Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I think the OPs added paragraph exposes the ruse. Southern Slavery is a much More Nobel Of a Cause than what the Republican Goal Of 1860 truly was. Ridding the West Of any Non-Whites and replacing them with Whites. Not too Nobel Of a Cause. During Grant’s term, Natives were chased off and Nordic Whites we’re recruited as their Replacements.

As far as the Lost Cause, by the end of Reconstruction, the North had adopted it along with Hammond’s Mud Sill Theory. So, whose Lost Cause was it anyway?

If we continuously talk about Southern Slavery, the focus stays away from Yankee Human Trafficking and Dope Dealing which continued even Post Civil War. If there is a Moral to this story, it is that Farming can’t compete with powerful Merchants who control Shipping, Finance, Human Trafficking and Dope Trading. The South was on the wrong side of Nation Building.

Thanks for leading us into this great discussion.
Thanks for your comments, please stay on topic and before 1870.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Phil Leigh likes to use the term "Righteous Cause Mythology" as a counter to Lost Cause Mythology.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/righteous-cause-mythology/

Since the cause declarations of some of the seven Cotton States in the first secession wave cite the protection of slavery as a prime reason for leaving the Union, Righteous Cause historians conclude slavery was the only cause of the Civil War. The paragon example is Battle Cry of Freedom author James McPherson who said, “Probably…95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on…what the war was about . . . which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery….” McPherson and his acolytes dismiss all other issues even when such factors are evident by comparing the US and Confederate constitutions. For example, the Southern central government was prohibited from (1) imposing protective tariffs, (2) spending taxpayer money on public works, and (3) subsidizing private industries. Although Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Confederacy and doubled its White population only after the Federal government required they provide soldiers to invade the Cotton States, Righteous Cause historians insist that the four upper-south states also fought only for slavery.​
The Righteous Cause also dismisses the fact that two-thirds of Southern families did not own slaves. Acolytes spill oceans of ink arguing that non-slaveholding Southerners willingly left their homes and risked their lives chiefly – if not exclusively – to promote the “slavocracy.” Although tens-of-thousands of Union volunteers rose up spontaneously to defend their homes in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania when Rebel armies approached those states, Righteous Cause historians don’t credit Southerners with the same instinct, evidently because of endemic Yankee moral superiority. Of course it’s illogical and a lie. As the venerable William C. Davis writes:​
The widespread northern myth that the Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens-of-thousands, reveal again and again, that they fought and died because their Southern homeland was invaded and their natural instinct was to protect their home and hearth.​
Righteous Cause Mythology falsely equates the reasons for secession with the reasons Southerners chose to fight. But they are not the same. Southerners fought to defend their homes. The more pertinent question is to ask why Northerners fought. After all, the Northern states could have let the Southern states leave in peace, without any War at all. It was precisely what prominent abolitionists frequently advocated prior to the War. Examples include William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Beecher, Samuel Howe, John Greenleaf Whittier, James Clark, Gerrit Smith, Joshua Giddings, and even Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner who would become a leading war hawk. For years Garrison described the constitutional Union as “a covenant with death and agreement with hell.”​
The Righteous Cause Myth is a natural consequence of the false insistence that the South fought for nothing but slavery. Thus, if the South waged war only to preserve slavery, then it logically follows the Yankees waged war for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves. It is a morally comfortable viewpoint for historians who came of age during and after the twentieth century civil rights movement. But it’s as phony and useless as a football bat.
I googled the phase above and found only folks peddling it were a couple of writers for Abbeville Institute. Seems to have died aborning.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
That however involves trying them for treason first and securing a conviction. They couldn't do this, because they accepted his renounciation.

You see the problem - once they treated Lee as having renounced his citizenship, they had accepted that he renounced it. If he'd renounced it then he isn't a citizen and can't be tried for treason against a country he isn't a citizen of...

Actually, that's a very interesting question. Certainly that is the case now, but was it then? The relevant case law for SCOTUS on this issue, whether or not you can be stripped of citizenship, is Afroyim v. Rusk, which wasn't settled until 1967. What's more, it cites the 14th amendment, which wasn't ratified during the time period in question.

