"General Robert E. Lee - Patriot or traitor?" Topic

As I said before;

Debating APDC is like asking OJ Simpson for marriage advice, and equally as pointless.

Sadly, I think you do believe you are debating and discussing reasonably.

Just when it seemed the retractable roof had been opened and brought some fresh air, in steps Moriarty …

YouTube link

You know, I should feel flattered. It always requires the two brothers by another mother. 😉

APDC: I know, it's "inconceivable" that I won't adhere to your demands for answers.

You wont support your arguments because you think you're defying demands?

APDC, I have never said he was, or was not a traitor in any of this thread. I have only agreed with Marcus that he resigned his commission, thus nulling out his original loyalty oath. I have said the decisions made by each individual were complicated and different for each man, north and south alike. Too complicated to see as black and white with easy answers.

Maybe it was complex. There are many issues surrounding Lee's resigned commission.

YouTube link

Prof. Guelzo gives quite an interesting take on this. Including Blockbusters like Andrew Johnson's Amnesty for CSA persons was revenge against the Republicans for being impeached. It punches holes into the Lee resignation timeline, morality, suggests Lee was a duplicitous sneak and was roundly considered a traitor by many Northerners, union veterans and politicians.

We dont know that this resignation ended his citizenship or what the nature of citizenship was.

See, The Man Without a Country

link

I have no arguments.

"was roundly considered a traitor by many Northerners, union veterans and politicians."

Wow! Now that was insightful. Those in the North considered him a traitor. Wow I bet they considered the rest of the Confederate officers traitors too.

I know you aren't trying to be funny, but that really was. 😂🤣

APDC whose minds in this thread do you think you are going to change? Can you name that person, and we can ask him? Otherwise you are ranting to no real purpose.

Wow! Now that was insightful. Those in the North considered him a traitor. Wow I bet they considered the rest of the Confederate officers traitors too.

But 35thOVI, you said this earlier in this very thread:

My sympathy for the Confederacy? 🤣 No I have been consistent in trying to post on the preserving of our history, both good and bad. Be that statutes, places or people. Just like preserving acreage of Battlefields, as you know from your current TMP thread. I don't hate the Confederates, I don't idolize them either. If those, like my relatives who fought for the Union could meet and forgive them, who am I to hate them. We today did nothing! We did not do the heavy lifting, who are we to demand the destruction?

Prof. Guelzo's lecture addresses that at the time and for many years afterwards, Northerners considered Lee and other CSA persons traitors. They even preferred the idea of having a statue of Benedict Arnold over Lee.

It is, as you say not 100% against Lee but Prof. Guelzo makes some elegant arguments about Lee's status as traitor.

I know you aren't trying to be funny, but that really was. 😂🤣

APDC whose minds in this thread do you think you are going to change? Can you name that person, and we can ask him? Otherwise you are ranting to no real purpose.

What is this about? You couldn't have watched the lecture within the time you responded. Aren't we discussing history? I would think you'd be interested in what he has to say. He also recently wrote a book on Robert E. Lee:

link

A WALL STREET JOURNAL BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR From the award-winning historian and best-selling author of Gettysburg comes the definitive biography of Robert E. Lee. An intimate look at the Confederate general in all his complexity—his hypocrisy and courage, his inner turmoil and outward calm, his disloyalty and his honor.

There is a good quote on the comments on to the Guelzo lecture that APDC linked. I will with great enjoyment listen to the lecture at my earliest convenience. Here is the quote.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

~Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's thinking on the matter is the foundational reasoning of the Declaration of Independence and it is also the foundational reasoning of the secessionist states that withdrew from the Union in 1860/61. If the principle works in 1776 why doesn't it work in 1860?

I think slavery is irrelevant to the answer because it is quite clear that the Union didn't go to war to free slaves. Had that been the reason for Northern aggression in 1861 then I think the question of slavery would be germane to the discussion. But we all know that the North did not go to war protect the interests of slaves but in order to restore the Union. On what basis does the United States justify using force to deny people their liberty?

It seems to me that Lee is completely justified in resigning his commission when the government embarks on an unlawful and unconstitutional act in his estimation. It also completely just on Lee's part to take up arms to defend the liberty of his people if attacked. Remember, there is no war if the North does not force the Southern states to remain in the United States.

Marcus Brutus, are you implying that the cause of the Civil War was not in fact the existence of slavery in the southern states, but rather Lincoln's refusal to accept secession?

Blutarski, isn't that self evident? If the North accepts secession there is nothing to fight about. Not so?

APDC you seem to be a confused and troubled individual.

Uh oh, a drive by above.

You know, I should feel flattered. It always requires the two brothers by another mother. 😉

I'd be surprised if the magnitude of your intellectual wellness found the wisdom to humble yourself for watching such a video as ApdC provided. However, on the brighter side of life, feel free to keep chasing fireflies, and hopefully a catch will be made, finding at least a shred of truth for at least one. In the meantime, cheers and merry Christmas!

