Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
For the South, much better to stick to legalities, if possible.
Hadn't thought of things that way, Downfall. Thanks for the observation.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
It would seem that some Virginians felt they were fighting for the Union of their forefathers: ...
Robert E. Lee letter to Mr. Chauncey Bure, January 5, 1866 "All the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee, page 189.
For those unfamiliar with this work: Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee was written by The Reverend J. William Jones, D.D. and first published in 1875. (Actual original title: Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes and Letters of General Robert E. Lee.)
Jones was a chaplain in the Confederate Army (13th VA Infantry) who was also a staff officer for A. P. Hill and who first met Lee when he took command of the ANV in mid-1862. He also lived in Lexington when Lee was at Washington University after the war. Jones was also secretary of the Southern Historical Society and part of the "Lost Cause" effort. Most of his contact with Lee came after Appomattox, in the last few years of Lee's life.
While Jones works are important historically for the original material contained, David Eicher, a well-known Civil War bibliographer and researcher living today, described it thus: "Another work by the same author, Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes and Letters of General Robert E. Lee, is a highly partisan, eulogistic, and poetical hodgepodge of material that exhaustively attempts to document Lee's absolute perfection."
In looking at this isolated sentence from a post-Civil War letter, it is reasonable to ask what the background is. John Taylor knows it, because he was involved in several discussions on this board this year where Lee's actual opinions on secession from December of 1860 to April of 1861 were documented. For those of you who haven't seen the earlier threads, here is a recap of how Lee actually felt.
While Lee felt Virginia had grievances that needed to be addressed, Lee said there was no legal "right of secession" and that the Founding Fathers had never intended it to exist. He called it nothing but revolution, and treason. He compared it to anarchy. He felt it was wrong, and he was opposed to it. However, he also felt the Federal government had no right to compel a state that wished to leave to remain in the Union, and he felt that his primary duty must be to follow Virginia whatever choice she made.
The sentence John Taylor excised for us is completely consistent with Lee's feeling that the South had grievances to complain about, but does not indicate that Lee was advocating secession or revolution in 1861 -- or for that matter, at any other time. He was opposed to the idea, was never a "secessionist", and simply felt that he must follow Virginia even when she was wrong. I am at a loss to explain why he presented it as such.
Actually, John, if you are referring to the quotes you most recently posted, none of them show what you assert.
Okay, so what do you suppose this means? “The Union, as our fathers formed it, does not exist - it is dead! and he who dreams it lives is like the fond child that caresses a corpse and calls it mother. ... Like Rome, in the days of lawlessness and faction, our country is given over to the spoilers, and liberty here, as then and there, is being strangled in the strong grasp of merciless and unprincipled demagogues."
Richmond Enquirer, January 20th 1860, pg. 1, col. 7-8.
“... 'Whenever this Union and your liberties cannot exist together, throw the Union to the winds, and clasp the liberty of your country to your heart.' … I have also maintained, that, with friendship gone, equality gone, liberty gone, this Union, if it was commended to us by the ignoble dictates of prudence, would be spurned by the truer and more generous instincts of manhood. Unless it be planted upon the everlasting rock of justice, the sooner it is overthrown the wiser, and manlier, and better. … I, and many another worthier and better son, ... will rather abandoned the ashes than the principles of our fathers, and will say, with the old Roman, 'where liberty is, there is my country.' … The true colors of your country are the spirit and the principles of your fathers; live under them in freedom, or perish with them in honor."
James Philemon Holcombe, Proceedings of the Virginia Convention, Vol. 2, pg. 111. What is Holcombe saying here?
Robert E. Lee letter to Mr. Chauncey Bure, January 5, 1866
"All the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee, page 189. So, Lee was fighting to get back into the Union?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Also, I made absolutely no reference to geography in what I posted. "The Union" meant the United States, joined together -- all of them -- in the very same Union that predated the US Constitution. This was common usage in the days before the Civil War. It is also evident in the very quotes you are posting. I am not sure why you seem to be missing this, because it is a staple of historical and political discussion for generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
So, what did these statements mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Do you perhaps come from a different background, having grown up outside of this country and so not familiar from early life with how the country developed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
My ancestors came to Virginia in 1623. They have served in every war this nation has fought in, including service from Valley Forge to the Ia Drang Valley. Spare me the condescending lecture. It makes you sound petty. From what you've said about the Constitution (and the admission that you haven't read the debates in the State conventions of 1787-1790), you would seem to be less than adequately informed on the topic.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
For those unfamiliar with this work: Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee was written by The Reverend J. William Jones, D.D. and first published in 1875. (Actual original title: Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes and Letters of General Robert E. Lee.)
