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

Blutarski, you quote above shows that Don Lowry's point is especially pertinent. The North went to war in the spring of 1861 because they were attacked, not because of Secession per se. In retrospect it would probably have been wiser for the South to wait and let events unfold. Of course, in the South there was worry of backsliding. War ended that problem but created a new one. One wonders if the Lincoln administration could have mustered the political support to suppress the secession of Southern States outside of a military attack.

That article is a good, contemporary example of confusion and disagreement about the legality of secession. Just one more reason for this to have been taken to SCOTUS as a Constitutional question.

Incidentally, the NY Daily Tribune in their attempt to suggest that secession is not treason, confuses revolution with secession when they are, in fact, very different actions.

Additionally, the paper admits that Jefferson's "revolution" permission doesnt quite fit the slave states because they in turn are holding people in bondage.

APDC said: It's very hard to have discussions with someone about the Constitution who refuses to acknowledge the Constitutional structure, how it operates, its case law and its legislative history.

MB said: That is a specious argument ADPC.

I think it is accurate and I stand by it.

I am quite aware of the Constitutional structure, how it operates, its case law and its legislative history.

Then please demonstrate it.

What I am not aware of is any serious argument on your part that demonstrates conclusively that States entering into the 1787 agreed to permanently cede their sovereignty in perpetuity to this new constitutional compact. You have provided no evidence to this much against your protestations otherwise.

Im not protesting anything, I'm following the Constitution. The Union was permanent and the states ceded some sovereignty. The only persons who feel that this isnt the case are the CSA and their posterity.

And again, "delegated" means "vested". For someone who continues to insist they understand the case law around the Constitution, it is amusing to see how this important interpretation is continually skipped over.

You might be interested to know that the quote immediately above in your last entry is not based on my own assessment but on Michael Klarman's masterful tomb, "The Framers' Coup."

I'll check it out. But to be clear, i dont say that there weren't legal questions around both secession and treason, I merely say that the CSA are wrong to assume they were 100% right, could act unilaterally and that they should've taken their case to SCOTUS.

I think the fact that they didn't indicates that they intended to secede no matter the legality and published their right to do so as justification for their shaky conscious and a desire for International recognition.

You still fail to answer a basic question, why didn't the Federal government bring suit against the seceding States in Federal Court?

You didn't properly answer my question about why the Southern states didn't take it to the courts. You answer my question properly and I will answer yours.

incidentally, I don't see why you would consider being a pro-CSA guy an insult. Arent you proud to defend the CSA? I'm proud to defend both the Union and the Constitution. If you want to call me a pro Constitution or pro Union guy, go ahead.

I would not have wanted the question decided by the likes of Roger Taney!

Blutarski, you quote above shows that Don Lowry's point is especially pertinent. The North went to war in the spring of 1861 because they were attacked, not because of Secession per se. In retrospect it would probably have been wiser for the South to wait and let events unfold. Of course, in the South there was worry of backsliding. War ended that problem but created a new one. One wonders if the Lincoln administration could have mustered the political support to suppress the secession of Southern States outside of a military attack.

Hi Marcus,
IMO, the drama was rather more convoluted and contrived. There are interesting questions to be addressed.

> Why did the United States not immediately mobilize upon the first overt declarations of secession?

> Why did Lincoln insist upon keeping Anderson's garrison in occupation of Fort Sumter, continue to supply its garrison, and allow the impasse at Fort Sumter to drag on unresolved for four months?

> Why did Lincoln, upon receiving news of the bombardment and Anderson's surrender of Fort Sumter, immediately alter course, mobilize the national army, call for mobilization of 75,000 men from the state militias, announce a blockade of all seaports of Confederate states and undertake an invasion of the Confederate state of Virginia?

- – -

One plausible explanation (IMO) is that Lincoln had grave doubts about the degree of support for war among the Northern states and felt that he needed to orchestrate/fabricate a suitable ‘casus belli' that would inflame sufficient warlike passions among the Northern citizenry.

YMMV, of course. But that is my evaluation.

B

You didn't properly answer my question about why the Southern states didn't take it to the courts. You answer my question properly and I will answer yours.

Isn't it the normal practice that the aggrieved party takes matters to court? The aggrieving party has no reason to bring suit before the court. In the case of secession would it not make sense for the Federal government, as the aggrieved party, to bring suit. Why would the seceding states care at all about what the courts might say. They were leaving there very constitutional structures that might pass judgement on them. Also, from a practical standpoint, bringing suit in Federal Court would probably weaken their case rather than strengthen because it would be tacitly acknowledging a diminution of their sovereignty in doing so.

Courts tend not to like to rule on hypothetical actions. So are you imagining that the Southern States secede first and then bring suit in Federal Court. How do you imagine this happening? One might wonder if State governments even have standing to bring a suit before the Federal Courts after their secession proclamations.

I think you answered my question Blutarski about Lincoln. There was a maniacal genius in how Lincoln maneuvered the situation in Charleston to get the result he wanted. And as Don L reminds us in the Lincoln's proclamation calling up the militia there is no mention of secession per se. The focus is rather military aggression against the USA.

Lee betrayed his oath, the nation, and its people. By that standard, Lee was indeed a traitor.

Lol … some folks here using the same arguments the southern leaders did, like the whining away to blame Lincoln. Some of the same writers here also saying oops, the South made a mistake, had the CSA only not fired first, then projecting blame elsewhere, while claiming succession was the states' right. Blah, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah, blah.

The sympathy for the CSA is so obvious, it just keeps running and running like an energizer bunny rabbit. Glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth yet this morning or my computer might have had to withstand a good dose of spray to it's screen and keyboard while laughing at the ludicrousness of the sympathy being expressed for the CSA here.

Although at least this brings us back to Lee … after Lincoln called up troops in all the remaining states, four more states left the Union to join the CSA, including Virginia, and then Lee made his move to resign and leave the Union too. Not that the southern sympathizers aren't aware of this as well, except dancing away to blame Lincoln for the south's choices is the typical comments of the "oh my, what about states rights" group.

What states' rights? The right to keep an bear slaves. Lee went with them, and they all lost. Yet the cause lives on, states' rights, for what?

Isn't it the normal practice that the aggrieved party takes matters to court

I thought the South was the aggrieved party? But when it comes to Constitutional questions, you can ask for a preemptive decision. Also, declaring secession without any other moves wouldve been sufficient to be heard by SCOTUS.

In the case of secession would it not make sense for the Federal government, as the aggrieved party, to bring suit.

Either party including any of the non seceding states could've brought the suit.

Why would the seceding states care at all about what the courts might say.

Because the South was intent on seceding no matter what, it would have made no difference to them but it would've made it harder for the Federal government to claim they were rebels. The South could've said they did the right thing but they chose instead to pull a "power" move.