"The bell rings …", Tom Francis.

YouTube link

- – -

Back to our regularly scheduled programing … even if the choice Lee made prior to the war was difficult for him, it seems he didn't make a good one when there were other possibilities to choose from, and it wouldn't be the only time. At the same time, perhaps having some sympathy for him is a bit like Grant agreeing to the terms of Lee's surrender that occurred at Appomattox, which such seems to have been quite a magnanimous moment.

And as for the quote provided by MB from the Declaration of Independence, the problem with providing only that quote, is that it is taken out of it's context, and that the broader context is wisely one in which being included can make for a better understanding. Then to top it off there is a jump made to saying Lee was "just" in taking up arms to defend the liberty of his people if attacked, and yet as DonLowry has pointed out further back on this thread, it was the Union that was attacked at Ft. Sumner, and so the standoff had been violently broken, by those leaders in the South that supported their own nationalistic tendencies and slavery.

And Now a pseudo philosopher too. They must be giving the pseudo diplomas out like candy up there. Curious does the student loan forgiveness cover those too? 🤔

Jefferson's thinking on the matter is the foundational reasoning of the Declaration of Independence and it is also the foundational reasoning of the secessionist states that withdrew from the Union in 1860/61. If the principle works in 1776 why doesn't it work in 1860?

No. Jefferson was speaking about Revolution. A revolution is starting something completely different from the existing social contract. New laws, new rights, new everything. The Founders believed in revolution.

What the Confederacy did was Secede. Secession is a peaceful separation to run things exactly as before; in this case with leaders that were completely in agreement but otherwise, same laws and practices. In fact, the CSA was very careful to point out that they were engaged in a secession and not a revolution. This is partly because the Slave States were afraid of change and partly because they didnt want anyone to think that things could be altered or debated in the law/Constitution. Further, the CSA thought they were the original USA and the Union had become "mongrelized"

Prof. Guelzo touches on this.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

You left out the first part of TJ's paragraph about why people are justified in starting a revolution. I have to say "All men being created equal" sounds like an odd topic for slave state to be obsessed over.

You left out the first part of TJ's paragraph about why people are justified in starting a revolution. I have to say "All men being created equal" sounds like an odd topic for slave state to be obsessed over.

Did Jefferson's rationale for starting a revolution include slaves? I thought not. Did the Framers of the 1787 Constitution include emancipation of slaves in their document because it was a logical and necessary step in fulfilling the vision of the previous Declaration? I guess they missed that. Did Jefferson free all his slaves when he penned those mighty words in the Declaration, "all men being created equal." He probably meant to but never got around to it. The presence or absence of slavery in the United States has nothing to do with the sovereign rights of States and the peoples of the States to self determination. We might wish it be otherwise but it wasn't and no wishful thinking on your part APDC can change that. And Jefferson's words were about self determination.

We might ask what about the self determination of slaves in the South? If the North had gone to war in 1861 to free slaves then it might be relevant. But of course, the North did not go to war to free slaves. The North went to war to preserve the Union through the use of force. If that doesn't work directly against Jefferson's words quoted above about people having the right to self determination I don't know what would.

Merry Christmas OVI!

YouTube link

YouTube link

Did Jefferson's rationale for starting a revolution include slaves? I thought not.

The original did and it was aggressively objected to by slave states; possibly so that they could say that the document was never meant to include slaves.

link

Did the Framers of the 1787 Constitution include emancipation of slaves in their document because it was a logical and necessary step in fulfilling the vision of the previous Declaration? I guess they missed that.

Actually, they might've gone the other way by protecting property rights with slaves considered "property".

Did Jefferson free all his slaves when he penned those mighty words in the Declaration, "all men being created equal." He probably meant to but never got around to it.

I think he did eventually get around to it but he did sort of drop the ball personally. But that doesn't mean he didn't mean for them to be included.

The presence or absence of slavery in the United States has nothing to do with the sovereign rights to States and the peoples of the States to self determination. We might wish it be otherwise but it wasn't and no wishful thinking on your part APDC can change that. And Jefferson's words were about self determination.

This isnt that simple because there are different viewpoints in play. TJ meant that all men were created equal + had inalienable rights and when that gets violated, people should/could declare a revolution. However, both he and the Founders knew that this would be considered treason with the attendant consequences if they lost.

SC may have fantasized that referencing TJ's words from the DOI gave them the right to secede but they were conflating two different concepts. But even SC only tangentially referenced this as a support for secession. The Founders made no provision for Secession. And, in fact, the South as a whole purposefully chose secession over revolution partly because they didn't want to be considered (or indeed consider themselves) revolutionaries.

To sum up, Jefferson was talking about Revolution which is something the South was not interested in. The CSA wanted self determination via Secession, and they made this difference clear.

