Grant Grant's Power

[DanSBHawk]

Indeed and in ARW 13 colonies decided it was warranted, in the ACW 11 states decided it warranted likewise.

And by the time of the ACW, the 11 states represent twice the population of the 13 colonies. (using non enslaved for both)7

And I disagree we certainly celebrate treason, counties and cities are named for people committing treason. Why rebel and don't tread on me flags have always been popular.

But that treason is indeed treason isn't a lame comparison at all, and that we celebrate and honor being founded on revolution and treason certainly shows it's not somehow inherently bad. That 5 million people felt it was warranted is slittle different then 2 million, other then it's a larger group deciding it warranted.

We know the reasons that the colonies rebelled. And we know the reasons the slave states rebelled. So we can judge what was warranted or not.

The reasons for the constant, repetitive comparison to the American Revolution are obvious. The confederate advocates want to ennoble the confederate cause by comparing it to the American Revolution.

It amazes me that anyone would defend treason as something that is not inherently bad. I hope that those people that feel that way have never served in the US military. Treason is indeed bad. A person who would betray the US could very well get Americans killed. It's ridiculous that anyone would try to argue that treason is no big thing, and that all treason is morally equivalent.

 

[archieclement]

We know the reasons that the colonies rebelled. And we know the reasons the slave states rebelled. So we can judge what was warranted or not.

The reasons for the constant, repetitive comparison to the American Revolution are obvious. The confederate advocates want to ennoble the confederate cause by comparing it to the American Revolution.

It amazes me that anyone would defend treason as something that is not inherently bad. I hope that those people that feel that way have never served in the US military. Treason is indeed bad. A person who would betray the US could very well get Americans killed. It's ridiculous that anyone would try to argue that treason is no big thing, and that all treason is morally equivalent.

Move to Britain if you genuinely feel treason is/was inheritly bad.

Certainly whether in the ARW 2 million or ACW 5 million, its actually the people of the time who decide if warranted/justified, and they both obviously did. You or I aren't going to change that rather simple reality.

I don't have to agree with the people of any era on any subject, to acknowledge the rather relevant people of the time and place felt otherwise. Personally I've said many times over years the south shouldn't have seceded......my views however don't change that they felt otherwise, sincerely enough to risk everything as in any revolution, no different then ARW were sincere to risk everything.

 

[wausaubob]

One aspect of the problem is that the new anti-slavery administration hadn't done anything when the secessionist crisis occurred. And when the process started, had there been no secession, the southern areas had representation in Congress and potential allies. It would have been a slow process until the 1880 reapportionment and the former slave states would have had substantial control over the next step. Secession was the worst way to protect slavery, except for war, which was even worse. And that was knowable in 1861 based on what had already happened in the ARW.
As for the suggestion that might makes right, its curious that anyone would suggest that a government doesn't have the right and the duty to defend its integrity. If the government doesn't have that right, the alternative is intellectual and physical anarchy. Everyone thinks their desire to be permitted to do whatever they want is their right and to heck with everyone else's rights.
There is no right to rebellion. Its a natural opportunity to be utilized when the government fails.
In the case of the ARW the conditions imposed by the British were not unlivable. But the odds the revolutionaries would succeed were respectable. Britain was far away and it had other problems. Other European powers resented British hegemony and saw an opportunity to twist the lion's tale.

 

[wausaubob]

Can we possibly get back to the options available to both parties at Appomattox?

 

[wausaubob]

The suggestion that the states permitting slavery should not have seceded is interesting. In time, Maryland and Missouri probably would have abolished slavery on their own. Slavery would have become unworkable in Delaware and would have numerically declined. Virginia and Kentucky would not have abolished slavery, but they might have Romanized it, and created an intermediate legal status for the enslaved people.

 

[JerryD]

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.

Just for a little perspective, my best bud is British, and every July 4th he wishes me a happy treason day. He says he was taught that the colonists raised up because we did not want to pay our fair share of the costs of defending us from the French in the Seven Years War. So far from being justifiable, it reflects the greedy nature of Americans.