Justice Taney was probably the most pro-slave, pro secession Justice ever and the South still wasnt interested in a blessing from SCOTUS. President Buchanan was also very sympathetic to both slavery and secession. It could be that all this pre Lincoln sympathy to secession whipped the South into a frenzy of righteousness and that collective but erroneous euphoria led them to a premature move.

They were leaving there very constitutional structures that might pass judgement on them.

That's right, they had no interest in the legality of the move, they were in a rush to secede and then publish their reasons after the decision had been made up in their minds.

Also, from a practical standpoint, bringing suit in Federal Court would probably weaken their case rather than strengthen because it would be tacitly acknowledging a diminution of their sovereignty in doing so.

Not possible. Especially because they had no intention of obeying the law. The South wanted to do whatever it wanted to do and then publish that they were "lawful" after the fact. There is no chance they would've complied with a law ruling that unilateral secession was unconstitutional but as a tactic it would've lent them legitimacy and a position of "right". If they had lost the lawsuit, they could've seceded anyway and it would've made small difference in their cause.

One might wonder if State governments even have standing to bring a suit before the Federal Courts after their secession proclamations.

They wouldve had standing. The northern states and president Buchanan bungled this.

The South bungled this too. I think their strategy was to pretend that they were just acting naturally. However, they protested too much that they had every right and went out of their way to craft a DoI, AoC, Constitutional silence on unilateral secession, State's self determination fantasy that belied they believed they might be on shaky ground.

We can see by their after secession delegations to the federal government that they still wanted federal recognition. Seems odd that they didnt care about the US laws and Constitution to secede but then wanted to be legally recognized and treated as an equal after secession.

It proved to be true that because of their rash behavior they werent recognized by any other government and the USA didnt have to recognize them either.

Lincoln didn't file suit because by the time he was inaugurated, it was too far gone, the South was in open rebellion and had already left Congress. It had been incumbent on Presdient Buchanan to file suit and he was a Southern/Slave/Secession sympathizer and one of the country's feeblest, most incompetent presidents. Lincoln probably also felt that Taney might've handed the South a win on unilateral secession because Taney was a next level slavery sympathizer.

Courts tend not to like to rule on hypothetical actions. So are you imagining that the Southern States secede first and then bring suit in Federal Court. How do you imagine this happening?

I'm not imagining it, this is one of the exact ways a suit would be brought. This is another reason why I maintain that your grasp on both US Law and the Constitution are inchoate.

I thought the South was the aggrieved party?

Not when it comes to the matter of secession. The South was happy to leave the Union. It was the Federal Government that had a problem. Under the process of our legal systems they are the aggrieved part it would be expected that they would bring suit before a Federal Court. I see you response as essentially a dodge.
.
Your assertion that the Southern states should have brought suit in the Federal Court to secede seems patently silly to me. And your point of view on this would only make sense if secession was a live issue. But I thought you believed that secession was a dead issue. States did not have the ability to withdraw from the Union period. States had ceded their sovereignty to the 1787 Constitution when they passed the necessary convention declarations.

And a couple of extra points. The CSA wanted recognition by the USA that they were a nation. That makes total sense to me. It means that the USA recognized and accepted the new political reality brought about by secession. It means that the power of the USA would not be used to coerce Confederates states back into the Union. From nation to nation point of view it makes complete sense that the CSA would interested in how they were seen by the USA.

Lincoln didn't file suit because by the time he was inaugurated, it was too far gone, the South was in open rebellion and had already left Congress. It had been incumbent on Presdient Buchanan to file suit and he was a Southern/Slave/Secession sympathizer and one of the country's feeblest, most incompetent presidents. Lincoln probably also felt that Taney might've handed the South a win on unilateral secession because Taney was a next level slavery sympathizer.

I don't agree with your assertion that events had gone too far in April, 1861 for the Federal government to have brought suit in court against the seceding states. If in fact the case was essentially a slam dunk as you suggest it would have a great political victory for the Feds to have won a court judgement against the seceding States at any point in the war.

What you are essentially saying is that the Southern states might have won their constitutional claim to be able to secede in Federal court. Interestingly, that is one the contributing treasons that the treason trial against Davis was withdrawn in 1868. The Federal government couldn't risk losing the constitutional argument in court. And that in itself is proof to me that the claim of secession was a live issue in 1860.

Not when it comes to the matter of secession. The South was happy to leave the Union. It was the Federal Government that had a problem. Under the process of our legal systems they are the aggrieved part it would be expected that they would bring suit before a Federal Court. I see you response as essentially a dodge.

Are we sure? The reasons for secession read like a grievance laundry list. Both sides can have a grievance. I dont know why you feel that only one side files suit. In the USA, both sides can have a grievance.

I'm not dodging anything, artfully or otherwise.

Your assertion that the Southern states should have brought suit in the Federal Court to secede seems patently silly to me.

You're skipping a few steps here. I recognize that the South wanted to posture themselves a certain way. They decided to use the old "While strolling in the park one day" trick; the oldest trick in the book. It might have worked with a less resolute administration. However, it was a gamble that wasn't grounded in legality, rather the CSA made a power move and then tried to claim it was legal. Basically, they tried to assert unilateral secession unilaterally.

Under the way they seceded, it kind of blew up in their faces like an exploding cigar. However, under the way I suggested, they might've gotten a decision from a sympathetic Taney court. That would've put Lincoln in tough spot.

In the case that the CSA lost, and Taney might've been forced to deny unilateral secession, they could've seceded anyway. It wasn't like they were going to stay if someone ruled secession was unconstitutional.

And your point of view on this would only make sense if secession was a live issue. But I thought you believed that secession was a dead issue. States did not have the ability to withdraw from the Union period. States had ceded their sovereignty to the 1787 Constitution when they passed the necessary convention declarations.

You are ignoring a lot of degrees here. There is what I think, what you think, what the CSA thought, what Lincoln thought, what the Northern states thought, what the Founders thought, what newspaper's thought, what abolitionists thought, what the Constitution thought. Many different points of view but, in the absence of Congressional law, only one final arbiter of the Constitution.

It's because you dont quite have comfort with the Constitution and how doctrines like "express and implied" powers operate that you might be looking for absolutes. A young constitution with implied powers can only add them to the roster of express powers by virtue of a controversy. That's the whole Madisonian point of having the ability to review Constitutional challenges to determine if they are a Federal Power, a State limitation or something reserved to the states or the people of the USA.

States ceded a little of their sovereignty, not all of it. There have been interesting legal discussions around this but the SCOTUS and Congress have never acted any way else but under the belief that some sovereignty was surrendered.

And a couple of extra points. The CSA wanted recognition by the USA that they were a nation. That makes total sense to me. It means that the USA recognized and accepted the new political reality brought about by secession.

Makes sense to me too. However, I brought it up to demonstrate that on the one hand the CSA wanted to assume their rights and act like they didn't need anyone else to legitimize their moves and then on the other hand, they wanted legitimacy from the very institution they acted like they didn't need any permission from.

