Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Dave DuBrucq]

Oh well, now you know.

I don't 'follow' anyone in particular but I do not have anyone on the 'ignore' list either. I'm happy to see all other comments even though there are some I find bemusing.

I have but one ignored, but agree some are bewildering.

 

[CW Buff]

My understanding of a revolution is that it is an attempt to overthrow the government of the polity entirely and replace it with a new one, either through political means or through violent means.

The reason why I say that the AWI does not qualify in my understanding of a revolution is that there was no attempt (nor would it be rational for there to be) for the revolters in British North America to overthrow the government of the United Kingdom entirely; they were certainly trying to overthrow and replace the structure of their local government (and thus make one which was locally oriented rather than subservisent to the wider polity) but if you define it like that then any breakaway movement can be argued to be a revolution.

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I think I have also missed posts of yours on a slavery thread, but I don't have as much time for CWT as I wish I did, and I made the mistake of getting into several topics/threads at once.

Any forceful overthrow of government in any portion of the sovereign territory of a nation/kingdom/empire is a revolution. As @GwilymT noted, you need not overthrow "the government" everywhere it exists. As with unilateral secession, the key is sovereignty. When I joined CWT 5 years ago, I spent most of my time trying to get a handle on sovereignty. You can have the exact same form of government, but if sovereignty has been taken against the original sovereign-holder's will, that's illegal, and therefore revolution. The only legal transfer of sovereignty is a consensual one. Sovereignty is, legally speaking, supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable.

A revolution need not be violent. The Glorious Revolution is called a bloodless revolution (Caution: I'm not as well versed on revolutions other than the AR). And in this example we see the government need not be radically overhauled. Parliament simply became supreme to the Crown. However, like any illegal/non-consensual transfer of sovereignty, it was a revolution. The AR is a classic revolution aimed at the independence of colonies from mother country, which was often repeated throughout the western hemisphere and elsewhere. This is why the DoI is said to express the moral right to revolution for just cause. As I think I noted before, the Founding Fathers did not presume or pretend their actions were constitutional/legal. India is unique in that Gandhi led a largely peaceful independence movement. However, that followed a decades-long independence movement that included rebellions*. Even Gandhi's peaceful protests were, I believe, considered illegal. However the actual transfer of sovereignty was consensual on Britain's part, so it was not a revolution. I'm not sure about Rome. I believe that would essentially be a revolution, a specific type of revolution, coup. Though I suppose it could be said the Senate relinquished authority to Augustus, I'm not sure how willingly or constitutional that was. Keep in mind this occured after a devastating civil war, after which the republic was in turmoil. Depends on the locus of sovereignty in the republic, the people or the Senate. I've heard Germany, 1932 called a legal implementation of dictatorship. Not sure how that can be as they had a constitution modeled after and very similar to the US Constitution (they were at that time a federation). Congress, for example, has no power to cede its authority to anyone. The people of the US are sovereign, and merely delegate Congress its authority/powers.

* - A rebellion is a failed/unsuccessful revolution (though don't expect the nomenclature of specific events to always to be accurate, it is what the participants call it, particularly the victor). This was a tripping point for me for a while as far as SCOTUS's "...except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Were they saying that revolution could be legal/constitutional, and wasn't that exactly what the Confederates attempted? However SCOTUS was simply noting that although consent is the only constitutional means of withdrawal, a successful rebellion (which the Confederates did not achieve) establishes a new nation, with its own government/ system of law, completely separate from that of the original polity. Again, the new government could be identicle to the old one. The Confederates could have adopted the US Constitution with absolutely no changes, except replace "United" with "Confederate." Its still a rebellion, because the people of the Confederate states were attempting to forcefully take sovereignty from the people of United States.

 

[Saphroneth]

Any forceful overthrow of government in any portion of the sovereign territory of a nation/kingdom/empire is a revolution.

See, this...

