"The 'Other' Side of the Slavery Question" Topic

He broke his oath of service and fought against his country. Other southerners in the US Army, such as Thomas and Gibbon, remained loyal even though their families, especially Gibbon's, turned against him.

The actions of Thomas and Gibbon in this instance require admiration; those of Lee do not.

I see that the revisionist spirit is quite a work on TMP. As Shelby Foote noted, before the Civil War it was "the United States are" but after the War it was "the United States is." The idea that a person's loyalty was first to the Union and then to the State is exactly what the war was about. You can't fault Lee for deciding pre War that his first loyalty was to his state. That was completely viable and acceptable belief in 1860. Lee did the honorable thing and resigned his commission because he could not support the Federal government using force to compel southern States to remain in the Union.

MB, yes.

to believe, as I do and as Lincoln did, that God chose for the Union to win. After a bloodbath.

The bloodbath was God's doing, according to Lincoln. And I tend to agree, as a Calvinist might.

continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came

Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Lincoln isn't saying he wanted the bloodbath and no more do I. He is saying it is God's will. And just.

You can't fault Lee for deciding pre War that his first loyalty was to his state.

Well, yeah. Except for that Oath he took…

If Lee were a Game of Thrones character, his epithet would be "Oathbreaker".

I'm tired of this.

You can't fault Lee for deciding pre War that his first loyalty was to his state.

I do. But I'm not his judge.

I see that the revisionist spirit is quite a work on TMP.

And what 'revisionism' is being proposed?

And there are two types of revisionism, one inaccurate and intellectually dishonest, and one because new information that is credible has been found.

Which are you referring to?

And it should be noted that Shelby Foote, by his own admission, was a novelist. He was not a credible historian. He clearly demonstrated that in Ken Burns' Civil War, especially the printed version.

He is saying it is God's will.

God doesn't cause or make war, men do.

You can't fault Lee for deciding pre War that his first loyalty was to his state.

Yes, you can and should. The oath that he did take first was to defend the Constitution and thereby the nation and its people.

He hadn't taken an oath to defend Virginia as an officer of the US Army.

The revisionism Brechtel you are making is that you evaluating Lee against values that came out of the War and not evaluating him by the values that existed at the time of or before the War. Lee was a citizen of both the United States of America and the State of Virginia. When Virginia seceded from the Union Lee made a choice to stay with his State. That was a totally acceptable choice within 1860 thinking and was made by thousands of others.

As far as Lee's oath goes, it was made in good faith at the time. It was also made with expectation that the United States would act legally and constitutionally. From Lee's perspective it was the actions of the Federal government, specifically Lincoln's call up of militia, that made his oath untenable.

Once Lee could no longer maintain his oath in good conscience he resigned his commission. That is exactly what we would expect him to do. Lots of officers have resigned their commissions for differing reasons over the centuries. From Lee's perspective, had the Federal government not invaded the South, he would have never raised his hand against it. His actions post resignation were for the self defense of the Virginia and the new Confederacy.

"His actions post resignation were for the self defense of the Virginia and the new Confederacy."

Whose economy required human slavery to function. Just ask Frederick Douglas, William Lloyd Garrison, or Harriet Beecher Stowe for their period appropriate opinions whether this was moral or just.

MB, yes, and bravo.
Kevin, your argument is with Lincoln. But the idea that God brings wars, and determines who wins them, is thoroughly scriptural. No need for you to agree, but it was and is a widely held view.

I'm tired of this.

I sympathize. Pushing a byzantine version of the civil war must be exhausting.

…it was and is a widely held view.

By whom? You're missing the free will part.

…your argument is with Lincoln.

No, my argument is with you and the 'interpretations' you post.

That was a totally acceptable choice within 1860 thinking and was made by thousands of others.

Acceptable to whom? Those whose states seceded? That was rebellion against the United States. That is never 'acceptable.'

And the type of historical revisionism that finds new material and has it disseminated is perfectly acceptable and legitimate historical inquiry.

Kevin, you never seem to make an argument, but just repeat that you do not agree. Was the rebellion of the colonies against Gt Britain "acceptable"? If so, why?

As to free will, yes: "I have chosen to be a Calvinist". (That's a joke.)

As I just wrote on the Constitution thread, having noted Texas v White above it:

Had the ACW gone the other way, secession would have been de facto constitutional.
Had the AWI failed, the rebellion would have been de facto illegal. As Tyrion Lannister quipped to Dear Old Dad, "Yes, yes. Heads, spikes…"

If your rebellion, or secession, succeeds, it's legal. If it fails, it isn't.