As an aside, on the ACW they were taught that Britain never even considered supporting the CSA, as it was a slave state and Britain was leading the world in eradicating slavery and could never stoop to helping a slave state.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

Treason is inextricably and inherently tied to the loyalty of the individual to the nation of which they are a citizen. If a citizen of an opponent of the US is willing to betray that opponent I'm not going to reject their aid and hand them back over on "moral" grounds. So it's really not like murder, torture, etc. As I posted originally, I could not care less that the Founders "betrayed" the Crown. I spend my energy caring about those who betray the United States. We can indulge in arguments that try to make the two equivalent but that's disingenuous spin. The Constitution bars treason and it bars insurrection. If somebody wants to opine that the Constitution incorporates "hypocrisy", they're entitled to hold any opinion they choose, right or wrong. I categorically disagree.

 

[Belfoured]

Just for a little perspective, my best bud is British, and every July 4th he wishes me a happy treason day. He says he was taught that the colonists raised up because we did not want to pay our fair share of the costs of defending us from the French in the Seven Years War. So far from being justifiable, it reflects the greedy nature of Americans.

As an aside, on the ACW they were taught that Britain never even considered supporting the CSA, as it was a slave state and Britain was leading the world in eradicating slavery and could never stoop to helping a slave state.

As an aside, that's interesting because the Minister who was at the forefront of the F&I War - Pitt the Elder - was vocal about the unfairness of the subsequent efforts to impose the costs on the Colonies. He only opposed the AWI once Britain's European arch-enemies - France and Spain - got involved.

 

[Jantzen64]

Just for a little perspective, my best bud is British, and every July 4th he wishes me a happy treason day. He says he was taught that the colonists raised up because we did not want to pay our fair share of the costs of defending us from the French in the Seven Years War. So far from being justifiable, it reflects the greedy nature of Americans.

As an aside, on the ACW they were taught that Britain never even considered supporting the CSA, as it was a slave state and Britain was leading the world in eradicating slavery and could never stoop to helping a slave state.

Interesting perspectives. My college class on the AWI did raise a lot of the same issues regarding how reasonable the tax burden was on the colonies given the protections they received during the Seven Years War. I have relatives in England and they like to tease me that America started by complaining, and hasn't stopped since. No stiff upper lip on our part!

 

[huskerblitz]

Interesting perspectives. My college class on the AWI did raise a lot of the same issues regarding how reasonable the tax burden was on the colonies given the protections they received during the Seven Years War. I have relatives in England and they like to tease me that America started by complaining, and hasn't stopped since. No stiff upper lip on our part!

I also incorporate that information into my 8th grade American History classes. I also explain that many of the Coercive Acts were not issued until after the colonists began to openly rebel by causing issues with British control. Afterwards I ask rhetorically if that was enough to warrant open rebellion towards independence.

 

[Belfoured]

I also incorporate that information into my 8th grade American History classes. I also explain that many of the Coercive Acts were not issued until after the colonists began to openly rebel by causing issues with British control. Afterwards I ask rhetorically if that was enough to warrant open rebellion towards independence.

As a matter of opinion I've always found the Crown's justification disingenuous. The British weren't fighting the French in the Colonies (and, by the way, in New France, as well) primarily to "protect" the residents. They were fighting to protect the benefits they derived from the Colonies and as part of their contest with France to determine who controlled those resources. The Colonists may have also "benefited" as a result, but that was ancillary to the Crown's purpose.

 

[wausaubob]

Grant could have pushed General Lee much harder to sign the surrender for all Confederate armies. He seems to have remembered that Lee was the commander in chief after the initial surrender. In the rush of achieving the first objective, the oversight is understandable.

