Restricted The Lost Cause IS History!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
There is no thing as perpetual Union. You folks have to get off of that.
There is no thing as perpetual Union. You folks have to get off of that.


Especially since the first "perpetual" union lasted about 8 years before it was trashed. And "perpetual"? Really? 278,000 years from now? 489,000 years from now? 984,255 years from now? The idea is too ridiculous for serious discussion. Not to mention that the word "perpetual" is nowhere in the Constitution. The terms of the AOC are as dead as Julius Caesar, including the laughable claim of perpetuity.
 
Last edited:

JRH48

Cadet
Joined
Mar 14, 2020
Location
Texas
There is no thing as perpetual Union. You folks have to get off of that.
Can't get off what the founders thought they were forming and that, by the words of the foundational document, is a perpetual union. The Constitution did nothing to change the status of that union, it just changed the way it was to be governed.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
The primary concern of the Southern secessionists was the prospect that the regional Republican Party hypocritical so- call free-soil platform that if carried out would lead to permanent political domination by the North. Slavery was no more threatened in 1860 than it had been in 1850, 1820, or at any earlier time in the country's history.


Of course it wasn't. The President had no authority to interfere with it, and neither did the Congress. As for the Supreme Court, it had just protected it in the territories. Slavery was never better protected.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Can't get off what the founders thought they were forming and that, by the words of the foundational document, is a perpetual union. The Constitution did nothing to change the status of that union, it just changed the way it was to be governed.
Show me where perpetual is in the Constitution. That word was in the AofC but dropped for a more Perfect Union.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Except there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits secession. Oh, and the word "perpetual" is not in the Constitution either. And there is also no constitutional authority to either declare war or use the United States Army to make war against a State.

See this website for evidence. It's all in there: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
So what do you believe Lincoln should have done and where in the constitution is the executive empowered to take those actions?
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
So what do you believe Lincoln should have done and where in the constitution is the executive empowered to take those actions?

Perfectly fair question. I think Lincoln should have simply honored the secessions, let the Confederates go in peace, established diplomatic recognition and, if necessary and as appropriate, negotiate a peace treaty, and a treaty on trade. That authority, as you know, is under Article II, section 2.
 

JRH48

Cadet
Joined
Mar 14, 2020
Location
Texas
Show me where perpetual is in the Constitution. That word was in the AofC but dropped for a more Perfect Union.
The "AoC" is properly titled, "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", not in Perpetual Union. Two separate actions. The Constitution only replaced one of them.

The Constitutional Convention was convened under the authority of the Confederation Congress to address problematic weaknesses in the government of the Confederation. The Convention did this by drafting a Constitution creating a new form of government, but it took no action regarding the perpetual union. Nor did it take any action regarding the laws that had been passed by the Confederation Congress. Those laws (example, Northwest Ordinance which organized the Northwest Territories) were not mentioned in the Constitution but neither were the "dropped". They remained in effect, as did the perpetual union.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Perfectly fair question. I think Lincoln should have simply honored the secessions, let the Confederates go in peace, established diplomatic recognition and, if necessary and as appropriate, negotiate a peace treaty, and a treaty on trade. That authority, as you know, is under Article II, section 2.
Thank you for your answer but I don't believe it answers my question. The Article and section you mention only deals with the appointment of Ambassadors, and that requires consent of the senate. I sincerely doubt the republican controlled senate would have approved any ambassadors to the confederacy.

So how would Lincoln, or Buchanan since he was President when South Carolina seceded, honored the secession(s)? And were does the constitution give the executive the power to recognize that a state or states are no longer states?

The reason I ask this is because Buchanan stated in his Dec 3rd state of the Union to congress that;

"apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the Confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government- involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Congress the whole question, in all its bearings.”

It seemed Buchanan believed that any question involving the status of a state would have to go through congress. You imply the President does have this power so I'm curious where this power is given to the executive in the constitution.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
The "AoC" is properly titled, "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", not in Perpetual Union. Two separate actions. The Constitution only replaced one of them.