You may very well be right, but the exigencies of the law, especially law during a time of rebellion 150 years ago, can make for some interesting twists and turns!

I'll see if I can find out any more, or perhaps another forum member may provide assistance. Or do you have the relevant citations at hand? Thanks!
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Phil Leigh likes to use the term "Righteous Cause Mythology" as a counter to Lost Cause Mythology.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/righteous-cause-mythology/

Since the cause declarations of some of the seven Cotton States in the first secession wave cite the protection of slavery as a prime reason for leaving the Union, Righteous Cause historians conclude slavery was the only cause of the Civil War. The paragon example is Battle Cry of Freedom author James McPherson who said, “Probably…95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on…what the war was about . . . which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery….” McPherson and his acolytes dismiss all other issues even when such factors are evident by comparing the US and Confederate constitutions. For example, the Southern central government was prohibited from (1) imposing protective tariffs, (2) spending taxpayer money on public works, and (3) subsidizing private industries. Although Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Confederacy and doubled its White population only after the Federal government required they provide soldiers to invade the Cotton States, Righteous Cause historians insist that the four upper-south states also fought only for slavery.​
The Righteous Cause also dismisses the fact that two-thirds of Southern families did not own slaves. Acolytes spill oceans of ink arguing that non-slaveholding Southerners willingly left their homes and risked their lives chiefly – if not exclusively – to promote the “slavocracy.” Although tens-of-thousands of Union volunteers rose up spontaneously to defend their homes in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania when Rebel armies approached those states, Righteous Cause historians don’t credit Southerners with the same instinct, evidently because of endemic Yankee moral superiority. Of course it’s illogical and a lie. As the venerable William C. Davis writes:​
The widespread northern myth that the Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens-of-thousands, reveal again and again, that they fought and died because their Southern homeland was invaded and their natural instinct was to protect their home and hearth.​
Righteous Cause Mythology falsely equates the reasons for secession with the reasons Southerners chose to fight. But they are not the same. Southerners fought to defend their homes. The more pertinent question is to ask why Northerners fought. After all, the Northern states could have let the Southern states leave in peace, without any War at all. It was precisely what prominent abolitionists frequently advocated prior to the War. Examples include William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Beecher, Samuel Howe, John Greenleaf Whittier, James Clark, Gerrit Smith, Joshua Giddings, and even Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner who would become a leading war hawk. For years Garrison described the constitutional Union as “a covenant with death and agreement with hell.”​
The Righteous Cause Myth is a natural consequence of the false insistence that the South fought for nothing but slavery. Thus, if the South waged war only to preserve slavery, then it logically follows the Yankees waged war for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves. It is a morally comfortable viewpoint for historians who came of age during and after the twentieth century civil rights movement. But it’s as phony and useless as a football bat.

"Phony and useless as a football bat" describes Leigh's argument.

Historians, particularly academic historians, look for the causes of the war, not the reasons that individual soldiers choose to fight. The reasons that individuals fight is, in some sense, irrelevant to the causes of the war.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
What's actually interesting in this thread is that there are those today for whom the "rightness" of Virginia's secession must be shown and at all costs, as if the Confederacy wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to Virginia.

How is "defending" Virginian independence different than promoting that the Confederacy was good for the state and for Southrons generally. How is "defending" Virginian independence different than promoting that the Confederacy, thus chattel slavery?

What does playing "Rebel" today have to do with the actual Confederacy anyway? How many Virginians today identify as legacy Confederates? I'd venture no more than those who identify as legacy 1918 flu epidemic victims.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your response.
The key words are "Congress did allow President Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus". With the new laws, Congress authorized his actions.
Indeed that happened, 2 years after Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus. The correct historical assertion is IMHO is Congress affirmed President Lincoln's action to suspend habeas corpus in 1863 2 years after Lincoln first asserted the right.

Much like the Prize Cases affirmed Lincoln's right to establish a blockade.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
This is not that complicated. Western Virginians democratically decided to defend themselves from the Confederacy by electing to form a new state with the Federal Union. There's no question at all that's what happened.