And as for the quote provided by MB from the Declaration of Independence, the problem with providing only that quote, is that it is taken out of it's context, and that the broader context is wisely one in which being included can make for a better understanding.

Then to top it off there is a jump made to saying Lee was "just" in taking up arms to defend the liberty of his people if attacked, and yet as DonLowry has pointed out further back on this thread, it was the Union that was attacked at Ft. Sumner, and so the standoff had been violently broken, by those leaders in the South that supported their own nationalistic tendencies and slavery.

Lee never made a DOI or Revolutionary claim to justify his actions. Thus, I dont know what MB is trying to turn this discussion into.

I think the CSA was a revolution. I think the CSA knew in their hearts that this was a revolution but they wanted to act like all they were doing was asking be left alone to pursue an independent government which they thought was true to the original revolution. However, they wanted to both hedge their bets to not be considered a revolution and also they didn't want to give anyone in the South the idea that anything new would be added to the original constitution…with the exception of a few provisions to strengthen slavery.

And it is true that Secession was hoped by the South to be a way to be peaceably let go by the Union. However, they underestimated the Union's appetite for self preservation. I believe Jefferson Davis was roundly criticized by his fellow secessionists for ordering the firing on Ft Sumter.

GP:🍷

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise."

😉

Lee never made a DOI or Revolutionary claim to justify his actions. Thus, I dont know what MB is trying to turn this discussion into.

Lee doesn't need to make this claim. It was made for him when Virginia seceded from the Union. Virginia seceded because of its inherent right to self determination as articulated in the DoI. As the DoI says

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

Again, it is Virginia's (or any other state) responsibility and right to decide when the level of despotism rises to the point of needing to throw off such government. We might not agree with this decision. The efficacy of the decision itself is irrelevant. A good or bad decision the decision resides with Virginia. Once Virginia decides to leave the Union Lee is no longer necessarily bound to remain and officer of the United States Army. Lee makes his choice and does the honorable thing and resigns.

Merry Christmas OVI ! …

YouTube link

YouTube link

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

The Southern States weren't throwing off one government for another, they were merely seceding, two different things. The South was not revolutionarily reinventing itself, nor was it providing self-determination for it's people, it was deciding to give up on the Union, so that it could continue the white upper class ruling over blacks. It wasn't a revolution over some other form of government, it was a secession to keep the status quo culturally and politically.

And the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee succession nor did the founders think that it was permitted. Madison said, "A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction." He also said in reference to state sovereignty that, "in fact they are only political societies. There is a graduation of power in all societies, from the lowest corporation to the highest sovereign. The states never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty. These were always vested in Congress." Madison further said that the states, "are only great corporations, having the power of making by-laws, and these are effectual only if they are not contradictory to the general consideration. The states ought to be placed under the control of the general government at least as much as they formerly were under the King and British Parliament." Even Hamilton wrote in Federalist 11, "Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!"

Also, there is of course the Supremacy Clause, that was put into the Constitution, and ratified by all the states. It is quite clear, "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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." In essence, the U.S. Constitution did not grant such power to the states, nor delegate it to them by not granting it to the nation. Instead this constitutes the inability for any of the states to make laws, even state constitutions, contrary to the laws of the United States of America. If the States had sovereignty prior to ratification, they ceded it away when they ratified it. The Supremacy Clause leaves no room for nullification of national law, nor for that matter all federal laws through secession. Of course it doesn't keep them from trying, some still do, but such aren't worth the paper they are printed on if they can't be enforced when federal law is backed up as a national power, reserved exclusively to the federal government. There have been multiple cases over time to back this sort of interpretation, and as we all are aware, a Civil War was won by the North that defends this as well. The South losing doesn't guarantee there won't be other attempts, yet as Lincoln said, "A house divided …"

So … what were the leaders of the South's secession all about, states rights for what? It couldn't have been about slavery, oh, no, no, it had to be about preserving the founders vision, right? Except it's not tough to show what the founder's envisioned, and although it included slavery for the foreseeable future, a compromise to get all the states to come on board, which was signed on to, and ratified by, all of the states, it did not include nullification, and thus in turn complete nullification through secession.

Let me ask you this GP. On what basis did the various states leave the Articles of Confederation and form a new union under the 1787 Constitution? To amend the Articles required unanimous agreement of the States. The new constitution never gained unanimous agreement for it to come into effect. In fact, the 1787 Founders didn't even bother to attempt to amend the constitution through the Articles. They simply bypassed the Articles. To what authority did the Founders turn to so as to able to create a new constitutional order?