The Constitutional Convention was convened under the authority of the Confederation Congress to address problematic weaknesses in the government of the Confederation. The Convention did this by drafting a Constitution creating a new form of government, but it took no action regarding the perpetual union. Nor did it take any action regarding the laws that had been passed by the Confederation Congress. Those laws (example, Northwest Ordinance which organized the Northwest Territories) were not mentioned in the Constitution but neither were the "dropped". They remained in effect, as did the perpetual union.
Go back and read what I posted because you have me saying something I did not say. I will not play games.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Thank you for your answer but I don't believe it answers my question. The Article and section you mention only deals with the appointment of Ambassadors, and that requires consent of the senate. I sincerely doubt the republican controlled senate would have approved any ambassadors to the confederacy.

So how would Lincoln, or Buchanan since he was President when South Carolina seceded, honored the secession(s)? And were does the constitution give the executive the power to recognize that a state or states are no longer states?

The reason I ask this is because Buchanan stated in his Dec 3rd state of the Union to congress that;

"apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the Confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government- involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Congress the whole question, in all its bearings.”

It seemed Buchanan believed that any question involving the status of a state would have to go through congress. You imply the President does have this power so I'm curious where this power is given to the executive in the constitution.


First, you're most welcome for the earlier answer. But, you did not mention that Article II, section 2, empowers the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. So it's important to recognize that as part of my answer.

As for Buchanan's remarks, he is perfectly correct. The President has no authority to decide upon the relations between a State and the Federal Government, or to change them. That is for the People of the State, or States, to decide. It is for the People of the State, or States, to decide their own political destiny, whether or not they will remain a member of the Union of States, and what their relations with the United States shall be. All the President can lawfully do is respond within the limits of Article II, which I already explained.

PS- In that same State of the Union, Buchanan said this: "Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction?"
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
We are not going to get around the fact that slavery was the cause of secession and the rebellion.

We are not going to get around the fact that the slaveholding South considered the federal government so weak, it thought it could get away with armed rebellion. We're talking barely 16,000 US troops, two-thirds of which was West of the Mississippi, a handful of federal marshals, a part-time attorney general and the only full-time contact with the American people was the US Post Office.

The slaveholding South directed the federal government for almost sixty years, was never denied representation in the federal government until the House of Representatives began to show more representation via population which was greater in the North.

But we are left with a historical record in black and white that shows the slaveholding South was so concerned over slavery that it would risk civil war to protect, even expand it, at the expense of the constitution and individual freedom for the entire nation.

The slaveholding South eventually said it's way or nothing.

In the end, they got nothing.

Unionblue
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
First, you're most welcome for the earlier answer. But, you did not mention that Article II, section 2, empowers the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. So it's important to recognize that as part of my answer.

As for Buchanan's remarks, he is perfectly correct. The President has no authority to decide upon the relations between a State and the Federal Government, or to change them. That is for the People of the State, or States, to decide. It is for the People of the State, or States, to decide their own political destiny, whether or not they will remain a member of the Union of States, and what their relations with the United States shall be. All the President can lawfully do is respond within the limits of Article II, which I already explained.

PS- In that same State of the Union, Buchanan said this: "Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction?"
Do you believe the senate would have approved such a treaty? I think what would have most likely happened to Lincoln, or any President that ignored every precedent set by previous Presidents and supreme court decisions stating that the constitution was formed by all the people(Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793; Martin v Hunter 1821, Cohens v Virginia 1821), would be his very quick impeachment and removal from office by congress.

Also Buchanan had this to say about secession;
" In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish."

Now I will give you that he did say in the same speech that the federal government had no authority to compel the states by force to stay in the Union. Though after the southern rebels fired on Fort Sumter he supported Lincoln's policies and the war. Better late than never I say.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Do you believe the senate would have approved such a treaty? I think what would have most likely happened to Lincoln, or any President that ignored every precedent set by previous Presidents and supreme court decisions stating that the constitution was formed by all the people(Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793; Martin v Hunter 1821, Cohens v Virginia 1821), would be his very quick impeachment and removal from office by congress.

Also Buchanan had this to say about secession;
" In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish."

Now I will give you that he did say in the same speech that the federal government had no authority to compel the states by force to stay in the Union. Though after the southern rebels fired on Fort Sumter he supported Lincoln's policies and the war. Better late than never I say.

You actually raise a few interesting points. The first of which is that Chisolm was met with such overt animosity and hostility by the States, that they thoroughly repudiated it with the adoption of the 11th amendment. As for Cohens, the historical facts, and the Constitution, completely and explicitly contradict the decision (that is, the "whole people" ideas he put forth).