It doesn't sound like new statehood was very democratically decided to me if it received majority support in only two counties
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
I think the OP’s premise is faulty. Most of the loyalists here understand the disconnect (is that a proper word?) between the motives of the rebels and the Americans, that what the rebels were fighting for wasn’t what the Americans were fighting against: that the rebels were fighting to protect slavery but the Americans were fighting to suppress rebellion, not to destroy slavery.

I find the motive of fighting to preserve the United States noble enough and consider the destruction of slavery a useful and righteous consequence of preserving the nation. But preserving the nation was ample motive.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
If that had been universally enforced I imagine post-1865 elections would have looked rather different. I also imagine they could then have tried Jefferson Davis.

Section 5 of the first Reconstruction act specifically says 'unless they were disenfranchised by participation in the rebellion.'

It sure seems to me that they simply revoked all of the rebel soldiers voting rights until they swore their oath to support the US government.

Again, they gained their rights back universally after Johnson's pardon for treason. It was directly linked to the pardon for that crime.

The first Reconstruction Act is here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=459

The disinfranchise statement is part of section 5 on the next page, 460.
 

DaveBrt

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Location
Charlotte, NC
There's also the legal argument, which has political and moral connotations.

If it was a nation, then secession was at worst a fait accomplis, and at best lawful. If secession was lawful, then they were unrightfully oppressed. Texas v White brings this matter into focus in the right of revolution - as long as it is successful.

If it was a revolt, then it was appropriate to put down just as Washington had done with the Whiskey Revolt. And the fact that the leaders weren't hung as traitors is an act of supreme generosity.
Or maybe it was the dissolution of the voluntary binding together of individual states to form a national government they no longer wanted to represent them.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
True enough but for many newly established sovereign states it took a civil war to gain recognition, those new sovereign states were also told that they were rebellious and treasonous and that their actions were illegal. Nobody disputes their sovereignty now except those that lost the fight to keep them shackled to their particular unions/countries. Obviously I can’t breech forum rules by touching on modern politics but it’s fair to say that many comparisons can be found in more recent times.





Simply proclaiming independence and sovereignty is not enough in the real world of National and/or International Law.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Our constitution was intended, among other things, to anticipate issues and provide means to resolve them equitably when they arise. The Founders anticipated that Habeas Corpus might come under attack and intentionally restricted the power to suspend it to Congress.
The Founders based this decision on long-standing British precedent that suspension was solely the prerogative of Parliament.
Further, the issue did come up before 1861. John Marshall clearly stated in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U. S. 75 (1807):
If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.​
"Post 1861 legal scholarship" which denies that under our Constitution, Habeas Corpus can only be suspended by Congress is historically wrong.
Lincoln knew he was wrong. Congress certainly knew he was wrong and passed laws retroactively authorizing his actions. As I stated before, the issue we ought to be dealing with- whether we are historians, legal scholars or civil War 'buffs', is whether saving our Union justified the actions he took.


Another view. Note the assertion that the first suspension under the Consitution was in the Civil War Era meaning a lack of prior adjudication in this Authors' opinion. The article is in a law journal suggesting some expertise.

1-1-2008
Suspension as an Emergency Power
Amanda L. Tyler
Berkeley Law PP 637-638