A revolution need not be violent. The Glorious Revolution is called a bloodless revolution (Caution: I'm not as well versed on revolutions other than the AR). And in this example we see the government need not be radically overhauled. Parliament simply became supreme to the Crown. However, like any illegal/non-consensual transfer of sovereignty, it was a revolution.

...combined with this, implies that there's something which is "forceful" but not "violent". Though the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution and the Agricultural Revolution all imply that either colloquial language has expanded the term or that the transformative nature rather than the forceful overthrow is what is recognized as being the determinant of a revolution.

More concerning, though, if a palace coup qualifies as a revolution (as such it must by the examples given here) and an independence movement being successful by force qualifies as a revolution, but the Confederate attempt at independence does not then the term "revolution" has been diluted to the extent that it basically just means "any successful rebellion, revolt or uprising".
And the problem I have with that is that it in turn means that rather than a descriptive label about what people were doing or aiming to do it has become a term that means "was successful"; it also means the Revolutions of 1848 were largely not revolutions because they were largely not successful. And if you're categorizing the largest revolutionary wave in European history as mostly not counting then I think there's an issue there...

 

[CW Buff]

See, this...

Any forceful overthrow of government in any portion of the sovereign territory of a nation/kingdom/empire is a revolution.

...combined with this,

A revolution need not be violent. The Glorious Revolution is called a bloodless revolution (Caution: I'm not as well versed on revolutions other than the AR). And in this example we see the government need not be radically overhauled. Parliament simply became supreme to the Crown. However, like any illegal/non-consensual transfer of sovereignty, it was a revolution.

implies that there's something which is "forceful" but not "violent". Though the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution and the Agricultural Revolution all imply that either colloquial language has expanded the term or that the transformative nature rather than the forceful overthrow is what is recognized as being the determinant of a revolution.

More concerning, though, if a palace coup qualifies as a revolution (as such it must by the examples given here) and an independence movement being successful by force qualifies as a revolution, but the Confederate attempt at independence does not then the term "revolution" has been diluted to the extent that it basically just means "any successful rebellion, revolt or uprising".
And the problem I have with that is that it in turn means that rather than a descriptive label about what people were doing or aiming to do it has become a term that means "was successful"; it also means the Revolutions of 1848 were largely not revolutions because they were largely not successful. And if you're categorizing the largest revolutionary wave in European history as mostly not counting then I think there's an issue there...

As far as "forceful," did the leaders of the Glorious Revolution not force Charles II out? Certainly you do not mean to suggest that that Charles II left of his own free will, and willingly parted with his sovereignty?

I don't know what you mean about the term revolution being diluted. Words have multiple meanings. With respect to Industrial Revolution, etc., refer to to the Merriam-Webster definitions (plural) of revolution.

Regarding rebellion vs. revolution, if your logic is sound, and rebellion = revolution, then the Confederates have nothing to worry about, SCOTUS decided that the Confederacy achieved independence (Texas v. White, 1869). In addition, any rebellion aimed at revolution achieves revolution as soon as it starts?

I already cautioned against taking specific references as gospel. As the "Revolutions" of 1848 failed, what change in government did they effect? It does not meet the definition of political revolution unless it achieves a change in government, no matter what term is ultimately applied to it. Perhaps historians and other observers chose to call it what they did because it was "the largest revolutionary wave in European history." Do you believe, for instance, that the People's Republic of China is an actual republic, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people?

 

[Saphroneth]

As far as "forceful," did the leaders of the Glorious Revolution not force Charles II out? Certainly you do not mean to suggest that that Charles II left of his own free will, and willingly parted with his sovereignty?

What I mean is that you yourself gave the example of the Glorious Revolution being one without violence. If the definition of forceful embraces one which does not involve violence but merely the threat of violence, then it's again a very expansive definition - indeed, an election might be said to qualify, as the outgoing President would not necessarily leave without the implicit threat of what the result would be if they stayed.