The easy answer starts with … there was a spat going on since 1632 regarding oyster fisheries between Maryland and Virginia, and in order to attempt a resolution, a meeting was called and held at Mount Vernon in 1785. However, because commerce included other states, resolution was not reached, and instead the Virginia legislature invited other legislatures to send delegates to another meeting to be held in Annapolis in 1786. That meeting failed as well for lack of a quorum, yet they decided to call upon all the state legislatures, in their quest to resolve the disorder that was occurring across the states due to a lack of a strong central government, for them to send delegates to Philadelphia in 1787, to review "the situation of the United States" and "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

The Articles of Confederation established "a firm league of friendship". Each state had one vote in the "league", and nine states had to vote for passage of any provisions, and yet it wasn't clear that the articles were even a government at all, since even when a resolution was passed there seemed to be little if any way to have such items implemented effectively. And after the delegates had been sent by each of the states to the Constitutional Convention, and a strong central government was drafted in the form of the U.S. Constitution, the document was taken to Congress, and they unanimously voted to send the document out to the states, calling for the states to establish ratifying conventions.

GP, I well remember the infamous thread. I wondered if anybody went ahead and read the book.

Good question, although from my viewpoint, there's no need because I lived a similar history.

When very young, I had the opportunity to read a series that in those days was called "step-up-books" which were the next step up in my reading skills at the time, yet are now called "Landmark" which goes a step further to demonstrate the choices being made by those who are currently publishing it. There was one book in the series called, "Meet Robert E. Lee". Although I enjoyed it as a youngster, it didn't take me long to question how if Lee was so capable of military commander that he lost. It wasn't until further out in my life that I was also questioning the value of the choice that Lee made. He had a choice, there were other options, and his choice was unhealthy in going against the U.S. Constitution.

I do not think the South could reasonably invoke the Declaration for succession while continuing to enslave human beings. The fine points of argument here are interesting, and the founding fathers managed to kick this can down the road. Despite their personal practices regarding slavery, they got the right ideas down on paper.

But slavery in just inescapable in all this, I believe. States rights to secede became a cause in the context of keeping slavery going after years of uncomfortable political debate and compromise. It was outright promoted in the articles of secession, the Cornerstone Speech, but it worked a subtler influence on the minds of everyone trying to rationalize it.

Self determination to do what? Form a new nation because your right to what was threatened? Yankee invaders, tyranny, northern aggression….right to own human beings and let the goals of the Declaration remain unfulfilled. I believe this seems self evident, to borrow a word.

It's a point of view. I am not interested in attacking people here in competitive debate. Make your point, refute other points. We don't need to fight the war against each other again.

The South didn't fight a revolutionary war, they fought a war of secession, in essence a civil war, and one in which they were an aggressor, both passively and actively seeking the secession. The South wasn't looking to reinvent a government, and with the exception of provisions to strengthen their hold on slavery, their government was essentially the same. Not only that, their actions were in violation of the Supremacy clause, and they gambled time and time again with their actions, and they lost.

The leaders of the southern states knew darn well that if it had been revolution and they lost, it would have been no less as revolutionary as what the founders tried and succeeded within their break from the monarchy of England. As Franklin said at the time of the declaration, "We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." The leaders in the South specifically chose the use of the word succession in their documents, and nor did they advocate in those documents for a new form of government, but instead to secede to protect and even strengthen their hold on slavery, it's culture, and their ability to continue to dominate politically over the use of slavery.

The founders knew that slavery was in direct conflict with words expressed in the Declaration. Fast forward to the middle of the 19th century, and there were those in the North seeking, and slowly moving forward towards it's eventual abolishment at a national level. And as it turned out, when the South's acts of passive and active aggression failed, there were those after the war was over who had enough vision to magnanimously see that since the secession had failed, then it was now time to get on with the business of national government again without overly penalizing the South with such things as hanging. In a way, even letting them continue some of their beliefs. However, time and time again those beliefs have risen in one way or another to actions, and they have continued to be put down by the Republic in one way or another.

In Robert E. Lee, the award-winning historian Allen Guelzo has written the definitive biography of the general, following him from his refined upbringing in Virginia high society, to his long career in the U.S. Army, his agonized decision to side with Virginia when it seceded from the Union, and his leadership during the Civil War. Above all, Guelzo captures Robert E. Lee in all his complexity--his hypocrisy and courage, his outward calm and inner turmoil, his honor and his disloyalty.

Lots of good reviews but this one star review is notable:

Teresa
1.0 out of 5 stars Do t waste your money.
Reviewed in the United States on September 29, 2021
Verified Purchase
I wouldn't recommend. Regret buying. Couldn't read. Started off with criticism. Enough of that going on in the media. Awful.

Oh Lawd, not criticisms!

Robert
1.0 out of 5 stars Trendy to Trash Talk Lee
Reviewed in the United States on April 18, 2022
Another liberal revision of history trashing an American icon who cannot defend himself from the grave. I got about 10 pages into it before I threw it in the trash where it belongs!

It's trendy to trash talk Lee? Lee is an American icon?

