Grant Grant's Power

[wausaubob]

Governments suppress revolts. And when they cannot suppress revolts, the barbarians pour over the border, or vandalize the capital, or the monarch is executed if he and his family cannot escape. There is no right to revolt. There never has been. Revolution only becomes right by winning.

 

[alan polk]

But I would assume most pulled their "right of revolution" from Locke and other Enlightenment writings (even the DOI) to support their decision to leave the Union.

John Locke's political philosophy is indeed featured heavily in the DOI, a political philosophy derived directly from his epistemology. And though it was Thomas Hobbes who was the founder of liberalism, it was Locke who introduced to modernity the right of revolution, a new form of legitimacy.

At least in the abstract, it was certainly a tricky idea because once you give common people a right to rebellion and the capacity to make legitimate revolution, it renders any government somewhat uncertain. See the French Revolution, I guess. But it seems America struck a decent balance.

But what I find interesting—and something that often gets overlooked—

Before Locke wrote the "Second Treatise," he wrote the constitution of South Carolina in 1669. And in that, he included slavery. He had a hierarchy of statuses. He either did not have the idea of social contract, or he simply did not express it in the SC constitution.

Of course, this was before the American Revolution, but it's kind of interesting.

Locke's influence on America, then, was not only theoretical but practical—if in a paradoxical way— as seen in the DOI on the one hand and SC's 1669 constitution on the other.

 

[archieclement]

Um, they didn't have that clause. That's why the Founders knew and admitted they were committing treason. Go back and re-read the posts because we seem to inexplicably be back at square 1. Hopefully to avoid 30 repetitive posts I understand your belief that they were hypocrites barring treason and insurrection. As should be clear, I don't care as a United States citizen.

Indeed, so we are indeed back to its not inheritly bad, if it was good for US and other countries in history........

 

[rbasin]

Treason is inherently bad. Just like murder is inherently bad. The only thing that makes treason - or murder - justifiable is if the situation warrants such a bad remedy.

We don't "celebrate treason." We celebrate a revolution for justifiable causes in which we won our independence. There is a long history here of pro-confederates trying to associate the confederate cause with the American Revolution. It's a lame comparison for many reasons.

But yes, we have a habit to honor those who operate outside of the law in the name of a good cause. Like John Brown.

The civil war is the first America revolution. The American revolution was against Great Britain. It is interesting that it's the only revolution I know of to keep the status quo. And that's why it ultimately failed. The world was moving too fast forward for a revolution to keep slavery as an official policy.

I've been thinking a bit lately if had the northeast, for example, succeeded to abolish slavery, would it have gained international support.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed, so we are indeed back to its not inheritly bad, if it was good for US and other countries in history........

I'm where I've been from the outset. It's bad if it's against the United States and it's irrelevant if it's against anyone else. As I've said, you're free to take a more favorable view of treason and insurrection against the United States. We disagree.

 

[Rebforever]

Burn all the cotton fields would work better. Burn down the cotton factories.
That would stop slavery.

 

[leftyhunter]

Kirby Smith and others immediately fled the United States, for maybe Mexico. They certainly knew and fully expected to be arrest/prosecuted/and likely hung on the gallows for treason. It is most correct assumption on their part, but the Yankee government fell into the hands of conservatives and arch conservatives, and they allowed the traitorous reactionary successionists to escape punishment, but also to be promoted back into mainstream America, causing much mischief and harm for decades to democracy.

Actually there is a far more simple reason why Confederate leaders were not prosecuted even though they clearly broke the law regarding waging war on the United States. That reason has Chief Justice Solomon Chase wrote was that any defendent had to be charged in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. In the case of Jefferson Davis that jurisdiction had to be in central Virginia and there was no possibility of a unanimous jury convicting Davis or any other Confederate officials.
As far as the ordinary Confederate soldiers go its not practical to prosecute them. The ACW is not the only civil war that ended up granting amenesty to the loosing side.
Leftyhunter