Regarding rebellion vs. revolution, if your logic is sound, and rebellion = revolution, then the Confederates have nothing to worry about, SCOTUS decided that the Confederacy achieved independence (Texas v. White, 1869). In addition, any rebellion aimed at revolution achieves revolution as soon as it starts?

I'm working within the definitions you've offered, and the problem that comes about as far as I'm concerned is that the determinant of a revolution by the definitions you gave is success - which seems a little unfortunate to me as it means that nothing can be called a revolution until after it's over, unless of course the temporary success in part of the polity counts (in which case any uprising counts as a revolution because they all achieve at least temporary success).

I already cautioned against taking specific references as gospel. As the "Revolutions" of 1848 failed, what change in government did they effect? It does not meet the definition of political revolution unless it achieves a change in government, no matter what term is ultimately applied to it. Perhaps historians and other observers chose to call it what they did because it was "the largest revolutionary wave in European history."

Which is the issue with the definitions, surely? If "the largest revolutionary wave in European history" driven by political motives and political drivers doesn't qualify as a revolution by the political definition, then we need to examine those definitions or the way we're using them.

Do you believe, for instance, that the People's Republic of China is an actual republic, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people?

To at least a similar extent as the original Roman Republic which originally used the term, I would say it does qualify. Decisions are largely made by a small number of very rich and influential people who base the legitimacy of their rule on the basis of the (claimed) will of the population en masse, as expressed by regular elections; there is no hereditary head of government or head of state.

If on the other hand the term Republic is understood to mean that a genuine effort is being made to actually govern according to the will of the majority of the population, this constricts the term so much that many historical examples which everyone at the time agreed were republics would not qualify as such.

 

[CW Buff]

What I mean is that you yourself gave the example of the Glorious Revolution being one without violence. If the definition of forceful embraces one which does not involve violence but merely the threat of violence, then it's again a very expansive definition - indeed, an election might be said to qualify, as the outgoing President would not necessarily leave without the implicit threat of what the result would be if they stayed.

You can't break up a members post into more than two parts like that. Not that I mind, I actually prefer that approach myself, but such is considered spaghetti posting and is against the rules.

As far as your various points, I honestly think this is getting silly. We're starting to go over and over old ground, so: I agree to disagree.

 

[DixieRifles]

1. The Confedrate soldier "fought to protect his home".
The federal government only siezed one man's property and that was Robert E. Lee's plantation at Arlington and Lee's family was compensated for the property.

I have to disagree. I just took a tour of Oxford, MS and @Ole Miss pointed many homes that survived the War but also mentioned many others that burned— some were targeted because they wanted to punish the owner.

The following is a list of Towns in Mississippi that were burned—most or all of the homes and public buildings burned.

 

[Piedone]

You can't break up a members post into more than two parts like that. Not that I mind, I actually prefer that approach myself, but such is considered spaghetti posting and is against the rules.

As far as your various points, I honestly think this is getting silly. We're starting to go over and over old ground, so: I agree to disagree.

It might be that you and Saphroneth are are following a diverse approach to the term "revolution"?

"Revolutions" are in our western civilization mostly regarded as positive achievements as our current democracies and their liberties are mainly the product of successful revolutions. The term "revolution" there has a certain taste of progress and modernity.
Hence many people shrink from using the term to depict the overthrow of governments by movements which they would classify as backwards or reactionary or simply don´t like.
There "rebellion" seems to be the more appropriate term - as it not only means an unsuccessful action but is also broadly used for unlawful and/or not justifiable actions.

And if somebody has a decided critical view on the anntebellum South the usage of "rebellion" seems to be the most appropriate term.

Saphroneth on the other hand is following a strict linguistical approach where "revolution" means: a complete overthrowal of a society / a government structure and it´s substitution with something new.

You and Saphroneth could probably never agree here - as both of you are using (in my humble opinion) the term "revolution" in a completely different way.

 

[Piedone]

I have to disagree. I just took a tour of Oxford, MS and @Ole Miss pointed many homes that survived the War but also mentioned many others that burned— some were targeted because they wanted to punish the owner.