Or my personal favorite:

James Holloway
1.0 out of 5 stars Neocon/neoliberal history by a court propagandist
Reviewed in the United States on November 2, 2021
It's about what you'd expect from a court historian for the neocon wing of the deep state: deeply dishonest, ideological and fraudulent, and obviously written with a view to cash in on the current anti-Lee and anti-Confederate hand-wringing by right and left. Guelzo's little effort will ultimately be remembered (if at all) as a product of America's progressive cultural revolution, and Guelzo himself will be remembered as a contemptible opportunist.

Is there a neocon wing of the Deep State?

Maybe there's a sinister movement to make the Confederacy look bad. Next thing you know, they'll slander them by saying they trafficked in slavery.

Deeply Dishonest? How The Fish would he know? He said he threw the book out after 10 pages. Maybe it isnt the book that's dishonest.

Ideological and Fraudulent?

He left out "It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous."

So, being anti-Confederate makes you a lefty, now? I suppose the Neo-Confederates are the new Conservatives?

I think slavery is irrelevant to the answer because it is quite clear that the Union didn't go to war to free slaves. Had that been the reason for Northern aggression in 1861 then I think the question of slavery would be germane to the discussion. But we all know that the North did not go to war protect the interests of slaves but in order to restore the Union. On what basis does the United States justify using force to deny people their liberty?

No, the Union did not go to war to free slaves, it went to war because it was attacked! And what was this "Northern aggression of which you speak?" You mean aggressively moving Fort Sumter into the path of those cannon balls the Confederates were throwing around?

On what basis, with what right, did the seceding states seek to nullify the election of 1860 when it didn't go their way?

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for `perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled." R. E. Lee 23 January 1861.

From Douglas Southall Freeman's biography, Vol. 1, p. 421.

According to MB, Lee vas only vollowing orders!

Prof. Guelzo says that Lee submitted his resignation April 20th and it wasnt accepted until April 25th, after Lee had already accepted command of the VA militia. This made Lee at best a mutineer and at worst a traitor!

Simon Cameron said that before that resignation was submitted, Lee inquired about command of the US forces from Francis Preston Blair Sr., the offer was made by Winfield Scott, accepted by Lee who then went to VA ostensibly to wrap up his affairs and then deserted!

This constituted false pretenses. So shocking.

GP, the Articles make clear that the various States are sovereign entities. Your claim that the states never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty is clearly contradicted by the language of the Articles. Article II of the AoC make clear that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence. All power to the federal government is delegated. Only sovereign entities can delegate powers. Any power that the United States exercised under the Articles were delegated powers that rightly belonged to each State. The 10th Amendment continues this line of thinking.

It is only on the basis of each states inherent sovereignty that the 1787 Constitution was able to replace the AoC. States simply withdrew from and entered into another. This was done because States were sovereignty entities that had the right to enter or leave any compact as they so chose. The decision to take the 1787 constitution to Congress was a tactical and political one. The Framers feared that without Congress's blessing that the call for state held constitutional conventions would be ignored. In the end, sovereignty rests with the people as determined through the states. That is still the case even in the current constructional construct.

No, the Union did not go to war to free slaves, it went to war because it was attacked!

Fort Sumter was attacked by the South because it was occupied by a foreign power. The United States government had no reason for being on SC land once SC had left the Union. The principle is not hard to understand. Get off my land or I will force you off.

Fort Sumter was attacked by the South because it was occupied by a foreign power. The United States government had no reason for being on SC land once SC had left the Union. The principle is not hard to understand. Get off my land or I will force you off.

The USA was trespassing on a Secession? No one ever recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation, except for the CSA itself.

Can anyone list a positive attribute of the Confederacy?

Not an unintended one but one that sprang from their own shortsighted, self righteous, selfishness?

The Congress has powers both expressed and implied. The 10th Amendment doesn't give the States the right to do what Neo-confederate, Anti-American government types think it does. It didn't then and it really doesn't now.

The Constitutional delegates made a more perfect Union which meant perpetuity. Secession was considered, well hashed out and omitted with no provision for its operation.

This idea that the CSA did nothing wrong, were the aggrieved party, please just leave slavery out of it, natural rights, got attacked/invaded is the typical chain of rationalizations to take the eye off of its dedicated immorality and determined national detonation. Those CSA weasels didn't even have the cahones to declare a revolution like the Founders did; they thought they'd have the results of a revolution for the rich guys and call it a secession for everyone else.

For someone who doesn't like being associated with Neo-Confederacy, you certainly dance awfully close to its flames.

You like funny? Funny how no one calls George Washington a traitor, no one calls McClellan a traitor but everyone calls Lee one. Everyone that is, except fans of the CSA.

The USA was trespassing on a Secession? No one ever recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation, except for the CSA itself.