It means that the power of the USA would not be used to coerce Confederates states back into the Union. From nation to nation point of view it makes complete sense that the CSA would interested in how they were seen by the USA.

Right, act first, apologize later. Except that, as diabolically clever that the CSA thought they were being, Lincoln was on to them. Each side was playing a game of "chicken"; the CSA's was southern fried and Lincoln's was probably boiled but I don't know that either side expected much more than saber rattling before the other side backed down. However, we all know how that turned out.

I don't agree with your assertion that events had gone too far in April, 1861 for the Federal government to have brought suit in court against the seceding states. If in fact the case was essentially a slam dunk as you suggest it would have a great political victory for the Feds to have won a court judgement against the seceding States at any point in the war.

I never said it would be a slam dunk but there was enough controversy to trigger a SCOTUS review. Unilateral secession makes no sense and silence under the Constitution for an important matter like dissolving the Union would demand a review. Doesn't make sense under contract law and really doesn't make sense to have a country where a State can stomp off whenever it doesn't get its way and even if it did, it was still a monumental enough change that it should still get a judicial blessing. I think the CSA knew this and published propaganda that unilateral secession was perfectly legal and natural. Seemed to have worked because people still repeat it today.

By 1861, I think the CSA was an absentee defendant. I wonder if Lincoln could've gotten a default judgment. At that point, he would've still had to enforce it with the military. I think that Lincoln was adamant that the CSA was violating the Constitution and that unilateral secession was a contractual absurdity. I think he also worried a bit what sort of decision Taney might give him.

What you are essentially saying is that the Southern states might have won their constitutional claim to be able to secede in Federal court.

I dont think they should've won but under Taney they might've won and just like today there were a lot of people then who didnt know their Constitutional law who might've thought the CSA also had the right to secede.

Interestingly, that is one the contributing treasons that the treason trial against Davis was withdrawn in 1868. The Federal government couldn't risk losing the constitutional argument in court. And that in itself is proof to me that the claim of secession was a live issue in 1860.

Some of this is interesting but too complicated. However if secession were indeed a live issue in 1860, then as I maintain, it should've been reviewed under original jurisdiction.

Lincoln didn't file suit because by the time he was inaugurated, it was too far gone, the South was in open rebellion and had already left Congress. It had been incumbent on Presdient Buchanan to file suit and he was a Southern/Slave/Secession sympathizer and one of the country's feeblest, most incompetent presidents. Lincoln probably also felt that Taney might've handed the South a win on unilateral secession because Taney was a next level slavery sympathizer.

Further to MB's insightful commentary -

SC's Declaration of the Causes of Secession, dated 24 Dec 1860, was NOT a formal act of secession. This document stipulated clearly that South Carolina would FORMALLY secede from the United States on 4 March 1861, the very same day as Lincoln's inauguration – 4 Mar 1861. The Supreme Court does not deliberate upon cases that have not yet occurred.

Interestingly, it was apparently only after Lincoln's mobilization of the Army and call-out of the state militias that four additional Southern states chose to secede.

Leading up 1861, justices from southern states held a majority in the Supreme court. Lincoln took no steps to seek an opinion by the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of secession, then or later, because he was likely fearful of its response on the issue of secession. Even late in the war, there were still five Democrats on the court, including Chied Justice Haney.

Go here for an interesting commentary about Lincoln's view of the Supreme Court situation and other minor items of interest to the citizen ….. such as Habeus Corpus -

link

B

If Lincoln had filed suit in court, why would the seceded states even have shown up? They no longer considered themselves to be part of the U.S., and therefore beyond the courts' jurisdiction.

If Lincoln had filed suit in court, why would the seceded states even have shown up? They no longer considered themselves to be part of the U.S., and therefore beyond the courts' jurisdiction.

To hopefully obtain a decision by the court that secession = treason. Lincoln was otherwise skating (IMO) on thin legal ice. His justification for mobilizing the army, calling out the militia, imposing the blockade and ultimately invading Virginia was that US forces had been "attacked". He sold it to the public as a casus belli, even though the US force attacked had refused to withdraw from a state that had formally seceded several months earlier.

Devils and details

B

At the end of the day his choice was to be true to himself.A heck of a lot more important than any oath.

Further to MB's insightful commentary -

SC's Declaration of the Causes of Secession, dated 24 Dec 1860, was NOT a formal act of secession. This document stipulated clearly that South Carolina would FORMALLY secede from the United States on 4 March 1861, the very same day as Lincoln's inauguration – 4 Mar 1861. The Supreme Court does not deliberate upon cases that have not yet occurred.

The South Carolina Ordinance of Secession is dated 20th December, 1860 and The South Carolina Declaration of Secession is dated 24th December, 1860 which made SC's secession official and final.

Further, in the declaration of secession, the only mention of March 4th, 1861 I found was about the Republican government taking office. Where do you see this formal SC secession taking place on March 4th, 1861?

Also, original jurisdiction doesn't necessitate a court case to be heard by SCOTUS, just a controversy. I think the controversy of dissolving the Union would be enough of an event to warrant a review.

That was an interesting link. it does tend to confirm that the Southern Justices were a sort of inside fix for slave holder's rights.

To hopefully obtain a decision by the court that secession = treason. Lincoln was otherwise skating (IMO) on thin legal ice. His justification for mobilizing the army, calling out the militia, imposing the blockade and ultimately invading Virginia was that US forces had been "attacked". He sold it to the public as a casus belli, even though the US force attacked had refused to withdraw from a state that had formally seceded several months earlier.

The U.S. forces that were attacked were on Federal property, regardless of whether South Carolina was or was not an independent country. Is Gibraltar automatically Spanish property just because Spain is not part of the United Kingdom?

"At the end of the day his choice was to be true to himself"

He could have simply resigned his commission and retired. Instead he took up weapons.

"A heck of a lot more important than any oath." Perhaps now a days. But in the nineteenth century a person of his stature who was destine not to farm/trade because that was below his class went to the military because it was the highest honor and calling, men from that cast were thought to be above breaking their word.

He could have simply resigned his commission and retired. Instead he took up weapons.

I think you are forgetting that Lincoln had called up 75,000 reservists for the purpose of suppressing the rebellion and that Virginia had seceded from the Union by the time Lee was commissioned in 1861 by Virginia. Lee's willingness to serve Virginia's military forces was a purely defensive act on his part. Had the North not invaded there would have been no need for Lee to take up arms against the USA.

The U.S. forces that were attacked were on Federal property, regardless of whether South Carolina was or was not an independent country. Is Gibraltar automatically Spanish property just because Spain is not part of the United Kingdom?