 

[damYankee]

It seems the British and those using the AWI or the American Revolutionary War as either support for the CSA or as a jab to our revolution (because they just didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes to pay for their protection) are overlooking the actual complaint.
Our founders didn't exclaim "Taxation is unfair" what they did say was taxation without representation was unfair.
They were not citizens of Great Britain they were subjects of the Kingdome, while they had to pledge allegiance to the King, the King and Parliament had no obligation to provided military protection to the colonies and seldom did.
The colonist livelihoods were dominated by Mercantilism, this part is seldom mentioned in the debate anymore but was a main issue. The colonies provided raw materials, and Britain turned those materials into finished goods, which could then be sold back to the colonies or exported elsewhere.
Colonies like those in North America existed to supply raw materials to the mother country. Whether it was tobacco, rice, timber, fur, or metals, these were critical resources for Britain's economy. Britain had exclusive rights to purchase the raw materials produced by its colonies and also maintained the exclusive right to sell finished goods to those same colonies, and also set the price of those products.
But the colonist could not approach other nations to develop trading agreements.
Then there was the other burning issue;
The Navigation Acts

• Navigation Act of 1651: Required all goods imported into Britain or its colonies to be transported on British ships.
• Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663: Strengthened the original act, requiring goods to be shipped through British ports and enumerating certain goods that could only go to Britain.
• Molasses Act (1733): Imposed a tax on molasses, sugar, and rum imported to the colonies from non-British sources, forcing colonists to buy these items from British or approved colonial suppliers.

Comparing the issues that lead to the American Revolution to the issues that lead to the establishment of the CSA makes a poor comparison. And to boil the complaints of the Colonist down to one simple issue of taxation not only ignores the strict control under which the American Colonist lived, it serves only to dismiss or completely ignore the core issue which was the lack of any representation as Colonist were denied the right to elect or appoint any individual to Parliament. But Parliament could appoint governors to each of the British colonies.
The Southern States not only had representation they had for most of the existence of the USA had provided the majority of the presidents and most of the men who sat on the Supreme Court and elected their own state governors and state legislatures.
There is no comparison.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Treason is inextricably and inherently tied to the loyalty of the individual to the nation of which they are a citizen. If a citizen of an opponent of the US is willing to betray that opponent I'm not going to reject their aid and hand them back over on "moral" grounds. So it's really not like murder, torture, etc. As I posted originally, I could not care less that the Founders "betrayed" the Crown. I spend my energy caring about those who betray the United States. We can indulge in arguments that try to make the two equivalent but that's disingenuous spin. The Constitution bars treason and it bars insurrection. If somebody wants to opine that the Constitution incorporates "hypocrisy", they're entitled to hold any opinion they choose, right or wrong. I categorically disagree.

I agree that it's tied to loyalty towards a nation. But it can also be justifiable in a moral sense. A citizen of an enemy country might provide us intel because he genuinely believes his country is in the wrong. That would be a moral justification. Or, on the other hand, the person might be providing us intel only for money. In that case the person has no loyalty or moral justification. We'd still take the intel either way, but my point is that sometimes treason can be motivated for moral reasons. A person who thinks treason is no big deal, and all treason is the same, for whatever reason or committed towards any country, is a person who shouldn't be trusted by any nation.

 

[Jantzen64]

It seems the British and those using the AWI or the American Revolutionary War as either support for the CSA or as a jab to our revolution (because they just didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes to pay for their protection) are overlooking the actual complaint.
Our founders didn't exclaim "Taxation is unfair" what they did say was taxation without representation was unfair.
They were not citizens of Great Britain they were subjects of the Kingdome, while they had to pledge allegiance to the King, the King and Parliament had no obligation to provided military protection to the colonies and seldom did.
The colonist livelihoods were dominated by Mercantilism, this part is seldom mentioned in the debate anymore but was a main issue. The colonies provided raw materials, and Britain turned those materials into finished goods, which could then be sold back to the colonies or exported elsewhere.
Colonies like those in North America existed to supply raw materials to the mother country. Whether it was tobacco, rice, timber, fur, or metals, these were critical resources for Britain's economy. Britain had exclusive rights to purchase the raw materials produced by its colonies and also maintained the exclusive right to sell finished goods to those same colonies, and also set the price of those products.
But the colonist could not approach other nations to develop trading agreements.
Then there was the other burning issue;
The Navigation Acts

• Navigation Act of 1651: Required all goods imported into Britain or its colonies to be transported on British ships.
• Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663: Strengthened the original act, requiring goods to be shipped through British ports and enumerating certain goods that could only go to Britain.
• Molasses Act (1733): Imposed a tax on molasses, sugar, and rum imported to the colonies from non-British sources, forcing colonists to buy these items from British or approved colonial suppliers.