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

leftyhunter

My implication was that only high-level officers and politicians of the Confederacy would face prosecution, but you are mostly correct in the above post. However, it was very important that the Federal Government at least attempt the process of prosecution as to uphold the Republic reputation and will to carry out justice. Note the oath of allegiance if done correctly would have a jury list of culled down to loyal Unionists in all southern states of the Confederacy. No ordinary Confederate soldiers should have been prosecuted unless clear case of execution of an unarmed people in case of murder. I believe this likely the main case of Grant thinking, but he is including all rebel officers, which reflect his bias as a West Point man and does not reflect good political thinking for a Republic or the general Public Good. Grant is wrong here. However, I will wonder what Grant private thinking was upon the outbreak of the second Insurrection of 1865, and while he is later forced to fight the terrible but successful battle to suppress the KKK. Much of that mischief was lead by former Confederate officers and slaveholder politicians of the Old Confederacy which never died.

 

[wausaubob]

With respect to every Confederate officer and Confederate soldier that fought in uniform and under the discipline of officers, it was by far better to treat them as foes from a fictional separate nation. That slowed any incentive to renew the war long enough that by 1868 the imbalance between the US loyalist states and any potential new secessionist states was enormous. Civil rights for the formerly enslaved people was never a priority for voters in the northern states. The priorities were stabilizing the federal debt and preventing a new outbreak of open fighting.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

wausaubob

Lincoln and his liked minded supporters were correct in the position that the Confederate Government was a falsehood, and they never had any legal right to be called a Nation. I fail to appreciate the fact that they made formal uniforms for themselves and were supervised by those calling themselves officers. That seems to me to be simple military bias of that profession. A Republic is not dictated by the military elites. There exists no evidence or any clear grounds to believe that the Confederate soldiers had any significant numbers willing to continue the struggle of the slaveholder insurrection in a guerilla type warfare. In fact, huge numbers were simply melting away and going home. Much of the mountain/swamp areas needed to maintain a guerilla movement were haven for armed and aggressive southern Unionists.

There existed a significant minority of northerners who supported civil rights and the Radical Republicans, but you are correct in implying they were overlooked and ignored by the rising conservative/reactionary majority under Andrew Johnson.

 

[leftyhunter]

leftyhunter

My implication was that only high-level officers and politicians of the Confederacy would face prosecution, but you are mostly correct in the above post. However, it was very important that the Federal Government at least attempt the process of prosecution as to uphold the Republic reputation and will to carry out justice. Note the oath of allegiance if done correctly would have a jury list of culled down to loyal Unionists in all southern states of the Confederacy. No ordinary Confederate soldiers should have been prosecuted unless clear case of execution of an unarmed people in case of murder. I believe this likely the main case of Grant thinking, but he is including all rebel officers, which reflect his bias as a West Point man and does not reflect good political thinking for a Republic or the general Public Good. Grant is wrong here. However, I will wonder what Grant private thinking was upon the outbreak of the second Insurrection of 1865, and while he is later forced to fight the terrible but successful battle to suppress the KKK. Much of that mischief was lead by former Confederate officers and slaveholder politicians of the Old Confederacy which never died.

Ultimately it was up to Lincoln and of course when he died President Johnson on what to do with surrendered Confederate personnel. President Lincoln wanted the war to end and the US to be reunited as soon as possible. There was no real terrible but successful fight against the KKK and other similar groups. A few KKK members were temporarily incarcerated but once President Hayes was inaugurated what ever slight pretending effort to fight the KKK and similar groups was over. In fact the KKK and other racist paramilitaries were so successful that their membership plummeted until 1915 when the second KKK was reborn.
The battle of Liberty Place occurred during the Grant Administration and it wasa clear victory for racist paramilitaries.

Battle of Liberty Place - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

wausaubob

Lincoln and his liked minded supporters were correct in the position that the Confederate Government was a falsehood, and they never had any legal right to be called a Nation. I fail to appreciate the fact that they made formal uniforms for themselves and were supervised by those calling themselves officers. That seems to me to be simple military bias of that profession. A Republic is not dictated by the military elites. There exists no evidence or any clear grounds to believe that the Confederate soldiers had any significant numbers willing to continue the struggle of the slaveholder insurrection in a guerilla type warfare. In fact, huge numbers were simply melting away and going home. Much of the mountain/swamp areas needed to maintain a guerilla movement were haven for armed and aggressive southern Unionists.