Darn fine joke, doc. 😄

So what does a Calvinist say after he falls down three flights of stairs?

Whew, glad to get THAT out of the way.

Only problem with your answer, John, which is historically correct, is that it amounts to saying might makes right.

And how do we KNOW who is strongest, unless we play the game? or attempt the uprising? Well, that's why we have elections, as long as they are perceived as fair and honest.

Are you (or, are we) saying that there is really no such thing as legitimacy? Is an extorting mafia and the IRS really the same, after all?

Acceptable to whom? Those whose states seceded? That was rebellion against the United States. That is never 'acceptable.'

Perfect example of your revisionist thinking. In Lee's own thinking, which was commonly held in the North (but not by a majority) and the South (with some dissent) in 1860, secession by various States from the Union was not considered "rebellion." It was only considered rebellion after the fact. Your importing a retrospective view into the discussion by failing to acknowledge a plurality of perspectives.

The question of whether a state could secede from the Union was a point of contention that the Civil War settled. It is certainly true that the conventions which approved the 1787 constitution believed that they had the right to rescind that approval. I doubt any State would have joined if it had been made clear in the 1787 document that secession was not permitted. This is why almost 80 years later it was by convention that States withdrew their consent to be governed by the 1787 constitution and the Union government it created.

MB, exactly so. But the outcome of the war settled it THEN. If at some future point DC decides to ignore an amendment or two, and a dozen states refuse to consent, it will again be an open question.

Is an extorting mafia and the IRS really the same, after all?

Does it really matter who says "That's a nice house you have there. Shame if something happened to it."

As for DC becoming a state, it's axiomatic that the Democrats gain 2 Senate seats.
And, yes. It will require a Constitutional amendment. So, it's also axiomatic that Red States will choose to not ratify that amendment. Congress could of course try to RSM it through, but…
Puerto Rico would not require an amendment. However, the party of the Senators would not be axiomatic.

I will leave the design of the Canton of the flag to vexillologists. For a brief year, between Alaska and Hawaii being admitted, the flag had 49 stars. But 51 or 52? Interesting. To leave it at 50 might be considered tacit admission of the illegitimacy of the new state(s). PLEASE let's not consult "artists". Heaven knows what monstrosities they would come up.
Where are the Heralds when we really need them???

So there is no such thing as legitimacy? Then why would it matter if Lee put loyalty to his state over an oath to the US? "I never make promises that I can't keep, but there have been some that I've broken." We promise different things to different people all the time, and sometimes cannot fulfill them all. Why privilege one promise over another?

Face it guys, saying it depends on who wins creates WAY more problems than it solves. Stop dodging and tell us why it was okay for the colonies to secede but not for the Deep South? It just boils down to who you like or sympathize with. Me too, I'm glad we are independent and im glad we are still a Union. But if you cannot make a case based on PRINCIPLE there is really nothing to debate.

The south thought they COULD make such a case, and though their cause was tainted by the evil of slavery, perhaps in other respects they did have such a case. The union was not created in order for one part to exploit another for its own benefit. (The tariff)

Who decides "legitimacy"?
Events. Otherwise, it's just a topic for debate.

Annnnnd..,.
We're back to the tariff. By the way, fighting a Civil War for the illegitimacy of the tariff never happened.

"The race may not always be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet."
—Damon Runyon

John, it very nearly happened in the 1830s.

So there is no such thing as legitimacy? Then there is no such thing as rebellion. Just a stronger side and a weaker side, to be determined.

But it didn't happen. The war to preserve and expand slavery did.

But the outcome of the war settled it THEN. If at some future point DC decides to ignore an amendment or two, and a dozen states refuse to consent, it will again be an open question.

I was always under the opinion that it (ie. secession) was settled permanently. The simple proposition is once in, you're in forever! States don't the authority to unilaterally leave the Union. Some Texans think they have unique case because they came into the Union as a free Republic but I think that is just wishful thinking on their part.

As an aside, I wish that Lee had chosen the Union over Virginia. Nonetheless, I respect the fact that his choices were a reasonable response to a difficult set of circumstances. I certainly don't want to burden his legacy further by imposing upon him a 21st century retrospective point of view. It is just not fair.

…you never seem to make an argument…

There's an old axiom in the Marine Corps which goes something like this:

"Arguing with an infantryman (or substitute what you wish) is akin to arguing with a pig. You both end up rolling in the mud and the pig likes it."