I have been thinking about this point since you first brought it up. I agree that the CSA should have negotiated for Fort Sumter's return to SC. The South had already sent emissaries to the North to negotiate matters such as the return of federal property in the South to the seceding states and Lincoln has point blank refused to talk with them about this. If one party refuses to negotiate then what are the options? One can't ultimately have a foreign nation occupying a fort right in the center of your most important harbor. I think hindsight shows that patience and the long view would have better served the CSA on this matter. Davis and the CSA government was under its own pressures as much as Lincoln. Both sides had good reason to want to provoke conflict at Fort Sumter and your implied assertion that the fault lies exclusively with the CSA is unfair to the facts. Both sides were maneuvering for a fight at this point and they got it.

Perhaps Lincoln operated under the assumption that the Union was everything, the whole ballgame. If SC, VA, suddenly expected to be treated as sovereign nations, or a nation, triggered by the election, he wasn't buying it even in the face of SC opening fire on US troops.

As I and others have said earlier, Lee had the option to resign and not take sides. This is where he loses me. The oath, but also the West Point years, the Mexican War, the personal relationships within the peacetime army, loyalty to the country you have served all your life.

But I live in this century and do not really understand an attack on the United States as a right. Virginia was part of the United States. Lee believed it would be "invaded". Lincoln chose to defend it from insurrection. Hindsight, but this is how it looks to me.

There are harsh and uncompromising, unmistakeable values expressed about slavery in the various articles of succession. We may say that that this was the way of it in those times and agree that these core beliefs were held to be a right of each state by the authors. In the end we know that for both sides, change was overdue.

Imagine if the Founders returned in 1860, met in some tavern, and took a look at what was going on. Would they agree with secession, or would they grieve the possible end of their imperfect but magnificent creation?

I think you are forgetting that Lincoln had called up 75,000 reservists for the purpose of suppressing the rebellion and that Virginia had seceded from the Union by the time Lee was commissioned in 1861 by Virginia. Lee's willingness to serve Virginia's military forces was a purely defensive act on his part. Had the North not invaded there would have been no need for Lee to take up arms against the USA.

Virginia didn't secede until 2 days after Lincoln called up these troops. Lincoln called them up to suppress an insurrection. Why would VA join in with this? They could've said, "rebellion? Whoa, we don't want any part of that!" and not seceded. Further, Lee submitted his resignation letter a few days after VA seceded and a day after Lincoln blockaded the ports of the insurrectionists.

Lee never said to himself, "Why is VA joining an insurrection?" He never thought that VA's secession was unnecessary after Lincoln's call up for troops? VA cant create an obstacle to Lincoln's suppression of a rebellion and then claim it was invaded. Was Lee's move just a rash, emotional reaction done with cold calculation?

All both VA and Lee had to do was stay out of the way and let Lincoln suppress an insurrection. There was and could be no invasion of the rebellious areas because they weren't a country, they were part of the USA.

I understand you have a sympathy for the CSA but it always seems to find an excuse for Confederates without thinking through all the angles.

The South had already sent emissaries to the North to negotiate matters such as the return of federal property in the South to the seceding states and Lincoln has point blank refused to talk with them about this.

They were insurrectionists why would Lincoln talk with them?

If one party refuses to negotiate then what are the options?

You mean like when the CSA seceded rather than continue to pursue its interests by constitutional means?

One can't ultimately have a foreign nation occupying a fort right in the center of your most important harbor.

The problem is that no one recognized the CSA as a nation except the CSA itself. Thus, whatever delusions the CSA were under concerning that fort, it was their own and no one else's.

I think hindsight shows that patience and the long view would have better served the CSA on this matter. Davis and the CSA government was under its own pressures as much as Lincoln.

Hindsight shows that the CSA didn't make any good decisions. Do you have some good CSA decisions you'd like to point to?

Frankly, while we are on the subject of hindsight, Lee didnt make any good decisions either. Or do you disagree?

Your approach to the CSA and Lee seems to have a heavy dose of "Never mind the morality, thought or planning, if they had the legal right to do it then everything they did is both rational and no one else's business".

Perhaps it is a self determination argument? That people have to right to commit suicide? Unfortunately, even under this argument, the CSA was dragging the rest of the country with them.

Both sides had good reason to want to provoke conflict at Fort Sumter and your implied assertion that the fault lies exclusively with the CSA is unfair to the facts. Both sides were maneuvering for a fight at this point and they got it.

You know, you talk about the CSA like it was a thing, a rational, justifiable, sovereign thing. Aside from your continual obsession with the legality of secession, what exactly do you think the USA and the world owe the CSA along the lines of fairness and for what reasons?

A couple of quotes from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another."

and, further down:

"I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever—it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself."

and again:

"The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."

As for appealing to the courts, he said:

I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes."

And, finally: "The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. … You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

There can no doubt that Lincoln was a strong proponent of a certain point of view with the respect to the Constitutional order that existed in 1861. With that said there are great number of assumptions in his first inaugural that he brings to the question of secession that would take a long time to unpack. Here are a few.

1. Lincoln asserts that his election as President of the USA is of no threat to the South. The question though here is who gets to decide whether his election is a threat or not to Southern interests? His protestations otherwise, it seems that the responsibility for determining the potential for tyranny lies with the States and not with the Federal government. If Southern states determine that the national interests are antagonistic to their own interests, then it is their determination and not Lincoln's that decides the matter. If this is not the case, then on what basis did the various States have the right to secede from Great Britain? Britain denied the many claims found in the Declaration of Independence against it.

2. Lincoln asserts the perpetual nature of the Union. He states that "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments." Language here is important. His use of the term "national" government is very much against the language of the constitution which never uses this to the best of my knowledge. The language of the 1787 constitution is very much the language of a federated system, not a national system (something that Hamilton would have preferred.) It is a guarantee that had the language of national identity and national government been used in 1787 the proposed Constitution would have been rejected. Anti-Federalists would have had a field day railing against the constitutional proposal. The Anti-Federalists were still suspicious of an attempt to build a national government through the 1787 constitution even as the Federalists (note not Nationalists) denied this feature of their proposal. In fact, the very question of a national identity is at the heart of what is being argued about in 1860/61. As Shelby Foote noted, before the War it was "The United States are" and after the war it was "The United States is." A big difference between the two ways of understanding what the USA is or are.

3. Lincoln asserts the priority of the Union over and against any constitutional arrangement. The Union preceded everything and a characteristic of the Union is its perpetuity. That seems like a non sequitur to me. I don't see the obvious connection here. It is true that the States jointly declared their independence from the Crown but they nonetheless did so based on their own independent sovereign authority as States. The States formed an alliance together for their common purposes of shared defense that was later codified into a constitutional compact. But as I have argued above there is no evidence that they ultimately surrendered their sovereign rights as States to the new constitution.

4. The right of self-determination does not necessarily require a move to anarchy. That is an interesting polemical move by Lincoln but it is not self-evidently true.

1. Lincoln asserts that his election as President of the USA is of no threat to the South. The question though here is who gets to decide whether his election is a threat or not to Southern interests? His protestations otherwise, it seems that the responsibility for determining the potential for tyranny lies with the States and not with the Federal government. If Southern states determine that the national interests are antagonistic to their own interests, then it is their determination and not Lincoln's that decides the matter. If this is not the case, then on what basis did the various States have the right to secede from Great Britain? Britain denied the many claims found in the Declaration of Independence against it.