A. The First Suspension Under the U.S. Constitution: Suspending the Writ
During the Civil War


In response to the initial wave of states seceding from the Union, President
Abraham Lincoln acted quickly, authorizing his military leaders to suspend the
writ as needed to protect geographic areas that were critical to the early defense
of the Union.17 ' His first suspension came during a period when Congress was
not in session;176 subsequent proclamations of suspension made over the next
two years did not fall into this category. 17 Indeed, Congress actively debated
for two years whether formally to authorize the President to suspend the
writ.178 During this period, under Lincoln's orders, military officials arrested
thousands of prisoners, many on nothing more than suspicion of disloyalty.
Thus, as Lincoln historian James G. Randall noted, "The arrests were made on
suspicion. Prisoners were not told why they were seized .... [T]he purpose of
the whole process was temporary military detention.179 As Randall also
observed, "That all this procedure was arbitrary, that it involved the
withholding of constitutional guarantees normally available, is of course
evident. 180 Meanwhile, there was widespread public debate over the
President's authority to suspend without approval of Congress.181
Lincoln defended his actions as fully compliant with the law. In his words,
he had authorized his officers to "arrest, and detain, without resort to the
ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem
dangerous to the public safety. " "2 In so doing, Lincoln asserted to Congress,
"t was not believed that any law was violated."8 ' Lincoln defended his
actions not only on the basis that he believed the President had power to
declare a suspension; as David Currie has noted, Lincoln also believed that a
suspension was "tantamount to authorization to make arrests that otherwise
would be illegal. '',s4



Notes

175. See Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Winfield Scott, U.S. Lieutenant Gen. (Apr. 27, 1861), in
4 THE COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 347, 347 (Roy P. Basler ed., 1953)
[hereinafter COLLECTED WORKS] (authorizing suspension of the privilege in the face of
"resistance" encountered between Philadelphia and Washington); Letter from Abraham
Lincoln to Winfield Scott, U.S. Commanding Gen. (Apr. 25, 1861), in 4 COLLECTED WORKS,
supra, at 344, 344 (authorizing suspension of the privilege in Maryland in situations of the
"extremest necessity").
176. See supra note 175.
177. See, e.g., Proclamation No. 1, 13 Star. 730 (Sept. 24, 1862) (providing that "the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during
the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place
of confinemont [sic] by any military authority or by the sentence of any court-martial or
military commission"); Exec. Order (Aug. 8, 1862), in 7 A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES
AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 3322 (James D. Richardson ed., New York, Bureau of Nat'l
Literature, Inc. 1897) [hereinafter MESSAGES AND PAPERS] (suspending the privilege with
respect to all draft evaders); Proclamation No. 7, 12 Stat. 126o (May 1o, 1861) (suspending
the privilege in Florida); Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Henry W. Halleck, U.S. Major
Gen. (Dec. 2, 1861), in 5 COLLECTED WORKS, supra note 175, at 35 (authorizing suspension of
the privilege in Missouri); Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Winfield Scott, U.S. Lieutenant
Gen. (Oct. 14, 1861), in 4 COLLECTED WORKS, supra note 175, at 554 (suspending the
privilege as far north as Maine); Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Winfield Scott, U.S.
Commanding Gen. (July 2, 1861), in 4 COLLECTED WORKS, supra note 175, at 419
(authorizing suspension of the privilege between Washington and New York where
resistance was encountered); Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Winfield Scott, U.S.
Commanding General (June 20, 1861), in 4 COLLECTED WORKS, supra note 175, at 414, 414
(authorizing suspension of the privilege with respect to Major General William Henry
Chase Whiting of the Engineer Corps of the Army, whom Lincoln "alleged to be guilty of
treasonable practices").
178. JAMES G. RANDALL, CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS UNDER LINCOLN 128-30 (1926); see id. at 149
(noting that during the early days of the war alone, "hundreds of prisoners were
apprehended"). These suspicions were sometimes aroused by speech. See Geoffrey R. Stone,
Abraham Lincoln's First Amendment, 78 N.Y.U. L. REv. 1, 28 (2003) [hereinafter Stone, First
Amendment] (suggesting that "most individuals who were arrested for their expression were
quickly released"); Geoffrey R. Stone, Freedom of the Press in Time of War, 59 SMU L. REv.
1663, 1665 (2006).
179. RANDALL, supra note 178, at iSo; see also id. (observing that the object of these detentions
was "precautionary"). Randall noted that it was with great reluctance that Lincoln
suspended "the citizen's safeguard against arbitrary arrest." Id. at 121.
i8o. Id. at 152.
181. For a list of the numerous pamphlets on this subject published during this period, consult
DUKER, supra note 72, at 178 n.189 (collecting citations); and Fisher, supra note 28, at 485-88
(same). As is well known, Chief Justice Taney concluded in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Top