So what. We are talking about self evident truths. Like the right of self determination. Had Lee won Gettysburg or McClellan had won the 1864 election I think foreign recognition was just around the corner. But who cares? The principle is the principle.

The Articles were also signed for perpetuity but were discarded fairly easily. None of the States were obliged to sign the new constitution and as sovereign entities could have gone it alone if they had wanted.

Your claim that the states never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty is clearly contradicted by the language of the Articles.

I claimed no such thing regarding the Articles. What was written, and I quote, "If the States had sovereignty prior to ratification, they ceded it away when they ratified it." This was in reference to the states ratifying the U.S. Constitution, not the Articles, which such ratification gave away any national sovereignty that they had, if any, through the creation of a strong central government and it's Supremacy clause. And preceding my quoted statement, I provided the text of the Supremacy clause, before writing the following, "In essence, the U.S. Constitution did not grant such power to the states, nor delegate it to them by not granting it to the nation. Instead this constitutes the inability for any of the states to make laws, even state constitutions, contrary to the laws of the United States of America." The 10th Amendment doesn't take supreme legislative, executive, nor judicial power away from the United States of America, and the Supremacy clause raises the national government to the position that it still holds today. The South's leaders chose to secede from the Union through state action, fought a war, including an attack on federal property, and lost. Besides, in McCulloch vs. Maryland the Supremacy clause was clearly upheld. The states ceded away their sovereignty when they ratified the U.S. Constitution, and in so doing accepted it's provisions including the Supremacy clause.

Again, so why secede? Read their own articles of secession. Their newspapers. The foundational Cornerstone speech. Slavery is behind everything they did in some way or another. If you could take away one thing to stop the war, what would it be? Slavery broke the Union apart even if the average person did not quite get this at first.

No, the Union did not go to war to free slaves, it went to war because it was attacked!

Fort Sumter was attacked by the South because it was occupied by a foreign power. The United States government had no reason for being on SC land once SC had left the Union. The principle is not hard to understand. Get off my land or I will force you off.

Fort Sumter was ceded over to the United States by South Carolina in 1836 by a resolution passed by the South Carolina state legislature, and it was reported and read as follows, "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state."

Go here, for example – loc.gov/item/02011183 –
"The Genesis of the Civil War", written at a time when the author was still able to interview and correspond with actual participants in these events.

B

So what. We are talking about self evident truths. Like the right of self determination.

Let me see if I understand this. We cant call all the CSA soldiers a bunch of treasonous, slave mongers bc we need to understand each of their stories but the CSA's self-determination lurched forward monolithically?

Even the CSA's Constitution was practically a mirror image of the USA one. Hmm, let's see what was the self determination difference…I wonder?

Maybe instead of blue paper, they wanted it printed on grey?

Had Lee won Gettysburg

It would've made no difference.

or McClellan had won the 1864 election I think foreign recognition was just around the corner.

From what country?

But who cares? The principle is the principle.

What's the principle, that the CSA always comes up justified? Self determination to do the right thing not to do whatever you damn well please to whomever you feel like. You knock the moral element out of all this in favor of the technical. Even with the technical, it's carefully arranged, rationalized, manipulated.

And it doesn't really matter that the CSA (and its posterity)keep justifying everything. That really isn't how it behaved. It's hard to believe they would've said "Oh well,we haven't got a legal loophole, let's give up our slaves". Let's face it, if they hadnt thought they had some technical out, they would've made up some equally bogus mumbo jumbo.

The Articles were also signed for perpetuity

I dont know what you're saying. It was the Union which was meant to be perpetual not the freakin articles of confederation.

but were discarded fairly easily. None of the States were obliged to sign the new constitution and as sovereign entities could have gone it alone if they had wanted.

It was voted on by everyone, there was no unilateral decisions made.

You want to keep ignoring how Secession was brought up many times, fulsomely discussed and intentionally left out? Go ahead but that legislative history tells us that reversion was rejected.

The slave states were self absorbed obstacles from the start. First, Lee is faultless, now the Slave States? How is it that the CSA is the most righteous, put upon entity in history? They had every right, they dotted every "eye" and crossed every "tee" but forgot to rationally plan out what they were doing. Did anything they did make any sense?

Unbelievable; I can hear that quote about ignoring history and being doomed to repeat it.

Again, what good came from the CSA. Did it work for them?

And you need to check out how Lee's resignation and defection is shady.

Okay, this has been going on for a while now. Does ANYONE think that they are going to change the views of the side? Agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short.

Having debate is not necessarily about changing another's views, and instead it can be about such things as, yet not limited to, developing creative and healthy communication and thinking skills, providing information regarding various concepts and ideas, and having the opportunity for growth and learning.

- – – – – – – – – – – -

And as for this …

In the end, sovereignty rests with the people as determined through the states. That is still the case even in the current constructional construct.