What kind of logic is this? Illogic. Threat? Being afraid doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make one's reply to that fear appropriate. And Lincoln didn't decide it, he expressed his position, and the southern states didn't take him at his word, deciding to act on their supposably perceived threat. And as to your shenanigans with claiming the 13 colonies seceded, not even the leaders of the 13 colonies called it secession. It was a revolution against one form of government to form another, not a secession to keep the same form of government, while also to strengthen and preserve the use of slavery.

2. Lincoln asserts the perpetual nature of the Union. He states that "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments." Language here is important. His use of the term "national" government is very much against the language of the constitution which never uses this to the best of my knowledge. The language of the 1787 constitution is very much the language of a federated system, not a national system (something that Hamilton would have preferred.) It is a guarantee that had the language of national identity and national government been used in 1787 the proposed Constitution would have been rejected. Anti-Federalists would have had a field day railing against the constitutional proposal. The Anti-Federalists were still suspicious of an attempt to build a national government through the 1787 constitution even as the Federalists (note not Nationalists) denied this feature of their proposal. In fact, the very question of a national identity is at the heart of what is being argued about in 1860/61. As Shelby Foote noted, before the War it was "The United States are" and after the war it was "The United States is." A big difference between the two ways of understanding what the USA is or are.

By the time of the ACW, the United States of America was acting as a nation, and to this day the terms federal and national are used interchangeably. Also, no matter how colorful Shelby Foote could be as a writer, he was inaccurate regarding "the United States are", because the word "are" had long since ceased common usage prior to the ACW.

3. Lincoln asserts the priority of the Union over and against any constitutional arrangement. The Union preceded everything and a characteristic of the Union is its perpetuity. That seems like a non sequitur to me. I don't see the obvious connection here. It is true that the States jointly declared their independence from the Crown but they nonetheless did so based on their own independent sovereign authority as States. The States formed an alliance together for their common purposes of shared defense that was later codified into a constitutional compact. But as I have argued above there is no evidence that they ultimately surrendered their sovereign rights as States to the new constitution.

Totally and completely incorrect. The Union is a constitutional government, and to argue otherwise is pure folly. Continue pounding your head against the wall on this inaccurate representation of what happened, although time over time over time, your view has been shown to be less than what it could be, and there's no proof of your claims, and at the same time, a complete ignoring of what has been demonstrated previously.

4. The right of self-determination does not necessarily require a move to anarchy. That is an interesting polemical move by Lincoln but it is not self-evidently true.

I didn't see any quoting in the post above yours regarding Lincoln using the words word "self-determination". Regardless, "self-determination"/states rights for what? To keep and bear slaves as a cultural component, and act in a political way where by the upper class in the southern states would continue to dominate and perpetuate slavery.

1. GP, you are consumed by the American myth. What you call a revolution was perceived by the British in 1776 as rebellion and insurrection. Not very dissimilar to what happened in 1860. It is just what point of view are you looking at the matter.

2. You can assert that in 1860 the USA was a nation but that certainly wasn't agreed to by the citizens of the various states. In fact, isn't secession proof of that? After the War absolutely the USA is a nation but before the War you simply ignoring the data. And Foote's observation is quite to the point. The United States in 1860 is a plural, not a singular in the popular imagination and the question of nationhood was unsettled. It is certainly true that in 1787 the United States of America was a not a nation in the way we understand the term today and the constitutional compact was designed to skirt this issue.

3. I have shown again and again that the powers of the United States are delegated powers, not ceded powers (as you incorrectly asserted above). I have been meaning to circle back and correct your misinterpretation of Madison's words in an earlier posting but I just haven't had the time to do it.

4. The Declaration of Independence asserts the right of self determination of all people. It is an inalienable right that belongs to human beings by their Creator. If that right applies to the 13 colonies then it belongs to the States also. It is a simple concept.

But that right did not belong to slaves. States rights in the service of continuing slavery contradicts the Declaration. Again, what would the Founders see in all this if they returned in 1860?

My opinion…I have greatly appreciated the thought and detail of these posts. But in the end, I think you cannot equate the Declaration with forming a new breakaway nation based on slavery in 1860. Both sides were complicit in the continuation of slavery up to this point. But by making it foundational in their secession documents, the Cornerstone speech, etc. the elites in the Confederacy sealed their own fate in the end.

Basically the 1787 Constitution kicked the can down the road on some important issues including slavery, nationhood etc.. It was the best they could do at that time but at the core of it all there was two very different visions of the country in the 1780s that were married together in one document. As we can see those two different visions are still playing it out on TMP.

The United States in 1860 is a plural, not a singular in the popular imagination and the question of nationhood was unsettled.

"It made us an 'is'."

"A similar search comparing the frequency of the phrases "United States are" and "United States is" reveals that, contrary to Foote's assertion that the former was the preferred usage in the decades before the war, the two phrases were actually used about equally through the first few decades of the Republic. That began to change in the 1840s, when "United States is" (shown in red) began gradually to pull away from "United States are" (in blue) in printed usage. By the beginning of the war (shown here as a green bar), "United States is" was solidly more common in usage--though not greatly so--than "United States are":"

link

"The United States Is… Or Are?"

link

What you call a revolution was perceived by the British in 1776 as rebellion and insurrection.

Could you please define these terms? I don't see any difference.

The right of self-determination does not necessarily require a move to anarchy.

As Lincoln said, it could, instead, lead to despotism. Either the majority rules, or the minority rules (despotism), or no one rules (anarchy). Take your pick.

What it boils down to is that, after losing the election of 1860 to the Republicans, the Southern wing of the Democratic Party chose to take the ball and go home rather than play a subordinate role for once.

1. GP, you are consumed by the American myth. What you call a revolution was perceived by the British in 1776 as rebellion and insurrection. Not very dissimilar to what happened in 1860. It is just what point of view are you looking at the matter.

It could be worse, he could be consumed by the Neo-confederate, lost cause myth.

Actually, what happened in 1860 was very different than what happened in 1776.The Founders recognized that they were committing revolution and that the pre-existing laws were of no concern to them.

By contrast, the CSA, although they tried, for propagandist reasons, to channel the spirit of 1776, committed unilateral secession, which was a theoretically legal continuation of the same laws and rights as before but with a different cast of members.

It does depend on what point of view one has. But do have a single point of view not a hodgepodge of whatever nonsense ultimately justifies an act.

You can assert that in 1860 the USA was a nation but that certainly wasn't agreed to by the citizens of the various states. In fact, isn't secession proof of that?