Now then, as to Buchanan's remarks. It strikes me that virtually every word of his complaint could just as easily have been written or verbalized by King George himself, as he railed against the Declaration of Independence and the move to self-government by the colonists. It's very unpersuasive. In fact, all those remarks are intended to do is conceal and camouflage the sad fact that he is arguing on behalf of political coercion and against political liberty. Also very unpersuasive.

And yes, Buchanan most certainly did say that the federal government had no authority to use force against a State. Probably because he knew that that idea had been proposed, and flatly rejected at the convention.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
And it accurately describes what the war was really about. The Confederacy's fight was a noble one against overwhelming odds.... a second American revolution where southerners were fighting for their rights and freedom against an oppressive federal government. If only Gettysburg had turned out differently. Who knows... What if.... :frown: I would've proudly fought in the Army of Northern Virginia! Not all soldiers get to fight for a just cause they truly believe in.
View attachment 344735

As I have thought about the Lost Cause, it strikes me that one of its most disturbing aspects is that it conflates "the South" with the Confederacy. So, for example, people say "the South fought for independence."

But 40% of the South's population was of African descent, and 96% of them were enslaved. The war of "independence" did not and would not bring independence to those living in bondage. What did the war mean to them, and how should a narrative about the war reflect what the war meant to them?

Essentially, the Lost Cause narrative works by "disappearing" black Southerners. But black southerners did exist, and they had their own vision for "the South." Consider the following image, by Kurz & Allison, is The Battle of Nashville. It shows Confederates fighting against black Union soldiers.

01886v.jpg


What many people might not know is that the black soldiers were almost all southerners. The Battle of Nashville was a two-day battle fought on December 15–16, 1864, and is considered a major success by the Union army over Confederate forces in the Western Theater. The US forces included the United States Colored Troops, or the USCT. The USCT had eight regiments with a combined 5,000+ men at the Battle of Nashville:
• 12th US Colored Infantry – organized in Tennessee at large
• 13th US Colored Infantry – organized in Nashville, TN
• 14th US Colored Infantry – organized in Gallatin, TN
• 16th US Colored Infantry – organized in Nashville, TN
• 17th US Colored Infantry – organized in Nashville, TN
• 18th US Colored Infantry – organized in Missouri at large
• 44th US Colored Infantry – organized in Chattanooga, TN
• 100th US Colored Infantry – organized in Kentucky at large

If the Civil War represents the South's fight for independence, what explains that there were all these southerners fighting against the Confederacy? The Lost Cause narrative has some problems.

Simply put, the Lost Cause narrative is founded upon the idea, its corner-stone rests, upon the great fallacy that the war occurred only between the North and the "South", and that southern negro had no role in the war's resolution. But the Civil War was not just about the North's desire to preserve the Union, or the white South's desire to dissolve the Union and create a new nation. It was also about the black South's desire to end slavery and gain full equality. To the extent that the Lost Cause narrative obscures and marginalizes the experience of southern blacks, it is misleading and ahistorical.

The Lost Cause narrative basically says that in this most bloodiest of American wars, southern blacks didn't matter. But no white southerner at the Battle of Nashville would make that claim.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Steve Roberts

Private
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
The states were already in a perpetual union when constitutional convention was held. That being said it does not bear repeating. While the constitution does not prohibit secession neither does it provide a procedure to allow it.
the representatives in convention were merely seeking a way to eliminate the weaknesses of the AOC and maintaining the union. It ended up requiring a new form of government to accomplish . This new government was needed to maintain the union. Putting in a provision for secession would have weaken the new government and made it ineffectual just as the AOC had been. The new government was considered a ”more perfect union”. When you hot rod a car engine do you replace the body ? if you have a Volvo diesel truck with a manual trans running coast to coast but change the engine to a Detroit Diesel with more power and a Allison trans that provides better fuel mileage, does it not do the same job more perfectly ? Yet it has the same body and interior and it is still a Volvo truck even if your remove or change the badges and decals that identify it as a Volvo diesel.
a provision for secession would have given the constitution the power for it’s own dissolution and destruction. The whole reason for the constitution was to give it the power to maintain the union, which was never dissolved. Ratification was the formal adoption of the new government. Failure to ratify by majority would have meant back to the drafting board. Rhode Island finally, the last of the thirteen original colonies, ratified rather than have Commercial ties severed. Even if it had not ratified it remain in the union without the protection and benefits of the constitution. the idea that the founders ever meant to allow the constitution the power of self destruction is absurd.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
As I have thought about the Lost Cause, it strikes me that one of its most disturbing aspects is that it conflates "the South" with the Confederacy. So, for example, people say "the South fought for independence."