… I agree that sovereignty exists from and with the people, yet I see it as being the people as a whole, and not only through the states, nor the people of an individual state, nor through the national government as well. As Lincoln said, "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Additionally, over the course of a long train of various Supreme Court decisions, it has essentially brought about the current understanding that the states, the people of the individual states, and the federal government, none of them combined nor separately, are ultimately sovereign, but instead the people as a whole are. In essence, all three of those entities, through the amendment power provided for in the constitution, are of, by, and for "We the people …". And this is because the people as a whole delegate their powers to any of these, and can take such powers away, and can give such powers to another. In the mean time, the powers of any of these are as they are, and that includes the Supremacy clause that as I've mentioned previously, "leaves no room for nullification of national law, nor for that matter all federal laws through secession."

GP, you made the following statement above.

The states never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty.

Your statement is false. The Articles proves this. States held the essential characteristics of sovereignty. They held it before the Articles and they held it through the era of the Articles. It was founding principle guiding the Articles. Further, State sovereignty is the only basis upon which any states could leave the Articles and join the new 1787 Constitution.

There is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the various States ceded their sovereignty at the time of ratification of the 1787 Constitution. If there had been any serious notion that States were ceding their ultimate sovereignty to the new constitution the ratifying conventions in most states would have voted against it.

For instance, in the Virginia ratification it stated, "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." I don't recall any of the Founders present at the Virginia convention disputing the efficacy or legitimacy of this assertion in its ratification of the 1787 Constitution.

No, I didn't make that statement, that was a quote from Madison, and I did put it in quotes. You're contending with Madison on that one, not me. And he wasn't talking about the states under the articles, he was talking about the states under the U.S. Constitution.

Can you cite Madison's quotation? If this quotation is proerply ascribed to Madison my hunch is that it is Madison's words as remembered by Robert Yates during the Constitutional Convention. If that is the case, just remember that Madison later disavowed much of what was ascribed to him by Yates from that time.

While we are talking about it you also mentioned Hamilton is this quote.

"Even Hamilton wrote in Federalist 11, "Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!"

I like how you use the word "even". Hamilton was a staunch ultra nationalist. He favoured eliminating states all together and creating a unitary form of government. He believed that the national government should be able to annul state legislation. He also favoured elected kings for the head of state of the United States. Hamilton was outside the broad consensus of the Constitutional Convention and his views on state sovereignty are highly suspect.

Okay, this has been going on for a while now. Does ANYONE think that they are going to change the views of the side? Agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short.

No, not with these people. But I think it is interesting to watch the wheels come off the bus about Lee's not being a traitor. It has now morphed into a full-blown compost storm about flaws in the Constitution/Natural rights/Secession's Legality/Defending against an invader; MB even asked us to put slavery aside. All the classic touchstones of denial and the very heart of Neo-Confederate thinking; that the Government isnt going to restrain me from doing whatever I want, whenever I want to, to whomever I want…oh, and were also poor little victims.

No idea has 100% right on its side but the Lost Cause Mythos' stance is that if the other side cant prove that they're 100% right, then, it follows, the Slave States get to have it their way.

This isn't a rational argument and I want to note that the man who wanted a legal definition of "traitor" early on in this thread has now gravitated away from that legality into unilateral rationalization. We would all like to determine what the law is to permit us to do whatever we want but we submit to the courts for the sake of social sanity and order. The CSA decided that they would save the courts the trouble and declare their own results and judgment.

How else can you interpret that among all the eras in history, the CSA is the sole entity that is 100% justified and put upon?

You ask why it matters? Because speech matters. You cant just stand by and let monstrous lies get proffered as justifications bc it will spread. Soon the entire forum would be chock a block with posters mutually reinforcing each other that Secession was both righteous and legal.

We need to likewise ask if it matters whether everyone on here is saying that The South didnt do anything wrong and were completely justified, that the North wasnt trying to end Slavery, that recent books on the are liberal revisionism to make the country socialist, that you cant judge them by present standards, that the Egyptians had slavery.

I saw earlier, that MB worried about being labelled Neo-Confederate? Does speech matter? This forum is replete with concerns about what sort of speech a person uses. Why would that be if speech doesn't matter? It even says in the margins, dont call someone a Nazi, unless they really are a Nazi. We may not be there quite yet but the Valkyrie is certainly warming up.

So, does speech matter? Did the DOI matter? Does the Constitution matter? Does Public Opinion matter?

Do you think it matters if people in the USA all agree that black people are inferior, that slavery should exist? A large part of the reason the South seceded is because they saw that a majority of people were no longer in agreement that men should be slaves, so their answer was to break away and create a new 100% pro-slave entity.

Now, apparently their apologists think it's a matter of righteous legality; "Hey look, we dont like slavery either but the Founders didnt do anything about it, so it's legal and we have no choice…well, until we want to declare self-determination about everything else.

