Restricted The Lost Cause IS History!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
If you are requesting to no longer use Union, you might start here.

Or maybe we could go with an enforced union.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
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.
I doubt the so recent secessionist founders were such raging hypocrites as to think that.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
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.
There is no perpetual in the Constitution.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
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
How many Black Southerners were there fighting for the NAA?
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
There is no perpetual in the Constitution.
But there is a "to form a more perfect Union". And it was clearly stated prior to the constitution that the union was perpetual. Don't see how you form a more perfect Union by getting rid of the perpetual part. Or as Chief Justice Chase put it in Texas vs White;
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
But there is a "to form a more perfect Union". And it was clearly stated prior to the constitution that the union was perpetual. Don't see how you form a more perfect Union by getting rid of the perpetual part. Or as Chief Justice Chase put it in Texas vs White;
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
After the Constitution, the AofC gone. No more. Kapoot. End. Now we have new laws. It is beyond me why that can’t be understood.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
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.
Yes but not all dissent is equal. We know 104 k Southern whites enlisted in the Union Army and many were Confederate defectors. The source is " "Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North East University Press.
We also know that over 150k Southern blacks fought in the USCT.
Just how many men from the Northern states fought for the Confederacy?
Leftyhunter
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
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

Negroes for the most part, were not Citizens. Neither were the American Indians who were Massacred by the Federal Government or the Chinese who were labeled prostitutes and slaves by the Republicans.

Your reference that Blacks wanted to be Citizens was hampered by White Southerners, but also by the Northern Klan who feared Free Blacks more than they did Southern Slavery. Evidenced by their Colonization plans and political positions which Excluded Blacks. Wanting the North and West to be exclusively for White Families.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
"By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And thus, Salmon Chase puts his gross incompetence, shocking intellectual dishonesty, and odious duplicity on full display. He has, of course, no reference to a "perpetual union" in the U.S. Constitution, so he brazenly pilfers the language from the Articles of Confederation and bases his decision on its terms and language. But again, to be perfectly clear, the case was not brought under the long since dead and utterly irrelevant AoC, it was brought under the Constitution. Nor is that all. Chase himself recognized that the AOC was not perpetual at all, but rather, completely dependent on the political will of its member States. Indeed, in one sentence Chase solemnly declares that the union under the Aoc was "perpetual", and in the the very next sentence, the very next sentence for goodness sake, he openly acknowledges that the union under the AoC was tossed onto the ash-heap of history, and replaced by the new union under the Constitution. Nor is that all.

Chase heard no arguments nor reviewed any evidence asserting and demonstrating that secession was lawful. But for this he can be readily excused, because the above language, from Texas v White, did not, as admitted by all, decide the constitutional right of a State to secede. But what is truly appalling is the fact that Chase had, only a few years earlier, the question of the right to secession directly and immediately before him in the case of United States v Jefferson Davis. But he pusillanimously passed on the decision, because he knew it would ruin the cause of the Union in prosecuting The War for Confederate Independence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top