Jones was a chaplain in the Confederate Army (13th VA Infantry) who was also a staff officer for A. P. Hill and who first met Lee when he took command of the ANV in mid-1862. He also lived in Lexington when Lee was at Washington University after the war. Jones was also secretary of the Southern Historical Society and part of the "Lost Cause" effort. Most of his contact with Lee came after Appomattox, in the last few years of Lee's life.
While Jones works are important historically for the original material contained, David Eicher, a well-known Civil War bibliographer and researcher living today, described it thus: "Another work by the same author, Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes and Letters of General Robert E. Lee, is a highly partisan, eulogistic, and poetical hodgepodge of material that exhaustively attempts to document Lee's absolute perfection."
In looking at this isolated sentence from a post-Civil War letter, it is reasonable to ask what the background is. John Taylor knows it, because he was involved in several discussions on this board this year where Lee's actual opinions on secession from December of 1860 to April of 1861 were documented. For those of you who haven't seen the earlier threads, here is a recap of how Lee actually felt.
While Lee felt Virginia had grievances that needed to be addressed, Lee said there was no legal "right of secession" and that the Founding Fathers had never intended it to exist. He called it nothing but revolution, and treaason. He compared it to anarchy. He felt it was wrong, and he was opposed to it. However, he also felt the Federal government had no right to compel a state that wished to leave to remain in the Union, and he felt that his primary duty must be to follow Virginia whatever choice she made.
The sentence John Taylor excised for us is completely consistent with Lee's feeling that the South had grievances to complain about, but does not indicate that Lee was advocating secession or revolution in 1861 -- or for that matter, at any other time. He was opposed to the idea, was never a "secessionist", and simply felt that he must follow Virginia even when she was wrong. I am at a loss to explain why he presented it as such.
Regards, Tim
Do you deny that Lee wrote the sentence I provided? You can characterize Jones and his work all you want, but did Lee write that sentence, yes or no?
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Do you deny that Lee wrote the sentence I provided? You can characterize Jones and his work all you want, but did Lee write that sentence, yes or no?
John, I suppose that he did. So what? The sentence doesn't say anything at all about Lee's view on the "right of secession" nor on the "natural right of revolution". What is it you are trying to prove with it? Please explain your purpose in introducing this quote, which is not germane to the topic.
Okay, so what do you suppose this means? “The Union, as our fathers formed it, does not exist - it is dead! and he who dreams it lives is like the fond child that caresses a corpse and calls it mother. ... Like Rome, in the days of lawlessness and faction, our country is given over to the spoilers, and liberty here, as then and there, is being strangled in the strong grasp of merciless and unprincipled demagogues."
Richmond Enquirer, January 20th 1860, pg. 1, col. 7-8.
This appears to be a politician trying to whip up support for his cause by making a lot of strong-sounding statements -- the sort of thing they call "sound bites" today. The snippets you present say nothing at all about whether he is supporting a "natural right of revolution" nor a legal "right of secesion". You introduced it. What is it that you think this proves? Please explain your reasoning here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
“... 'Whenever this Union and your liberties cannot exist together, throw the Union to the winds, and clasp the liberty of your country to your heart.' … I have also maintained, that, with friendship gone, equality gone, liberty gone, this Union, if it was commended to us by the ignoble dictates of prudence, would be spurned by the truer and more generous instincts of manhood. Unless it be planted upon the everlasting rock of justice, the sooner it is overthrown the wiser, and manlier, and better. … I, and many another worthier and better son, ... will rather abandoned the ashes than the principles of our fathers, and will say, with the old Roman, 'where liberty is, there is my country.' … The true colors of your country are the spirit and the principles of your fathers; live under them in freedom, or perish with them in honor."
James Philemon Holcombe, Proceedings of the Virginia Convention, Vol. 2, pg. 111. What is Holcombe saying here?