The following is a list of Towns in Mississippi that were burned—most or all of the homes and public buildings burned.

View attachment 389461

I am currently reading "William Faulkner and southern history" where it is also shown that especially the houses of known supporters of the secession and influential persons in general were burned.

 

[Saphroneth]

You can't break up a members post into more than two parts like that. Not that I mind, I actually prefer that approach myself, but such is considered spaghetti posting and is against the rules.

...that's the criterion used for classifying something as spaghetti posting?

Wow. More restrictive than I remembered.

 

[CW Buff]

It might be that you and Saphroneth are are following a diverse approach to the term "revolution"?

"Revolutions" are in our western civilization mostly regarded as positive achievements as our current democracies and their liberties are mainly the product of successful revolutions. The term "revolution" there has a certain taste of progress and modernity.
Hence many people shrink from using the term to depict the overthrow of governments by movements which they would classify as backwards or reactionary or simply don´t like.
There "rebellion" seems to be the more appropriate term - as it not only means an unsuccessful action but is also broadly used for unlawful and/or not justifiable actions.

And if somebody has a decided critical view on the anntebellum South the usage of "rebellion" seems to be the most appropriate term.

Saphroneth on the other hand is following a strict linguistical approach where "revolution" means: a complete overthrowal of a society / a government structure and it´s substitution with something new.

You and Saphroneth could probably never agree here - as both of you are using (in my humble opinion) the term "revolution" in a completely different way.

I understand what you're saying, but your talking about perception. I provided an actual definition of revolution, show me an actual definition of revolution that specifies a positive achievement. Not saying there isn't one, sources can certainly vary, just saying I haven't seen one, and it's certainly doesn't appear to be representative of the term. I have seen a unique description of insurrection vs. rebellion vs. revolution in a contemporary NY Times article on the ACW that does not follow what I've stated, that appears to focus on the extent of the action/event, but it is an outlier. I've found no secondary support for it. Opinions can vary, but there has to be a frame of reference. That frame specifies that both revolution and rebellion apply to unlawful action. Such are the actual definitions of both. This is why TX v. White distinguishes between consent (lawful) and revolution (unlawful). This is why Madison distinguished between consent (legal), ultra-constitutional (illegal), and a struggle against an intolerable abuse of power (also illegal, but morally justified, a la the American Revolution). This is why the Founding Fathers, who recognized their actions were illegal, called their struggle a revolution. This is why their justification is considered the moral right to revolution for just cause.

As I see it, Saphroneth is identifying both rebellion and revolution with a complete overthrow. And unless I'm wrong (by no means impossible or even unlikely), by your statement, you seem to consider the distinction between the two as an actual, true revolution being a successful rebellion, i.s. being an actual, successful overthrow of government.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by complete: successful vs. unsuccessful, or the new system being radically different from the former? To my knowledge, the former is and the latter is not within the actual definition of revolution. And the former is objective whereas the latter is subjective. Would the CSA vs USA have been a significant enough change?

 

[Saphroneth]

I think the issue here is that I want the definition applied to the term to be one which applies based on what is happening, and which doesn't rely on whether the event is one we view as "good" or "bad". That is, it should be possible to say "this is a revolution" rather than "that was a revolution" - meaning among other things no success/fail criterion.

 

[CW Buff]

...that's the criterion used for classifying something as spaghetti posting?

Wow. More restrictive than I remembered.

When it started, I received a warning and points (whatever that is) for breaking a post into three parts. And that's when the original official rule was no more than two or three.

 

[CW Buff]

I think the issue here is that I want the definition applied to the term to be one which applies based on what is happening, and which doesn't rely on whether the event is one we view as "good" or "bad". That is, it should be possible to say "this is a revolution" rather than "that was a revolution" - meaning among other things no success/fail criterion.