Comparing the issues that lead to the American Revolution to the issues that lead to the establishment of the CSA makes a poor comparison. And to boil the complaints of the Colonist down to one simple issue of taxation not only ignores the strict control under which the American Colonist lived, it serves only to dismiss or completely ignore the core issue which was the lack of any representation as Colonist were denied the right to elect or appoint any individual to Parliament. But Parliament could appoint governors to each of the British colonies.
The Southern States not only had representation they had for most of the existence of the USA had provided the majority of the presidents and most of the men who sat on the Supreme Court and elected their own state governors and state legislatures.
There is no comparison.

You raise many good points, and I certainly wasn't trying to equate the two. Rather, was trying to introduce some humor into the discussion. As you illustrate, the primary objection of the Colonies was to the colonial system itself, where the colonies are economic and political vassals to the mother country. It's tough to disagree, though, with the notion that the colonies didn't benefit from GB's protections during the Seven Years . . .

 

[huskerblitz]

As a matter of opinion I've always found the Crown's justification disingenuous. The British weren't fighting the French in the Colonies (and, by the way, in New France, as well) primarily to "protect" the residents. They were fighting to protect the benefits they derived from the Colonies and as part of their contest with France to determine who controlled those resources. The Colonists may have also "benefited" as a result, but that was ancillary to the Crown's purpose.

Meh...I think you're selling the British, and the colonies, short here. The French being in New France, did threaten the colonies by restricting their push westward and the French's alliances with Natives typically increased tension between colonists and their Native neighbors. So, yes, the colonies were actually protected by the British forces.

Interesting topic, but we're probably pulling too far away from the OP.

 

[Belfoured]

I agree that it's tied to loyalty towards a nation. But it can also be justifiable in a moral sense. A citizen of an enemy country might provide us intel because he genuinely believes his country is in the wrong. That would be a moral justification. Or, on the other hand, the person might be providing us intel only for money. In that case the person has no loyalty or moral justification. We'd still take the intel either way, but my point is that sometimes treason can be motivated for moral reasons. A person who thinks treason is no big deal, and all treason is the same, for whatever reason or committed towards any country, is a person who shouldn't be trusted by any nation.

I don't disagree that there can be moral and "amoral" reasons for treason. My point is that it's irrelevant to me. I don't care what the motivation is in the end. Treason against another nation doesn't get me riled. Treason against the US does. As you suggest, there is no "equivalence". Game, set, and match.

 

[Belfoured]

Meh...I think you're selling the British, and the colonies, short here. The French being in New France, did threaten the colonies by restricting their push westward and the French's alliances with Natives typically increased tension between colonists and their Native neighbors. So, yes, the colonies were actually protected by the British forces.

Interesting topic, but we're probably pulling too far away from the OP.

Again, I think assessment of the primary motive must start with what the Colonies were for the Crown and why New France got involved, for example, But it's definitely an issue for reasonable disagreement. Back to the OP ...

 

[east_beast]

The way the war ended was borderline miraculous. Yeah, the Reconstruction era was still rough. It was always going to be. But the way Lee's surrender was handled and the Confederate soldiers were treated went a long way towards resolving the wound that was always going to require considerable healing.

 

[damYankee]

You raise many good points, and I certainly wasn't trying to equate the two. Rather, was trying to introduce some humor into the discussion. As you illustrate, the primary objection of the Colonies was to the colonial system itself, where the colonies are economic and political vassals to the mother country. It's tough to disagree, though, with the notion that the colonies didn't benefit from GB's protections during the Seven Years . . .

The colonies provided provincial troops and militias such as the Pennsylvania Home Guard, which were required to provided their own food, uniforms and arms, this was the norm going back to the King Phillips War, Queen Anne's War etc. etc,
So it wasn't like a free ride for the colonist.