The disagreement doesnt change the fact that the USA was a nation. The CSA wasn't sincere about the reasons it seceded and went through a tortured series of rationales, splicing DoI, AoC and Constitutional arguments along with self determination and states rights babble. Interestingly, they ignored the Northern states rights to not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

I have shown again and again that the powers of the United States are delegated powers, not ceded powers (as you incorrectly asserted above). I have been meaning to circle back and correct your misinterpretation of Madison's words in an earlier posting but I just haven't had the time to do it.

Maybe you've convinced yourself but delegated has always meant "vested". It has never meant "loaned". SCOTUS continually held this and you dont want to acknowledge it.

The Declaration of Independence asserts the right of self determination of all people. It is an inalienable right that belongs to human beings by their Creator. If that right applies to the 13 colonies then it belongs to the States also. It is a simple concept.

For revolution, not secession. GP is correct and you are ignoring the fact that the CSA ignored the rights of slaves which means the CSA basically voided any righteousness they assigned to their motives.

Basically the 1787 Constitution kicked the can down the road on some important issues including slavery, nationhood etc..

They didnt kick the can down the road on nationhood. This is a CSA contrivance.

They didn't kick the can down the road on slavery either; the South made them kick the can down the road.

The South also made the Founders include the 3/5ths compromise which, early on, gave the South outsized influence in the direction of the country. When that influence began to peter out, the South decided they no longer wanted to be involved with the rest of the country. I can see that perhaps in their minds, once they had no advantage in protecting their regional interests, they had no further obligation to the rest of the country. But even if they always had this unilateral fantasy that they crossed their fingers behind their backs when they signed the Constitution, the justification still doesn't exist in the document but only in their own disreputable motives.

It was the best they could do at that time but at the core of it all there was two very different visions of the country in the 1780s that were married together in one document. As we can see those two different visions are still playing it out on TMP.

What exactly is your vision of the Constitution? Apart from the fact that you believe the Constitution is a mere "suggestion" dont seem willing to understand its construction, operation or integration and interpret it only to jive with your own ideology, you still think there are two different visions?

1. GP, you are consumed by the American myth. What you call a revolution was perceived by the British in 1776 as rebellion and insurrection. Not very dissimilar to what happened in 1860. It is just what point of view are you looking at the matter.

Incorrect. What's your definition of the American myth? Ichabod Crane, Paul Bunyan, the Lone Ranger … oh, wait, certainly not the "Lost Cause". Come on dude, get a clue. I'm not even close to arguing such fantasy stories here. Instead, I busting on your sympathy for the Lost Cause. So yes, get a clue, instead of calling up distracting nonsense that has no bearing what so ever on the real debate that is occurring here. I'm talking against the myths that have arisen out of the desire from some to continue the memory of a pseudo rationalization of why the ACW was fought, how the south and it's leaders were being picked on, and the rearing of it as an ugly backlash to the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960s.

Also, it is well known and considered that the American Revolution was an ideological and political revolution, and yes, in essence a rebellion, even (oops, there's that word again … lol) an insurrection, but certainly not a secession. The careless use, or intentional distortion, or perhaps both, being expressed by yourself shows a consumption of your own anti-American feelings, and that's ok, except when you're distorting, deceiving, and misrepresenting things inaccurately and inappropriately, even if not for your own ideological and political reasons.

2. You can assert that in 1860 the USA was a nation but that certainly wasn't agreed to by the citizens of the various states. In fact, isn't secession proof of that? After the War absolutely the USA is a nation but before the War you simply ignoring the data. And Foote's observation is quite to the point. The United States in 1860 is a plural, not a singular in the popular imagination and the question of nationhood was unsettled. It is certainly true that in 1787 the United States of America was a not a nation in the way we understand the term today and the constitutional compact was designed to skirt this issue.

They didn't agree? Essentially they approved of their inclusion in a form of government through ratification and acceptance into the Union, and then backed out of their agreement. Or perhaps, it was convenient for the upper class leadership of the southern states to not agree at the time of the ACW, because they were so fearful of Lincoln, thus taking inappropriate action in the heat of moment, instead of slowing down, and finding a more appropriate response than fleeing their commitment when they ratified and accepted the U.S. Constitution, to instead strengthen and continue their cultural and political dominance over black slaves.

3. I have shown again and again that the powers of the United States are delegated powers, not ceded powers (as you incorrectly asserted above). I have been meaning to circle back and correct your misinterpretation of Madison's words in an earlier posting but I just haven't had the time to do it.

I have not misinterpreted Madison's words in the slightest, and in fact it is your own emotions and misunderstandings that are getting in the way of a fuller picture of Madison's life time of service to achieving a balance across the scope of the U.S. constitutional government. Also, the continued twisting between various descriptors of the powers can certainly play along with an ideological and political perspective that is in line with sympathy for the southern upper class that wanted to dominate over blacks in slavery, yet there are those of us that aren't being fooled by such distortions.

4. The Declaration of Independence asserts the right of self determination of all people. It is an inalienable right that belongs to human beings by their Creator. If that right applies to the 13 colonies then it belongs to the States also. It is a simple concept.

There is continued insistence on your part that somehow the Declaration of Independence's assertion to a supposed self-determination/states rights ideology is so off base, hyper focused, and misses the broader picture.

The actual text of the Preamble is as follows, "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." This is a statement that is intentionally opposed to the ideological and political form of government of the British. This isn't even close to what happened when upper class southern leaders at the time of ACW were seceding based on the perceived threat to the existence of slavery, and with the idea, as established in their own constitution, to strengthen and continue their dominance over black slaves. The two situations are different, and those that choose to ignore such, will continue to butt heads with those who won't ignore such.

Meanwhile, the Preamble to the Constitution reads like this … "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." … and it is the latter that opens the formation of the American constitutional form of government. The country does not run on the declaration of independence, no matter how much a Canadian continues to represent that it does. It is the U.S. Constitution, and the government that it created, which Lee chose to turn his back upon.

Appreciate having those links to articles on Shelby Foote's comments, thank you Steve!

I'm sensing that the continued use of Shelby Foote's comments on "States are" vs "States is" does a disservice to the what Foote was really getting at. It seems to me that his comment was much more about the decisiveness of what the ACW represented in the history of America, then somehow attempting to use it to justify sympathy for the southern leaders who led their states off course because of their fears, as well as an unwillingness to be creative in how the nation was evolving towards the ideals of the framers.

Appreciate having those links to articles on Shelby Foote's comments, thank you Steve!

So by the ACW the approximate usage of "is" and "are" shows a developing sense of national identity in the United States. Agreed. There were two basic visions of the country at play in the USA back to its foundation. It should be noted in the article SW links to that it ends with

But as I say, Foote was speaking to a larger truth, as he saw it, about reconciliation in the wake of national tragedy. And in that sense, at least, the lesson embedded in his famous anecdote remains as valid today as when he told it 20-some some years ago. And that's an indisputable truth.

Actually, what happened in 1860 was very different than what happened in 1776.The Founders recognized that they were committing revolution and that the pre-existing laws were of no concern to them.