The English language is what it is. Even within its alternative definition, a la Industrial Revolution, revolution connotes actual change, n'est ce pas? It wouldn't be a revolution if someone built a factory and no one followed suit / the thing never caught on. That would be an industrial rebellion . Rebellion simply means an illegal conflict against government (of course it, too, has alternative definitions, e.g. a rebellious teen). A revolution is therefore a successful rebellion (when the objective of rebellion is a change in government). And I can't help whether or not people who assign labels to historic events comply with the standard, technical definitions of terms. At any rate, within the context of TX v. White, would you not agree that revolution means a successful overthrow of government; the the element of success is required to the establishment of an actual, new legal order? And that it is useful to have an alternative term the describes an unsuccessful attempt at revolution? Such facilitates communication.

On a side note, the most applicable definition of republic (again, from M-W) is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." The People's Republic of China is not a republic. The name was chosen to suggest something that was not true, government of the people, by the people, for the people. The creation by that polity of a constitution was also a sham. Though the PRC is moving towards something more democratic, it does not govern according to that fundamental law. It governs according to communist doctrine, the law is whatever the government says it is at any particular time for any particular situation. These things were meant to suggest a legitimacy that was not there. A communist state can no more be an actual republic than it can be a democracy (German Democratic Republic). Language requires rules and standards, otherwise it is meaningless.

 

[Saphroneth]

On a side note, the most applicable definition of republic (again, from M-W) is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." The People's Republic of China is not a republic. The name was chosen to suggest something that was not true, government of the people, by the people, for the people. The creation by that polity of a constitution was also a sham. Though the PRC is moving towards something more democratic, it does not govern according to that fundamental law. It governs according to communist doctrine, the law is whatever the government says it is at any particular time for any particular situation. These things were meant to suggest a legitimacy that was not there. A communist state can no more be an actual republic than it can be a democracy (German Democratic Republic). Language requires rules and standards, otherwise it is meaningless.

The problem here though is that the PRC absolutely does have elections. And to have that as the determining factor for what counts as a republic means that the Dutch Republic (just as one example) wasn't.

 

[CW Buff]

Of course - and it was indeed a great feat.
I hope you don't believe I am trying to negate that (or am falling in "whatsaboutism") but I feel there should be some differentiation: It's one thing to fight for upkeeping slavery or for destroying slavery - but it's quite another thing to stand up for racial equality in the 19th century.
I am pretty sure that you could count the people who desired the latter in 1865 with your two hands...

Hence I deem it possible that not everybody especially not everybody in the non-slave-owning class of the South fought to upkeep slavery.
I found it also very convincing what @Saphroneth, @archieclement and others said about intricate motivations of soldiers to fight.

I think you have to differentiate between political and personal motivations. Everyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for slavery, because slavery was the Confederacy's political motivation. The 150 years of denial of that fact has often employed the tactic of trying to substitute the personal motivations of individual soldiers, such as love of country, identification with state, not Union, etc., for the political motivation, the preservation of slavery. That effort continues in earnest today, and when you're not careful to differentiate the two, you are probably going to be misidentified as such an advocate and get push-back.

In addition, your "especially not everybody in the non-slave-owning class of the South" is kinda true, but far from entirely true. Average, non-slave-holding Southerners certainly have different concerns and motivation than people in the slave-owning class (especially large scale slave owners), but that doesn't mean they're not concerned for slavery. Just like Union soldiers could be very resistant to the idea of making slavery/emancipation a political objective, average Southerners could support slavery as the basis of their economy, or the social order that maintains them above a lower class which has been portrayed as subhuman. The whole problem with the slavery question is its multifaceted nature: moral, cultural, social, economic. The same way Northerners might oppose immigration, and a resulting competition for good paying jobs with immigrants who might accept lower wages, average Southerners could oppose anything that endangers slavery. And with extreme, exaggerated sentiments being bandied about (the Union army is an army of abolition (in 1861), freedmen are going to be made your equals, marry your daughters, etc.) general references to defending home and hearth are impossible to differentiate from defending slavery.