I've never seen this objection until I came here to this board, and with respect, it's just shorthand that we've been using for a century and a half now. Saying "the North" did this or "the South" did that does not imply that everyone in both regions were in complete agreement. Most everyone here knows there was dissent on both sides.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
As I have thought about the Lost Cause, it strikes me that one of its most disturbing aspects is that it conflates "the South" with the Confederacy. So, for example, people say "the South fought for independence."

But 40% of the South's population was of African descent, and 96% of them were enslaved. The war of "independence" did not and would not bring independence to those living in bondage. What did the war mean to them, and how should a narrative about the war reflect what the war meant to them?

Essentially, the Lost Cause narrative works by "disappearing" black Southerners. But black southerners did exist, and they had their own vision for "the South." Consider the following image, by Kurz & Allison, is The Battle of Nashville. It shows Confederates fighting against black Union soldiers.

View attachment 352002

What many people might not know is that the black soldiers were almost all southerners. The Battle of Nashville was a two-day battle fought on December 15–16, 1864, and is considered a major success by the Union army over Confederate forces in the Western Theater. The US forces included the United States Colored Troops, or the USCT. The USCT had eight regiments with a combined 5,000+ men at the Battle of Nashville:
• 12th US Colored Infantry – organized in Tennessee at large
• 13th US Colored Infantry – organized in Nashville, TN
• 14th US Colored Infantry – organized in Gallatin, TN
• 16th US Colored Infantry – organized in Nashville, TN
• 17th US Colored Infantry – organized in Nashville, TN
• 18th US Colored Infantry – organized in Missouri at large
• 44th US Colored Infantry – organized in Chattanooga, TN
• 100th US Colored Infantry – organized in Kentucky at large

If the Civil War represents the South's fight for independence, what explains that there were all these southerners fighting against the Confederacy? The Lost Cause narrative has some problems.

Simply put, the Lost Cause narrative is founded upon the idea, its corner-stone rests, upon the great fallacy that the war occurred only between the North and the "South", and that southern negro had no role in the war's resolution. But the Civil War was not just about the North's desire to preserve the Union, or the white South's desire to dissolve the Union and create a new nation. It was also about the black South's desire to end slavery and gain full equality. To the extent that the Lost Cause narrative obscures and marginalizes the experience of southern blacks, it is misleading and ahistorical.

The Lost Cause narrative basically says that in this most bloodiest of American wars, southern blacks didn't matter. But no white southerner at the Battle of Nashville would make that claim.

- Alan
That brings up another point about how we talk about the civil war. The use of the word Union. As in Union troops or the Union did this. It makes it sound like some country called the Union was fighting. There is no country called Union in the world. It was America fighting to suppress a rebellion. The same America that was born on July 4th, 1776. The same America that exists till this day.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
I've never seen this objection until I came here to this board, and with respect, it's just shorthand that we've been using for a century and a half now. Saying "the North" did this or "the South" did that does not imply that everyone in both regions were in complete agreement. Most everyone here knows there was dissent on both sides.
That is true but the overwhelming majority of dissenters that were willing to pick up arms and risk their lives sided with the north. Most dissenters in the north(copperhead Democrats) were only willing to risk paper cuts in support of the rebels.

I think that says a lot about the about the moral superiority of the north’s cause. As Abraham Lincoln said;
“ Lets have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
That brings up another point about how we talk about the civil war. The use of the word Union. As in Union troops or the Union did this. It makes it sound like some country called the Union was fighting. There is no country called Union in the world. It was America fighting to suppress a rebellion. The same America that was born on July 4th, 1776. The same America that exists till this day.
It could be called The Northern Army. The North American Army. Or NAA.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
That brings up another point about how we talk about the civil war. The use of the word Union. As in Union troops or the Union did this. It makes it sound like some country called the Union was fighting. There is no country called Union in the world. It was America fighting to suppress a rebellion. The same America that was born on July 4th, 1776. The same America that exists till this day.
If you are requesting to no longer use Union, you might start here.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top