Who cares what the Founders recognized. From the British perspective it was pure sedition. The Crown and Parliament were the established constitutional order and what the colonialists were embarking on was pure sedition. Why is the Founders perspective to be privileged over British perspective?

The disagreement doesnt change the fact that the USA was a nation.

It absolutely does. The Framers did not create a nation government in 1787 by design. They created a Republic with delegated powers given to the Federal government. Had they tried to create a national government (as Hamilton desired) their attempt would have been met with universal rejection at the state conventions.

The actual text of the Preamble is as follows, "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." This is a statement that is intentionally opposed to the ideological and political form of government of the British. This isn't even close to what happened when upper class southern leaders at the time of ACW were seceding based on the perceived threat to the existence of slavery, and with the idea, as established in their own constitution, to strengthen and continue their dominance over black slaves. The two situations are different, and those that choose to ignore such, will continue to butt heads with those who won't ignore such.

Interesting. The Rebellion in 1776 was lead principally by upper class colonial leaders. The 1787 Framers came from same upper class leadership. One of the main impulses for strengthening the Federal government from the AoC was to limit state capacities to mitigate debt in the broader population in order to protect upper class interests. The 1787 Constitution was designed to constrain the democratic impulses of the population. We get things like the Electoral College and State appointed Senators. Many of the state conventions called to approve the new constitution were contrived to limit Anti-Federalist voices.

One of the leading authorities on the creation of the 1787 Constitution, Michael Klarman, called his book on the subject the "Framers' Coup" for a reason. So try, GP, to step outside the American myth and be a bit more objective about the facts instead of spouting propaganda.

Labeling, lieing, and the lack of evidence does nothing to prove a fantasy narrative nor make your claims justifiable, and is anything more than additional evidence of sympathy for the CSA, and the Lost Cause myth, along with a dose of anti-American sentiment thrown into the mix.

Who cares what the Founders recognized. From the British perspective it was pure sedition. The Crown and Parliament were the established constitutional order and what the colonialists were embarking on was pure sedition. Why is the Founders perspective to be privileged over British perspective?

This bit of the conversation wasn't about the Founders vs the British perspectives. This was about the similarities between what the Founders did in 1776 vs what the CSA did in 1860. The Founders declared a revolution. By definition, a revolution understands that it is breaking from what the legal compact was. By contrast, the CSA was declaring unilateral secession what they believed was a continuation of what government and rules came before with differing members. They were clear that they did not want a revolution. The problem they had was that their justification rested on their rationale of the Constitution; a rationale they refused to allow anyone else to contest and which no one else has ever asserted and acted upon.

Now it seems that in your mind, because the CSA asserted it unilaterally and acted on it, secession must be legal. All this in contradistinction to the practices of the US Constitution which are to have the court decide, have Congress pass a law or both Congress and the States pass an amendment.

It might interest you to know that Jefferson Davis wrote extensively about the legality of unilateral secession. It seems that he too couldn't justify the CSA by any other means than that, in his mind, secession was legal and therefore he was neither a self absorbed madman nor a traitor. Well, that's great. Madmen and traitors rarely think they're madmen and traitors but just because Jeff Davis wrote it doesn't make it true. Charles Manson also wrote a lot of justifications and rationalizations, who cares?

Now, a lot of your arguments for the CSA seem to reside in ignoring the operations of law and yet, when it comes to holding Jeff Davis and Lee as traitors, you think they cant be labelled that unless they were prosecuted and found guilty. Those are standards that no one is bound by in order to hold these men as traitors. You have ignored the concept of traitor and substituted a legal definition because you think it serves your case (whatever case that might be) but, just like Jeff Davis, you continually ignore standards that are inconvenient to your preconceived end.

To be clear, the saying of it isnt the proof or the final verdict. However, your approach is exactly this. You continually ape their arguments and act as if their uncontested assertions are also historical, legal and Constitutional facts. But they aren't. Frankly, they aren't even arguments, they are excuses; further, ones made by criminals the nation does not have to accept.

Additionally, you continue to monotonously ignore the parts of history, contemporary thought, discussions or the Constitution itself that you don't like and laboriously re-murmur the parts you believe to fit your narrative. Considering all this effort to dogmatically cut and paste for a result you seem to astonishingly also maintain is both simple and obvious cant you also explain why it is so important to vindicate the CSA? What exactly is the end result here, your love of truth and justice?

Do I need to remind you that you hold not only a minority opinion of the civil war but one that is often relegated to hate watch lists. This combined with your stubbornness to misinterpret law, assert and reassert half-truths and demand that others disprove to you matters that were in fact never proven demonstrates that this is no longer an historical discussion but one about ideology. And that's fine but just admit it's emotional. Otherwise it is difficult to have respect for your position.

At this juncture, it needs to be pointed out that your defense of CSA secession is virtually identical to Jeff Davis' version. At what point do we realize that by channeling Jeff Davis you have, in essence, become him?

It absolutely does. The Framers did not create a nation government in 1787 by design. They created a Republic with delegated powers given to the Federal government. Had they tried to create a national government (as Hamilton desired) their attempt would have been met with universal rejection at the state conventions.

OK, they did create a national government and they delegated powers both express and implied. It's a little jarring to converse with someone this dedicated to undoing the Constitution to vindicate the CSA.

One of the leading authorities on the creation of the 1787 Constitution, Michael Klarman, called his book on the subject the "Framers' Coup" for a reason. So try, GP, to step outside the American myth and be a bit more objective about the facts instead of spouting propaganda.

See, case in point. You believe that the framers pulled off something akin to an overthrow of the AoC but I read that as that the framers were inspired and creative enough to ditch a crappy document and instead create a masterpiece and were able to get everyone on board to get it passed.

Incidentally, Prof. Klarman believes the Founders would've thought the Constitution long overdue for a rewrite.

I concur with most, if not all, of ApdC's viewpoint in the post immediately above this one.

Also, I haven't read Michael Klarman's book, although it is my plan to do such at some point. Regardless, whether or not any one has read his book, we live in a day and age where such doesn't need to be read in order to determine that MB's use of Mr. Klarman's book, to bolster MB's ideological and political perspective, seems at best a misunderstanding, yet perhaps an intentional distortion, and so far not representative of the broad scope of what Mr. Klarman reviews at length, including and most definitely not limited to a discussion of implied, express, and delegated powers. A key theme of his book appears to be one in which he reviews the extent to which a federal/national government is the purpose of establishing such through the U.S. constitutional document. And another key assertion is that the new government established would be able to contain pure democratic tendencies of a more populist form of government, especially as contained with in the boundaries of the Articles of Confederation, that by the way, were clearly not working to achieve goals that were needed for the nation to move forward as such.