However, I'm also not saying personnal motivation cannot deviate from the political. It is not impossible that some Southerners, of any class, could even oppose slavery AND fight for the Confederacy. It would be unusual, but not impossible, and not unheard of.

Then there's the whole TOV matter (though I find it claimed by some more than genuinely expressed by others)…

I even feel the need to get even more on everybody's nerve: could it be that in their prevalent repudiation of racial equality northern and southern soldiers shared a trait?

And recounting how strong northern and southern sentiments are visible even here in this forum I am still convinced that this factor cannot be left out of calculation.

Get on their nerves, mine included (though this particular thought in no way gets on my nerves, as I share it). I may not agree with what you have to say, but this a forum, say what you feel (to paraphrase Patrick Henry). We spend so much time debating the motivations of the Confederacy, we don't spend enough time on those of the Union, so you may not have realized how many people agree with this thought.

Before the war, the anti-slavery movement was as complex as slavery itself. The only ones who come close to the proper moral outlook were the abolitionists, a definite minority in the North. Much of the anti-slavery movement was concerned with the welfare of the white working man:

"I make no war upon the South nor upon slavery in the South. I have no squeamish sensitiveness upon the subject of slavery, nor morbid sympathy for the slave. I plead the cause of the rights of white freemen. I would preserve for free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor. I stand for the inviolability of free territory. It shall remain free, so far as my voice or vote can aid in the preservation of its character.

. . . O, for the honor of the North for the fair fame of our green hills and valleys, be firm in this crisis be true to your country and your race. The white laborer of the North claims your service; he demands that you stand firm to his interests and his rights; that you preserve the future homes of his children, on the distant shores of the Pacific, from the degradation and dishonor of negro servitude. Where the negro slave labors, the free white man cannot labor by his side without sharing in his degradation and disgrace." – David Wilmot, 1847, while introducing what would become known as the Wilmot Proviso

And then there's the gray area; those, like Lincoln, who found slavery morally repugnant, because of its degrading effects upon the slaves, but still opposed interference with it where it already exists, and who, like Wilmot, distanced himself from abolitionists.

This is also how you get both opposition to slavery and opposition to the immigration of any African American, slave or free, into many Northern states. Actual laws banning EITHER. The ONLY way slavery ends in the US when it did is because it threatened the Union itself, that being the source of relative equality and prosperity for average white Americans. Certainly, seeing African Americans fight as bravely and effectively as anyone in the ACW generates a desire to extend them a degree of equality, especially within the defeated South (part justice, part NIMBY). Johnson's attempt to quickly restore the Confederate states, coupled with continued and growing Southern intransigence, would magnify that effect. Hence, Radical Republicans gain ascendancy for a period of time. But the primary Northern concern from beginning to end is clothed in ****, although perhaps more subdued for a time. Eventually, the equality of freedmen is abandoned for that same primary concern, and the Compromise of 1877 ends Reconstruction and the Civil War era.

Similarly, in the midst of fighting against what was often described as an attempt at their own enslavement, the Revolutionary War era would initiate abolition, emancipation, and manumission, at least as far as any meaningful scale goes. Even then, however, it's rather complex. How much early anti-slavery sentiment is prompted by concern for the slaves themselves vs. concern over the embarrassment of a country supposedly established under the banners of freedom and equality continuing to hold on to slavery? It's certainly a complex mix. That situation continues; compromises are made time and again; eventually abolitionism becomes radical and later unites with growing Free Soil sentiment. Follow the progress, from Liberty party, to Free Soil party, to Republican party. Only with such sentiment, and reactions to the extreme measures employed by slavery proponents against radical abolition, and to maintain slave-state parity in the Senate, do you get to a Civil War that ends slavery in the US in 1865, for a very complex mix of reasons, which ultimately are not entirely all that altruistic. Freedmen suffer another 8 to 10 decades of institutional inequality, North & South.

 

[CW Buff]

The problem here though is that the PRC absolutely does have elections. And to have that as the determining factor for what counts as a republic means that the Dutch Republic (just as one example) wasn't.

