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

MB … are you even trying? If yes, its proving to be less than effective.

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

Oh please, I could say so many things to this, except will leave it at this … my comments were in reference to your sentence about me, although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Then it's onto some more hogwash …

I have the read Klarman's book unlike you GP.

Yep, thanks for stating the obvious, which is about as useful as being in a canoe without a paddle while trying to go upstream. And what I've already stated regarding myself anyway.

And this …

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.

With your reading of my post, evidently it didn't get digested worth a darn, or perhaps this is more of your efforts at distortion and twisting. Plus, having the gall to then claim I've gone to a review, when I clearly mentioned that the link provided was to a video of Klarman's talk at the Library of Congress.

Then there was this …

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 where is the evidence of your claims? Throwing this kind of line out when there's sympathy being shown for the CSA, the "Lost Cause" myth, and Lee, it just isn't very convincing. Even if it has an inkling of accuracy, there's nothing to back up the claim, and with the level of pure poppycock that's already been expressed, it's difficult to accept something that just gets thrown out, especially without any backing up of the point(s) made.

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.

If the lecture caused that good, and I'm glad it did. Is this the only item you've ever read regarding the Constitutional Convention? Because there's plenty out there. At the same time, evidently ya missed the part where he mentioned what I've stated. Go back, and watch his lecture again. Perhaps you'll have enough intestinal fortitude to discover what I mentioned, because what I mentioned he said was right there from his own mouth. The rest of what you've stated has been written about by many constitutional convention historians previously, and is nothing new. And he clearly listed multiple reasons as to why the state ratifying conventions occurred as they did, and didn't use the word coup associated with them when giving his talk.

My sense is that it is time to come down off your high horse, the water is already warm and shallow enough to determine this has nothing to do with the reason(s) the CSA's leaders gave for seceding, while they kept the same form of government and attempted to strengthen their hold over slavery, and so they could keep their cultural and political domination of blacks in place accordingly. If it has anything to do with self determination/"states rights", its some contrived imaginary fantasy for what purpose? Oh, that's already been answered too.

And if your arguing that the Articles of Confederation were working, really? I don't suspect that's your case, although they weren't. Regardless, the CSA didn't return to them, and as has been said previously, kept the same kind of strong national/federal government, even though they called themselves the "Confederate States of America". They weren't a confederation in the slightest, nor a "lost cause" of anything worth maintaining, and Lee went along with all of it.

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.

I hope, as a self styled seeker of truth, that you are kidding here? This isnt my distinction, it is rather the actual distinction. Even Jefferson Davis himself realized the difference. Considering your admiration for the man, I am shocked you do not know this.

From the British perspective, the so-called revolution was an act of simple sedition hidden behind high-minded rhetoric.

Yes, that is wonderful. Now maybe you understand how the Union viewed secession and why Lee, Davis et al. are held to be traitors, then as well as now.

Except that the British crown were willing to negotiate with the rebels in a way that the Union never would consider.

Further, you said it generally yourself several times but refuse to acknowledge it specifically that the winners write the history and determine traitors. Thus, the CSA lost and their leaders are considered traitors. Right?

Put better, Confederates and Neo-confederates dont think they are traitors and everyone else does.

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.

Truly? I think a lot of those poor southern whites would beg to differ. Davis certainly trampled on their rights and self determination.

I believe you see relevant things as irrelevant. I used to believe you employed your own "contrivances" but now I am certain that you lack that coup d'oeil needed to see larger patterns and analyze events and trends from all angles. You are not required to have this characteristic but if you are going to suggest that other people are unable to see the greater truths, you'd better make sure that you can.

I said: 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.

You said: 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.

This isn't an honest presentation. Very disappointing for someone trying to vindicate the name of such an innocent as Jefferson Davis.

Also you said this:

Resignation was the proper way to undo an oath of office. This is true throughout Western militaries and it is also true, for instance, of cabinet officers and other political appointments. There is no manipulation of facts. It is simple and straightforward. And remember that winners get to decide the final rules post victory. I am not all surprised that there were forces attempting to bring charges of treason against high ranking Confederate officers and officials. The charges themselves prove nothing.

Thus, the charges prove nothing but the withdrawal of the charges means a whole lot? I wonder, absent Andrew Johnson's mass pardon, if there had been CSA convictions, whether that would prove something to you?

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.

If it was a live issue, then why wasn't it worked out democratically?

Even Jeff Davis initially thought secession was a bad idea and it should've been worked out in congress (USA's congress). However, as you can see by your own ability to continually maintain that your positions are justifiable, unilateralism possesses an undeniable and unaccountable "sovereign" (where "sovereign" means "king") power which is antithetical both to democracy and to the form of self determination the Founders envisioned.

I have to say that for someone who doesn't exhibit this much stubborn passion over any other issue, it would be interesting to know why vindicating the CSA is held to be such an important venture? Surely there are are other causes (lost or otherwise) that are more worthy of vindication and in need of justice?

Odder still, that you like to present yourself as an outsider with "no dog in the fight" and yet go to the mat about nothing more than the legality of secession and how Lee wasnt a traitor because he resigned his commission and wasnt convicted.

So, to you, Lee, Davis and the CSA were a fight for self determination; for liberty? It was all about FREEDOM? Those principles promised by the Founders and degraded by the Union in an attempt to quash independence/identity and to impose political bondage on them? Perhaps you think the wrong side won?

You dont want to face slavery or its expansion or whether the CSA was moral, or whether it was well conceived and run, how it all worked out for them and why it collapsed; no, all you seem to want to do is argue about secession's legality. That is of course your right but it is a very curious hill for a non Neo-confederate to want to die on.

An interesting, as well as very well documented, 'viewpoint' on the slavery issue as well as prewar economics can be found in McPherson's The Battle Cry of Freedom.

I highly recommend it.

Thanks Kevin…

Armand

If it was a live issue, then why wasn't it worked out democratically?

Because people wanted what they wanted. Some people were determined to secede, no matter what; and others were determined to resist secession, no matter what.

Jeff Davis feared what he called "the tyranny of the majority." (No, I can't cite a source, but I do recall the phrase.)

And such a thing is possible, of course, which is why we try to enact guarantees for the rights of minorities -- so that a majority cannot run rough-shod over them. The Southern slave-owners did not see why they should have to change their way of life just because "Yankees" wanted them to, even if the "Yankees" had them outnumbered.

How they thought seceding and starting a war was going to solve their problem, I don't know. I recall reading that General Early turned to Breckenridge as they were retreating from the field of Cedar Creek and asked, "What do you think of the rights of the South in the territories now?"

There is a 'trend' presently to condemn those officers who resigned and went south in 1861.

Labeling them as traitors is in vogue, but it is also accurate and all the hoopla aside it is justified. They forsook their oath, their education and service and made a terrible decision.

Contrasting them with those southern officers who stayed loyal, such as Thomas and Gibbon, who fulfilled their oath at great personal cost, puts those who went south in a very bad light as to their character.

And those who quickly reconciled themselves at the end of the war to the defeat, such as Longstreet, were vilified by their former comrades-in-arms, speaks volumes to those who did not.

I am not an admirer of Lee by any means and his actions at the beginning of the war are to my mind reprehensible. And just for general interest, he had the highest percentage of casualties of any southern commander in the war.