There existed a significant minority of northerners who supported civil rights and the Radical Republicans, but you are correct in implying they were overlooked and ignored by the rising conservative/reactionary majority under Andrew Johnson.

To be fair there wasn't that much difference between President Johnson and Grant during Reconstruction. The Reconstruction governor's had very little control outside major cities. When the JKK started to terrorize the countryside in Western North Carolina during the Grant Administration , Governor Holden couldn't rely on federal troops which were few in number but had to create an ad hoc force known as North Carolina State Troops led by an East Tennesean who was during the ACW Colonel commanding Third North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union and in turn mist if the NC State Troops were old men and juvenile delinquents from East Tennessee. The KKK just laid low and resumed their activities once the NC State Troops were disbanded.
The following book goes inti more detail about the Kirk- Holden War.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1931058008?tag=civilwartalkc-20
I got a much better price by contacting Tar Heel Press directly.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

Prosecuting the former Confederates was not a growth strategy. The growth priorities were: 1. solidifying the federal banking system 2. stabilizing the federal debt without inflating the fiat currency, 3. getting the national railroad completed to connect California by rail to the rest of the nation, 4. improving relations with Great Britain to get British investment flowing again. The US was still a debtor nation in the 1860s and people in England, British citizens and US investors in London owned a noticeable portion of the war debt.
The US did not fight for the civil rights of the former slaves. Nor did it purchase the Dominican Republican or even a Caribbean naval base there. Grant refused to fight a war with Spain over Cuba and only made a token offer to Spain to buy Cuba.
The US was carrying a war debt that was an enormous amount at that time. All other goals were compromised to put the US in a position to decrease the per capita burden of the debt by increasing the population and decreasing the debt.

 

[wausaubob]

As this researcher, Franklin Noll, wrote: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2196409 the other big winner was John Sherman, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Due to his long term persistence, his ideas about refinancing the public debt before returning to the automatic gold standard were implemented.

 

[wausaubob]

The real punishment of the former Confederacy was ironic. They had made the war expensive. Therefore the US was heavily in debt by 1865. There was very little in the way of physical reconstruction in the damaged areas of the former Confederacy. Instead reconstruction was mainly privately funded in Missouri and Texas. The northern Democrats made speeches about the federal debt and assuming the Confederate debt, but they never passed anything. The US government did not even use the military to build the TCRR. Instead the railroad turned into a swindle, at least on the westward portion extending out from Omaha.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

Here is an interesting source for Grant war upon the KKK and it was very serious affair not to be easily ignored: GRANT'S ENFORCER TAKING DOWN THE KLAN by GUY GUGLIOTTA pub 2025 441 pages.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

Here is yet another source for Grant's war upon the KKK which demonstrates Grant Powers: KLAN WAR ULYSSES S. GRANT AND THE BATTLE TO SAVE RECONSTRUCTION by FERGUS M. BORDEWICH pub 2023 449 pages. I am currently reading this one on my Kindle as I caught a good buy on it. Here is the title of some of the chapters: FIELD OF BLOOD, FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACT, SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE BALANCE, A MACHINERY FOR CRIMES, THE KLAN AT BAY. It is an excellent read.

 

[Desolu64]

Treason is inherently bad. Just like murder is inherently bad. The only thing that makes treason - or murder - justifiable is if the situation warrants such a bad remedy.

We don't "celebrate treason." We celebrate a revolution for justifiable causes in which we won our independence. There is a long history here of pro-confederates trying to associate the confederate cause with the American Revolution. It's a lame comparison for many reasons.

But yes, we have a habit to honor those who operate outside of the law in the name of a good cause. Like John Brown.

While the cause of the Patriots in the Revolutionary War was certainly morally far better than that of the Confederates in the Civil War, that doesn't necessarily mean it was "justifiable." Certainly a good many Americans of the time--the Loyalists--didn't think it was.