I did not say they do not have elections, any more than I said they do not have a constitution. Are you trying to make a case for Chinese democracy (government of the people, by the people, for the people)?

"Although there is no legal requirement for either membership in or approval by the Communist Party, in practice the membership of the higher people's congresses and people's governments are largely determined by the Party.[29]​ Independent candidates are strongly discouraged and face government intervention in their campaigns.[30]​ In practice, the power of parties other than the Communist Party of China is eliminated.[28]​ Because none of the minor parties have independent bases of support and rely on Communist Party approval for appointment to positions of power, none have the capacity to serve as a true opposition party. Whereas there are Communist Party Committees in People's Congresses at all levels, none of the other parties operate any form of party parliamentary groups. In order to represent different segments of the population and bring in technical expertise, the CCP does ensure that a significant minority of people's congress delegates are either minor party members or unaffiliated, and there is tolerance of disagreement and debate in the legislative process where this does not fundamentally challenge the role of the Communist Party." -- Wikipedia, Elections in China

As far as the Dutch Republic, again, this is another matter of nomenclature (perhaps the take-away here is that via nomenclature, humans have a tendency to make language somewhat meaningless, however THAT, and not established definitions, is the "dilution" of terms). The DR was a traditional confederation, not a true (sovereign) nation (with a government that acts directly upon the people, and therefore makes and applies laws that govern a political society, of people)*. In addition, it's members included, I believe, both democracies/republics and monarchies.

In most states, there were similarly no elections for delegates to the US Confederation Congress under the AoCs. For that matter, there are no elections in the US today for delegates/representatives to the UN. These are international organizations, their governing bodies are deliberative not legislative, the members of these bodies are more like appointed ambassador's representing their countries in a diet rather than elected officials directly representing their constituents (the people) in a legislature (the latter being a component of that definition of republic I previously quoted). However, because each member state has a vote, a confederation can be said to have a republican form of government, regardless of the forms of government of its member states. That, however, does mean it meets that definition of republic that I quoted.

* - From Lassa Oppenheim's International Law, A Treatise (2nd Ed., 1912):

"Confederated States (Staatenbund).

§ 88. Confederated States (Staatenbund) are a number of full Sovereign States linked together for the maintenance of their external and internal independence by a recognised international treaty into a union with organs of its own, which are vested with a certain power over the member-States, but not over the citizens of these States. Such a union of Confederated States is not any more itself a State than a Real Union is; it is merely an International Confederation of States, a society of international character, since the member-States remain full Sovereign States and separate International Persons. Consequently, the union of Confederated[Pg 136] States is not an International Person, although it is for some parts so treated on account of its representing the compound power of the full Sovereign member-States."

Hence: Jackson's league vs nation; political science's confederation vs federation.

"Federal States (Bundesstaaten).

§ 89. A Federal State[132] is a perpetual union of several Sovereign States which has organs of its own and is[Pg 137] invested with power, not only over the member-States, but also over their citizens. The union is based, first, on an international treaty of the member-States, and, secondly, on a subsequently accepted constitution of the Federal State. A Federal State is said to be a real State side by side with its member-States because its organs have a direct power over the citizens of those member-States. This power was established by American[133] jurists of the eighteenth century as a characteristic distinction of a Federal State from Confederated States, and Kent as well as Story, the two later authorities on the Constitutional Law of the United States, adopted this distinction, which is indeed kept up until to-day by the majority of writers on politics. Now if a Federal State is recognised as a State of its own, side by side with its member-States, it is evident that sovereignty must be divided between the Federal State on the one hand, and, on the other, the member-States. This division is made in this way, that the competence over one part of the objects for which a State is in existence is handed over to the Federal State, whereas the competence over the other part remains with the member-States. Within its competence the Federal State can make laws which bind the citizens of the member-States directly without any interference of these member-States. On the other hand, the member-States are totally independent as far as their competence reaches."