Yeah, except the slaves states made sure the Founders couldn't do anything about it; they made sure they had the representation (3/5ths compromise) to ensure continued legality of slavery and then after even the writing was on the wall, they decided to squeal that it was all unfair to #slavers/not-slavers bc of how they managed to pervert both the DOI and Constitution with their immoral self interests.

Thus, we need to end that game that you cant judge them. You cant judge them because they continually tried to make sure you couldn't judge them. A very different thing than pretending that no one knew any better back then.

You think it is an accident that MB ignored Prof Guelzo's lecture and went right for an anonymous gamer's half quote by TJ for the CSA win? So anyone is an insta-expert if they agree with the pro-CSA community. A longtime historical expert doesn't matter but a random misquote matters?

This is the circle-the-wagons tactic that all Neo-Confederates use and it sure as hell isnt about history.

Fort Sumter was attacked by the South because it was occupied by a foreign power. The United States government had no reason for being on SC land once SC had left the Union. The principle is not hard to understand. Get off my land or I will force you off.

I know that this has already been well answered above, but since it was in response to my post, I want to point out that Fort Sumter, being a Federal post on Federal land did not secede, whatever SC thought it did. The voters and legislature of SC knew that the Federal forts were there before they decided to secede, did they really think the Federal government would just meekly hand them over? BTW, IIRC, the fort was built on rocks brought down from New England, so it wasn't even on SC's soil.

I just listened moments ago to the full lecture by Guelzo. So rest assured that I am doing my research APDC. I don't think Guelzo really adds much to the question at hand. He believes, like some here, that because the 1787 Constitution doesn't explicitly mention secession that States have no inherent right to leave the Union. He was asked about this in the question and answer section quite astutely by one of the audience members. I think that exchange shows where the two points of view lie.

I know that this has already been well answered above, but since it was in response to my post, I want to point out that Fort Sumter, being a Federal post on Federal land did not secede, whatever SC thought it did. The voters and legislature of SC knew that the Federal forts were there before they decided to secede, did they really think the Federal government would just meekly hand them over? BTW, IIRC, the fort was built on rocks brought down from New England, so it wasn't even on SC's soil.

If you are going to form a new country Don, you can't have a fort occupied by another power sitting the middle of your most important port. That doesn't make any sense. I do think the shelling Fort Sumter was a political mistake but the underlying rationale of removing forces of an alien power makes complete sense to those attempting to form CSA.

From what I have read the question of State sovereignty and the ability of States to withdraw from the new proposed compact never really seems to have been seriously debated during the ratifying conventions. If, in fact, States were permanently ceding their sovereignty as GP suggests wouldn't the Anti-Federalists have made this a major issue in rallying support against the 1787 compact? I think that issue would have become a major argument against the new constitution beyond any particular criticisms and concerns. Yet the Anti-Federalists never seem to go there. The most likely explanation to me for this is that there must have been broad agreement on both sides of the constitutional debate that the various States always maintained their reserved right to leave the new compact if so desiring. 

I just listened moments ago to the full lecture by Guelzo. So rest assured that I am doing my research APDC.

I didn't think you wouldn't watch it. I said you'd ignore it. Was I wrong?

That audience member just kept on repeating the same flawed interpretation of the Constitution; probably fed to him by some dishonest, anti-government source. To keep repeating something wrong doesn't make it true. And he wasn't astute, he sounded like the stapler guy from "Office Space".

Secession and reversion were debated and rejected. There are not two valid sides to this debate.

If you are going to form a new country Don, you can't have a fort occupied by another power sitting the middle of your most important port.

Sure you can, you can lease it out.

As I said APDC, Guelzo's lecture doesn't really speak specifically to our discussion. I did find his discussion around citizenship interesting. I think the notion of dual citizenship is probably the strongest argument in favour of the claim that Secession was illegal and unconstitutional. Citizens of the United States have two citizenships and one level of government can't abrogate the citizenship of the other (Guelzo didn't talk about this but I saw it as a natural extension of his comments.) I don't think that point of view would have flyed in 1787 but things may have changed by 1861. That doesn't completely settle the matter because States obviously left the AoC and entered into the 1787 compact with their reserved sovereignty including the right of self determination. I see no evidence that States agreed to permanently cede this element of their sovereignty to the new federal system. Had this been the case the Anti-Federalists would have used this claim to its full effect in the ratifying convention debates.

That audience member just kept on repeating the same flawed interpretation of the Constitution; probably fed to him by some dishonest, anti-government source. To keep repeating something wrong doesn't make it true. And he wasn't astute, he sounded like the stapler guy from "Office Space".

You are being a bit silly APDC. His position was well thought out and intellectually defensible. The matter of reserved rights of States to secede from the Union was settled in 1865, not in 1860 or even 1787 and the questioner was astute in pointing this out. In some ways this issue is another fudge of the 1787 Constitution which tried to meld two differing visions of the country into one document.