new territories.

The fact that Jefferson Davis was ultimately let go doesn't indicate that he wasn't a traitor but only that there was a worry that there was enough pro-confederate sentiment remaining to not secure a conviction. That doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.

The fact that Jefferson Davis was ultimately let go doesn't indicate that he wasn't a traitor but only that there was a worry that there was enough pro-confederate sentiment remaining to not secure a conviction. That doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.

What, no presumption of innocence? I appreciate this term what not specifically covered in the USA until sometime after the war but it had been around for centuries before Cotton v USA. As no government or military leader of the CSA was found guilty of any crime of treason they are therefore innocent. To do any less would seem to be introducing a new form of lese majeste.

That isnt what I said. Davis wasnt tried for a variety of political and social reasons not least of all because he wouldve had to be tried in Virginia which would be a tough place to get a unanimous jury verdict against him. In addition, Justice Chase swept the case under the rug for other complex political and personal reasons. And yes, the case was dismissed.

However, on the plain face of the law, there was more than ample evidence to convict Davis of treason and the fact that he was let off doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime. Although Davis certainly felt vindicated as did many jubilant voices in the South.

Right, well yes you're technically correct but that doesn't mean he was actually innocent. Rather, it was an effort to get a war weary country back on track which was abused in the South by the creation of a terrorist group, the KKK, and by a seemingly endless posterity of persons who use this loophole as proof that the Confederacy was constitutional and not treasonous. It seems that being lenient has been met with contempt and a supercilious technical morality.

Which is why the Confederacy should be tried anew along with coming reparations law suits. It wont open up new wounds; instead it will close ones that have remained open for 150+ years.

you're technically correct but that doesn't mean he was actually innocent

Oh yes he was – that's exactly what the presumption of innocence is all about.

Although Davis certainly felt vindicated as did many jubilant voices in the South.

And rightly so given the presumption of innocence.

the Confederacy should be tried anew along with coming reparations law suits. It wont open up new wounds; instead it will close ones that have remained open for 150+ years

Good luck with that; as mentioned above it should be a veritable feast for the lawyers. I beg to differ about it closing old wounds and have a strong suspicion it will rip open new ones. Also, as you said earlier that such a lawsuit would seek that "all flags and symbols of the confederacy (Statues, Seals, art, images etc.) would be considered badges and incidents of slavery" it would mean the current flags of South Carolina and Texas would be outlawed as both are associated with slavery (surely it would not just be restricted to the CSA as slavery is slavery no matter who is wielding the stick) and once you include art, images etc. almost anything historical could then be deemed an incident of slavery given it first occurred on current USA soil over 400 years ago (see history.com/news/american-slavery-before-jamestown-1619) and far longer should foreign art, images etc. also be included – a very slippery slope indeed.

If someone commits a murder in front of everyone but doesn't get tried for it, he still committed the crime. Maybe not in the eyes of the legal system but public opinion has every right to condemn that person. Davis and the other Confederate intelligentsia committed their treason in broad daylight and in front of everyone.

I'll take my chances with the slippery slope vs. a smug confederate mindset that apparently refuses to admit it was in the wrong because of some technicalities.

@ MiniPigs

If you no further arguments it would be better to say nothing rather than rely on name-calling (i.e. "smug confederate").

Quaama

I wasnt implying that you were one. I thought we were having a discussion.

I grew up with lots of relatives who hold that smug mindset and when arguing against it I suppose that experience triggers a certain push back on an unflinching opinion.

Apologies if i offended you.

Noted. Thank-you.

I was born in the North and raised there until the age of 10. My family then moved to southern Virginia right about the time of desegregation. Talk about a culture shock. However, when it came to individual relationships, I did not see African Americans treated any better in the North or any worse in the South. Now it was not Alabama or Mississippi granted.

Reparations is a joke, I am sorry. It will not solve a thing. What about African Americans that owned slaves, will their descendants have to pay as well? There comes a time when people have to stop playing the victim and blaming others, it has been 150+ years. We have had an African American President, legislators, judges, millionaires, astronauts, Surgeon General Secretary of HUD, Joint Chiefs of the Military. The African American community has to take responsibility and end the violence against each other, broken families, and keep kids in school. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of whites and other cultures that need to do the same thing. This has nothing to do with the Confederacy. I also agree blood sucking attorneys will jump on any bandwagon for a buck.
My opinion, Colin Powell would have made a much better President than Obama was. He was too smart to get into the dirty game of politics.

He was too smart to get into the dirty game of politics.

Unfortunately, he did get into it as Secretary of State…embarrassingly so, even if involuntarily, particularly in presenting information on WMDs to the UN.

Let the political party that championed slavery, Jim Crow Laws, KKK, etc pay reparations.

African immigrants success: link

Looks as if they don't need reparations.

Wolfhag

@Wolfhag

Let the political party that championed slavery, Jim Crow Laws, KKK, etc pay reparations.

Without bothering to even try to disassemble this statement, I should point out that Political parties never are responsible for policy, they merely promote candidates who make policy in the name of the Federal, State and local governments.

African immigrants success: link

Looks as if they don't need reparations.

Maybe you could explain to us what the connection is between African-Americans, some of whom can trace their heritage here for hundreds of years, and African immigrants?

Minipigs,

Without bothering to even try to disassemble this statement, I should point out that Political parties never are responsible for policy, they merely promote candidates who make policy in the name of the Federal, State, and local governments.

You can't be serious but I guess you are. See what happens when someone gets elected and tries to go against their party.