 

[leftyhunter]

Shame the EP didn't include the areas occupied by the Federals or in the States that didn't secede. Yankees didn't care if states had slavery, as long as they were Union States. Lincoln's enticement was stay in the Union and you can keep slavery. Since the Confederate States were fighting for Independence, they declined. Another Myth debunked, it was all about Slavery.

Thats a false analogy. The President didn't have the legal authority to free slaves except if the slaves were held by Secessionists. Lincoln did pass the Thirteenth Amendment which did free all slaves but Lincoln had to follow the Constititon. Lincoln didn't just make up laws like the Confedracy. It's already been pointed out bodred states outlawed slavery by 1864

I have to disagree. I just took a tour of Oxford, MS and @Ole Miss pointed many homes that survived the War but also mentioned many others that burned— some were targeted because they wanted to punish the owner.

The following is a list of Towns in Mississippi that were burned—most or all of the homes and public buildings burned.

View attachment 389461

Basically if the slave owners didn't fret about expanding slavery and didn't bombarded Ft.Sumter and siezed US Government property their would be no war. Once a war starts things can get out of hand. My point remains valid Union troops didn't siezed property and kick out the inhapitants. Even Jefferson Davis kept his plantation after the ACW . If Davis decided to sell his plantation to make ends meet that's not the US goverment's fault .
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

My point remains valid Union troops didn't siezed property and kick out the inhapitants. Even Jefferson Davis kept his plantation after the ACW .Leftyhunter

And your point is wrong. The Burnt District in Missouri is an excellent example of the Federal gov. ordering people off their property and prohibiting their return, so the property can be raided and burned by those same Federal Authorities.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

I understand what you're saying, but your talking about perception. I provided an actual definition of revolution, show me an actual definition of revolution that specifies a positive achievement. Not saying there isn't one, sources can certainly vary, just saying I haven't seen one, and it's certainly doesn't appear to be representative of the term. I have seen a unique description of insurrection vs. rebellion vs. revolution in a contemporary NY Times article on the ACW that does not follow what I've stated, that appears to focus on the extent of the action/event, but it is an outlier. I've found no secondary support for it. Opinions can vary, but there has to be a frame of reference. That frame specifies that both revolution and rebellion apply to unlawful action. Such are the actual definitions of both. This is why TX v. White distinguishes between consent (lawful) and revolution (unlawful). This is why Madison distinguished between consent (legal), ultra-constitutional (illegal), and a struggle against an intolerable abuse of power (also illegal, but morally justified, a la the American Revolution). This is why the Founding Fathers, who recognized their actions were illegal, called their struggle a revolution. This is why their justification is considered the moral right to revolution for just cause.

As I see it, Saphroneth is identifying both rebellion and revolution with a complete overthrow. And unless I'm wrong (by no means impossible or even unlikely), by your statement, you seem to consider the distinction between the two as an actual, true revolution being a successful rebellion, i.s. being an actual, successful overthrow of government.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by complete: successful vs. unsuccessful, or the new system being radically different from the former? To my knowledge, the former is and the latter is not within the actual definition of revolution. And the former is objective whereas the latter is subjective. Would the CSA vs USA have been a significant enough change?

I think you really hit on something in this post. There are two types of revolutions; ones that are morally justified and ones that aren't. The Founding fathers laid out when revolutions were morally justified in the DoI. First they state that governments long established should not be overthrown for light or transient causes. They should only be overthrown after every reasonable attempt at redress has been made. Finally there must be a long string of abuses and usurpations.

If we apply this three part test to the southern rebellion they fail on all three parts.

1)Can't think of anything more light or transient than a party you disagree with winning the presidency in a government where that presidency is voted on every four years.

2)There was no reasonable attempt to have their grievance(an election of a republican to the presidency and what he might do to slavery) address. In fact seven states seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in. He didn't even have a chance to abuse or usurp their rights.

3)There was absolutely no long string of abuses and usurpation by the government. In fact southerners had been in control of the federal government for most of it's history.