Additionally, there is evidently a discussion of how the framers achieved getting the Constitution ratified, which answers MB's previous question(s) here in this thread on this topic. So … MB either hasn't gotten to that part of the book in his reading of it, or perhaps has even (oops, there's that 4 letter word again … lol) chosen to ignore that part since it doesn't favor his ideological and political position, or perhaps hasn't read the book at all. Suspect it won't be long before we start hearing that Mr. Klarman is promoting MB's "American myth", whatever that might be, and is currently only anyone's guess. Klarman is certainly not promoting MB's sympathy for the southern leaders of the CSA that chose to secede, MB's sympathy for the "Lost Cause" myth, nor for that matter MB's sympathy for Lee.

At the same time, there is evidence presented that says over 90% of the press (78 of 90 newspapers across the states, and only 12 published anything against it) supported the adoption of the U.S. Constitution which seems to be part of the reason as to why the ratification ultimately succeeded, while the other information presented also shows that there were various other reasons across the scope of different situations in the different states for why the ratification occurred, including South Carolina where malaportioning of the state legislature seems to have contributed to the situation. Much more was happening than the some sort of conspiratorial intent of the framers, that MB seems to be at a minimum alluding, if not outright claiming. And as Klarman states, the "coup" in his title was over the court of public opinion. Thus in essence, over populist sentiment, which continually can be a challenge to effective government, as can be seen in some of the current events of recent years as well.

Apparently there is more worth reading across the scope of the 881 pages, as can be seen through the link provided below to an hour long video which includes a talk given by Michael Klarman in 2017 on Constitution Day regarding the material covered in his book. The talk was sponsored by the Library of Congress, after his book had been published.

YouTube link

My disappointment with the video is that it ends abruptly as Klarman is addressing one question regarding Madison's place in the minds of historians, and it would be good to have been able to hear the rest of the answer as well as other questions that may have been asked further after the talk. However, don't let that keep you from what seems to be an otherwise interesting talk on the topic of Klarman's book.

Barely over a month old – and this thread already has 6 pages…wow.

The basic question: Was Robert E. Lee a traitor?

Depends on your point of view. In those days, most people considered themselves citizens of their -State- first; and then citizens of the United States.

If you were born in Massachusetts, that was your country. In turn, Massachusetts was a member states of the United States.

Same goes for Virginia, Texas, New York etc.

To Robert E. Lee, he was a Virginian first, and then an American. So, from that point of view, he would be a traitor to Virginia had fought for the Union. And yes, he was a traitor to the United States for taking up arms against it.

So…both a patriot (of Virginia) and a traitor (to the USA).

Whether secession was constitutional or not is a small part of the whole here.

Legalities aside, slavery was a great wrong. It was not worth fighting and dying for, not worth the terrible disruption is caused. It could not be squared with the critical founding principles and values of the nation. The legal niceties of the Constitution, courts, etc. are seeming more like distractions than answers in this case. IMO.

Slavery was a bomb waiting to explode, the elephant in the room. There could be no true land of the free while it existed. We were kidding ourselves, rationalizing,trying to compromise on something that could not continue based on out own declaration of freedom. Lincoln's greatness came about when he came to understand that holding the Union together was not the only thing that mattered, IMO.

Depends on your point of view. In those days, most people considered themselves citizens of their -State- first; and then citizens of the United States.

I often see this idea expressed, but never see any facts and figures to back it up, other than a few examples, especially Lee himself.

But people moved around, even back then. Lee, himself, as an Army officer, was stationed in various parts of the country during his career, South, North, East and West. Lincoln is, I think, fairly typical: Born in Kentucky, raised in Indiana, spent his mature years in Illinois. Look up just about any prominent person of that era, North or South, and I believe you will find that almost all of them moved at least once in their lives.

The Founders declared a revolution. By definition, a revolution understands that it is breaking from what the legal compact was. By contrast, the CSA was declaring unilateral secession what they believed was a continuation of what government and rules came before with differing members.

I think your distinctions between secession and revolution are contrived. I don't think they seriously muster the kind of historical support that you seem to think they do. From the British perspective, the so-called revolution was an act of simple sedition hidden behind high-minded rhetoric. But even if you were correct the need for revolution within the South was hardly necessary in 1860. There was obviously a degree of continuity between the USA and the CSA for good reasons. I see that as completely irrelevant to the question of self determination.

Now, a lot of your arguments for the CSA seem to reside in ignoring the operations of law and yet, when it comes to holding Jeff Davis and Lee as traitors, you think they cant be labelled that unless they were prosecuted and found guilty.

Not at all. My assertion is that Davis was not prosecuted in 1868 because, in part, the prosecution understood that the fundamental question of the right of secession by the States was in fact legal and constitutional. Rather than risk a post defacto ruling in favor of secession by the Court it was more prudent to withdraw the charge. The underlying issue for me is to provide further evidence that the question of secession was a live issue in 1787, 1861 and even 1868.

Labeling, lieing, and the lack of evidence does nothing to prove a fantasy narrative nor make your claims justifiable, and is anything more than additional evidence of sympathy for the CSA, and the Lost Cause myth, along with a dose of anti-American sentiment thrown into the mix.

Show me where in my posting below where I lied or where I was grossly mistaken?

Interesting. The Rebellion in 1776 was lead principally by upper class colonial leaders. The 1787 Framers came from same upper class leadership. One of the main impulses for strengthening the Federal government from the AoC was to limit state capacities to mitigate debt in the broader population in order to protect upper class interests. The 1787 Constitution was designed to constrain the democratic impulses of the population. We get things like the Electoral College and State appointed Senators. Many of the state conventions called to approve the new constitution were contrived to limit Anti-Federalist voices.

I have the read Klarman's book unlike you GP. I am not sure what your argument is here other than you haven't read the book. It sounds to me like you've gone to a review of The Framer's Coup and are attempting to use it in place of direct knowledge of the book. This shows in your commentary.

At the same time, there is evidence presented that says over 90% of the press (78 of 90 newspapers across the states, and only 12 published anything against it) supported the adoption of the U.S. Constitution which seems to be part of the reason as to why the ratification ultimately succeeded.

Precisely, the newspapers represented, by and large, the upper-class elite interests that lay behind the 1787 Constitution. That is another similarity between the 1787 and the rise of the CSA in 1860/61.

And as Klarman states, the "coup" in his title was over the court of public opinion. Thus in essence, over populist sentiment, which continually can be a challenge to effective government, as can be seen in some of the current events of recent years as well.

According to Klarman the essence of the "coup" was the Constitutional Convention in 1787 being called to modify the AoC and instead jettisoning the stated purpose of the convention and creating a whole new constitution in place of modest amendments. This was something that was completely outside the convention's mandate. The Constitutional Convention was done in secret when the proceedings were closed early on to the public. Like any human endeavor, the motives for this were complicated. According to Klarman, self interest played a role in the Framers' work. The state ratifying conventions were an extension of the coup.

It was Klarman's LoC lecture than caused me to purchase and read the book. It is a very readable account of the origins of the 1787 Constitution and its adoption. I heartily recommend this book to others on TMP.