It's pretty evident. Certain groups have always been used by politicians/political parties or whatever, it makes no difference who or what. Parties/politicians way to control people/groups and make them self-reliant on them. The reparations issue continues to come up and is an empty promise by politicians, promoted by their party, to make more promises they'll never keep to get their vote. It's unfortunate these groups let themselves be taken advantage of. The only people getting rich by relying on political handouts are the politicians themselves, and maybe corporations and lobbyists too.

Look at how the politicians and both parties treat them, trying to get the "Black" vote as if the color of someone's skin determines what and how they think and what their values are. Isn't judging people by their racial identity racist?

Check the history of the KKK. They were a political terrorist group that tried to deny the rights to freed slaves voting. They also went after "liberal" whites that were helping them. I grew up in the South. Catholics weren't allowed to join.

Many whites were lynched for helping blacks or being anti-lynching. According to David Barton's extensively well-documented book, "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," the original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white. The Klan terrorized both black and white Americans not to vote for Republican tickets. "Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective." Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. "Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

The Klan is pretty much gone but the same effect and goal still linger.

Maybe you could explain to us what the connection is between African-Americans, some of whom can trace their heritage here for hundreds of years, and African immigrants?

Pretty evident again isn't it? The narrative you continue to hear in the media and activists is that it's all about skin color, right? If Africans immigrating here are being successful with a minimum of help and handouts it may not be about a person's skin color. What's different between them and the ones that have been here for multiple generations? They both have the same skin color right? So what is the difference since it's not skin color? I'm not saying it's perfect for African immigrants but they have a very different experience than the ones descended from slavery.

If someone wants to pay some group reparations let them. I have no problems with it. Just don't force someone else or get the government involved. I've done volunteer drug education programs in the minority neighborhoods, helped kids stay out of gangs by getting them computers and food donation programs. We don't force others to do it or request government help or grants. My relatives also fought for the Union in te Civil War.

I think something should be done to help anyone or group that needs help regardless of the color of their skin or past injustices. The problem with a big one-time reparation payoff that has been suggested is that it does not address and current problems they have. It won't sustain them for the generations to come or give them the survival skills needed to be successful in society. What happens when they run out of the money? What about each new generation, won't they be owed too and their children, etc. Where does it end?

What I've written isn't just my opinion. Althea King, MLK's niece, is a friend of mine and we've had these conversations. It's not just about reparations (giving someone something) but helping people become self-reliant. The solution is not all materialistic. YouTube link

However, it appears some politicians and parties don't want people to be self-reliant or they'll lose their support. The American Dream is not a handout but it appears all some politicians have to offer is free stuff.

People like Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Leo Terrell and others have addressed the problems in Black America, reparations, and some of the solutions. If you require additional clarification go to the source, seek them out and ask them, not me. They are more knowledgeable than I am on the subject.

Wolfhag

You can't be serious but I guess you are. See what happens when someone gets elected and tries to go against their party.

I am not only serious, i am correct; and, further, I reiterate that once elected, a party doesnt take responsibility for a candidate in office, the entity that they are representing does and that is almost always Federal, State and Local government.

Look at how the politicians and both parties treat them, trying to get the "Black" vote as if the color of someone's skin determines what and how they think and what their values are. Isn't judging people by their racial identity racist?

It's hard to answer this platitude outside of context; it's complicated. However, it is as good to point out that the reverse is also true, that discrimination against people of color hasnt been much tempered by the values or talents those individuals might hold.

Pretty evident again isn't it? The narrative you continue to hear in the media and activists is that it's all about skin color, right? If Africans immigrating here are being successful with a minimum of help and handouts it may not be about a person's skin color. What's different between them and the ones that have been here for multiple generations? They both have the same skin color right? So what is the difference since it's not skin color? I'm not saying it's perfect for African immigrants but they have a very different experience than the ones descended from slavery.

Now it's my turn to ask YOU if youre serious? How did you come by this painfully contorted analysis?

If someone wants to pay some group reparations let them. I have no problems with it.

Good, because it is the wave of the future.

Just don't force someone else or get the government involved.

Well, the very nature of the reparations is to get someone else involved, namely the entities responsible for both slavery and ongoing discrimination. I dont know why government involvement is the issue? Are you suggesting the wealth and reparations get transferred via private means? How would that look?

I've done volunteer drug education programs in the minority neighborhoods, helped kids stay out of gangs by getting them computers and food donation programs. We don't force others to do it or request government help or grants.

Sounds like you do some very good work but I dont see what it has to do with reparations law suits. Further, i dont see why there should not be reparations because someone thinks the recipients might squander the settlement.

My relatives also fought for the Union in te Civil War.

My relatives fought on both sides of the ACW, what's your point?

What I've written isn't just my opinion. Althea King, MLK's niece, is a friend of mine and we've had these conversations. It's not just about reparations (giving someone something) but helping people become self-reliant. The solution is not all materialistic.

Im confused, even more than by your above paragraph concerning skin color, why you suddenly posit MLK's niece as the final arbiter on reparations?

However, it appears some politicians and parties don't want people to be self-reliant or they'll lose their support. The American Dream is not a handout but it appears all some politicians have to offer is free stuff.

Maybe and maybe not. It is irrelevant to the issue of reparations. Reparations arent a handout; I think we have a baseline problem here. Would you like it if a hypothetical employer called your wages a "gift"?

One man's "treason" is another man's "patriotism".

As a good Canadian of British stock, I'd hang George Washington from the nearest tree branch and sell his false teeth in the market place. But I imagine that folks a couple of hours' drive to my south might have a different opinion on the matter.