I was an artilleryman, so the saying is very appropriate regarding infantry officers.

Not a particularly helpful post Brechtel.

My lawyer tells the same story about lawsuits. Also about getting into a fight with a skunk; when or lose, it still stinks.

So there is no such thing as legitimacy? Then there is no such thing as rebellion. Just a stronger side and a weaker side, to be determined.

What is "legitimacy"? Pilate asked in a cynical way "What is truth?"
History is not full of legitimate debates about legitimacy. Arguing who is "right" never settled anything.

So, in keeping with the Romans, the revolt of Ariminius was "legitimate" because it succeeded. Romans kicked out of Germania. I don't see any reason for his revolt beyond jealousy and not getting a promotion. But the attack at the Teutoburgerwald succeeded, so his revolt was legitimate.
The Jewish Revolts (all of them) were not "legitimate", because they failed. The "rightness" of their cause is irrelevant. They failed.

Was the ‘45 Jacobite Rebellion legitimate? (The fact that I consider Bonnie Prince Charlie a horse's ass is not relevant.) No, because it failed. The ‘98 in Ireland? No. Same reason. The "rightness" of the cause has nothing to do with legitimacy. Legitimate rebellions succeed.

Was the American Revolution legitimate? Yes. It succeeded.
Was the War of the Slaveholders Rebellion legitimate? No. It failed.

"Rightness" has nothing to do with "legitimacy".

Okay, got it. No such thing as right and wrong, just strength or weakness.

So why are you complaining about me, or anything?

The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.

By the way, is slavery evil? Why? It's just the strong and the weak. I don't agree with that, but logically you must.

Don't you dare tell me what I "must" believe or think.

Only if you accept the rule of reason.

So, is slavery evil? Why? Why is it not simply a matter of the strong and the weak.? The 13th distinguishes between work gangs of convicts, and slaves. Why? Why is a chain gang okay? Does it have something to do with legitimacy?

Doc, you're just ranting now.
I'm done for today.
I think I'll go watch "The Many Saints of Newark ".

You think a rational argument s a rant?

Doc. I've Stifled you.
Carry on.

It is too bad this conversation has to end on this low point.

The AWI was fought because the colonists had no say in government. They were not free, they were slaves to the whims of a government an ocean away. The Civil War was fought to maintain slavery and spread it. One war was fought to increase freedom, the other to decrease it. And the weaker side won in the AWI.

MB, I agree.

So, is slavery evil?

I dunno, is it? Are all forms of slavery the same? Does slavery have to be evil to be illegal?

Why?

What's your opinion?

It is too bad this conversation has to end on this low point.

Oh well, hopefully you've been able to develop your opinion for the next time.

Charge, if that is addressed to me, and since you ask: slavery is always evil, for these reasons: all humans are individually and uniquely valuable, being created in God's image (imago dei) The Creator endows us with natural rights, including liberty. Every human is an end in himself and has no right to treat another human, of equal value, as a means to his own selfish ends. Moreover, power corrupts, and to have absolute power over another human is morally corrupting, for the individual master and for the society.

One can imagine a situation when enslaving a defeated enemy might be a lesser evil than, say, exterminating them, but a lesser evil is still an evil.

That what you wanted?

As someone mentioned DC and Statehood, I'll just mention it has a comfortably larger population than both Vermont and Montana.

What's that old line about representation?

Trajanus, why not limit DC to the public buildings -- the Capitol and White House and the Smithsonian, etc. -- and return all the residential and commercial areas to Va or to Md, where they came from? Then the residents would be represented.

There is simply no way the red states, or the Republicans, are going to give the Democrats 2 more senators. Never gonna happen.

And each state has equal representation in the senate. Senators represent states, not people. Same as in the UN General Assembly where each country has one vote (except the Soviets had three).

That what you wanted?

What I wanted? I guess. I wanted your opinion. I am not sure that slavery has to be evil to be outlawed and damned. I actually haven't thought it all the way through myself.

On its surface, it violates the Golden Rule. I know that slavery has screwed the country up for everyone but I dont know that this is evil. I do not say that slavery is not evil but I admit I havent contemplated it deeply enough to know that slavery is indeed evil.

I think if history has taught us anything it is that slavery is attractive to most people and that we need to guard against it.

But then, what is evil?

Charge, do you think the South fought for a just cause during the Civil War?