- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

If Confederate generals were traitors, so was George Washington
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:36 am
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:36 am
This was written a couple of days back. I neither agree nor disagree with this article. However, I do find it interesting:
LINK
quote:
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald, on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify – 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
LINK
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:37 am to RollTide1987
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny, the others fought to have the right to own other humans as property. Small difference there.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:38 am to RollTide1987
He was a traitor, but he fought for the winner and winners write history.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:38 am to RollTide1987
quote:
If Confederate generals were traitors, so was George Washington
Yeah, no shite. All the Founding Fathers were. Why do you think the standard for actually being accused and convicted of treason is set at such a high bar in the Constitution?
Also this:
quote:
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny, the others fought to have the right to own other humans as property. Small difference there.
This post was edited on 7/24/20 at 10:39 am
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:39 am to NfamousPanda
quote:
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny, the others fought to have the right to own other humans as property. Small difference there.

Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:39 am to NfamousPanda
quote:
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny
"Tyranny" is definitely subjective. What appeared tyrannical to us wasn't necessarily tyrannical to anyone else. Just as the southern states saw the Federal government as tyrannical, the northern states didn't see it that way.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:41 am to RollTide1987
quote:
"Tyranny" is definitely subjective. What appeared tyrannical to us wasn't necessarily tyrannical to anyone else. Just as the southern states saw the Federal government as tyrannical, the northern states didn't see it that way.
How do you think the slaves would define tyranny?
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:42 am to RollTide1987
You come at the King...
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:42 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
How do you think the slaves would define tyranny?
They're dead.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:42 am to NfamousPanda
quote:
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny, the others fought to have the right to own other humans as property. Small difference there.
Not 100% true.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:43 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
They're dead.
Nice. Going after grammar to make a smart remark because you know damn well what the answer would be and it makes you a bit squeamish on defending the Confederacy.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:43 am to RollTide1987
Either could be defined as traitors. However one “rebelled” against the monarchy in England and the other rebelled against the Republic of the United States. Seems like an important distinction.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:43 am to NfamousPanda
quote:
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny, the others fought to have the right to own other humans as property. Small difference there.
I see that you reduce a very complicated matter down to a single issue. That is what is wrong with the idiot youth of today. You don't understand nor do you care to research the entire story and what led to the war. Slavery was one of many and wasn't the forefront concern for the 80% of confederate soldiers that did not own another human.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:45 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
Nice. Going after grammar to make a smart remark because you know damn well what the answer would be and it makes you a bit squeamish on defending the Confederacy.
Why would it make me squeamish? Are there really that many people around in the U.S. today who actually think that chattel slavery in the U.S. was morally sound from a modern-day perspective?
Are you wanting a pat on the back for denouncing it?
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:45 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Why would it make me squeamish? Are there really that many people around in the U.S. today who actually think that chattel slavery in the U.S. was morally sound from a modern-day perspective?
Are you wanting a pat on the back for denouncing it?
No. I want you to tell me how the slaves would have defined tyranny.
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:46 am to Landmass
George won. Confederates didn’t. Bobby Lee shouldn’t have froze up every time he crossed the Potomac.
It’s only treason if you lose.
It’s only treason if you lose.
This post was edited on 7/24/20 at 10:47 am
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:47 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
I want you to tell me how the slaves would have defined tyranny.
Why?
Posted on 7/24/20 at 10:47 am to NfamousPanda
quote:
One fought to liberate themselves from tyranny, the others fought to have the right to own other humans as property. Small difference there.

Popular
Back to top