Again, John, you introduced this. It appears the sort of purple prose you would expect of many speakers in that day, no matter which side. It says nothing at all about whether he is supporting a "natural right of revolution" nor a legal "right of secesion", the topic of this thread. It is you who must explain what you think this means and why. Do not ask me until you are willing to do it yourself -- answer, instead of asking rhetorical questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Robert E. Lee letter to Mr. Chauncey Bure, January 5, 1866
"All the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee, page 189.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
So, Lee was fighting to get back into the Union?
You have long known my position on where Lee stood, and you have been shown the documentation of what Lee's position was often. This isolated sentence doesn't say anything at all about what Lee felt about a "natural right of revolution" nor a legal "right of secesion" -- which is what we are talking about here. Rather than indulging in rhetorical questions like this, simply explain what you, yourself think Lee meant by this and why. Producing a bit more of the letter might be a good start.
While you are at it, place the isolated sentence you chose in juxtaposition with this one from Lee written 3 years later: "I was not in favor of secession, and was opposed to war; in fact . . . I was for the Constitution and the Union established by our forefathers. No one now is more in favor of that Constitution and that Union; and, as far as I know, it is that for which the South has all along contended. . . ." R. E. Lee to Geo. W. Jones, March 22, 1869
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
So, what did these statements mean?
John, you introduced them. You are the one obligated to explain what you think they meant, and why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
My ancestors came to Virginia in 1623. They have served in every war this nation has fought in, including service from Valley Forge to the Ia Drang Valley. Spare me the condescending lecture. It makes you sound petty.
No condescenion expressed, and I have no idea why you would think so -- just a very quizical puzzlement over your interpretation of common usage. In the days before the Civil War, "The Union" meant the United States as a country, a single unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
From what you've said about the Constitution (and the admission that you haven't read the debates in the State conventions of 1787-1790), you would seem to be less than adequately informed on the topic.
Well, you are wrong on that, and you are certainly taking liberties with your slant here.
No condescenion expressed, and I have no idea why you would think so.
Tim, you wrote, in post 38: "Do you perhaps come from a different background, having grown up outside of this country and so not familiar from early life with how the country developed?"
That is condescending.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Tim, you wrote, in post 38: "Do you perhaps come from a different background, having grown up outside of this country and so not familiar from early life with how the country developed?"
That is condescending.
No, John, you are wrong. That is merely a request for information so that I might understand better your unusual stance on the meaning of "The Union". I deal daily with people from other countries who have cultural differences in the way they understand meanings; often they are brighter or better informed than I, other times not. I find it useful to find out more about their backgrounds when discussing issues with them.
What you see as "condescending" is entirely your own invention. It has nothing to do with me.
From post 31 in this very thread: I think these men meant a political society with certain attributes and traditions. "The Union of our forefathers" was a euphemism for the Union as originally conceived: The people of the States came together to create the Federal government as their common agent for specific purposes (e.g. "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty."). The people of the States endowed their agent with certain enumerated powers (mostly found in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, but all of the legitimate Federal powers were enumerated somewhere in the Constitution). I would add that membership in the Union places certain responsibilities on member States, such as rendition of fugitives (from labor and justice) etc. The "Higher Law" view of the nature of the Union could well be (and was) interpreted as denying limitations on Federal powers; the majority could do whatever it wanted, regardless of the restrictions on their powers emplaced by the Constitution. When the political agreements embodied in the Constitution (both limits on Federal powers and obligations on the States) were disregarded, these men believed that the Union of our forefathers" was no longer existing, though the forms may remain. Northern Republicans did not see it that way, but Southerners did.
An unbiased reader can see a common thread in these three quotes. An informed student of the period can recognize what they meant, even if he disagrees with that meaning.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
No, John, you are wrong. That is merely a request for information so that I might understand better your unusual stance on the meaning of "The Union". I deal daily with people from other countries who have cultural differences in the way they understand meanings; often they are brighter or better informed than I, other times not. I find it useful to find out more about their backgrounds when discussing issues with them.
What you see as "condescending" is entirely your own invention. It has nothing to do with me.
As the recipient of this barb, I will tell you that the insinuation of a lack of familiarity with the founding of this Republic is insulting. In the interest of keeping this conversation civil, I would ask you to refrain from such in the future.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
