Southern Fried Pride

[Gil Dobie]

Why did a stolid Norskie like Gil Dobie start this thread in the first place? Minnesota was barely a State when the Civil War started.

I'm 42% Norskie, but 20% points to my Mennonite Ancestors from Pennsylvania, that were here well before the Civil War or Revolution, circa 1715. There were a couple men that fought in the Revolution. Some moved to Canada shortly after 1800, with another Mennonite migration, and eventually mixed in with the my Irish Relatives before coming to North Dakota. I'll have to travel to PA someday and visit the family farm that is still there.

[Winterborn]

Why did a stolid Norskie like Gil Dobie start this thread in the first place? Minnesota was barely a State when the Civil War started.

Boredom......







Sorry Gil, I couldn't resist.

[UNI88]

Why did a stolid Norskie like Gil Dobie start this thread in the first place? Minnesota was barely a State when the Civil War started.

I wouldn't spar with CID or Ibanez on this subject. They're both well read on it.

[Gil Dobie]

Jefferson Davis quote on the Emancipation Proclaimation.

“We may well leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful and contented laborers in their sphere, are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation ‘to abstain from violence unless in necessary self-defense.’ Our own detestation of those who have attempted by the most excrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man is tempered by a profound contempt for the impotent rage which it discloses.

[CID1990]

When it came to slavery, Lee was no angel, to be sure.

But that he whipped his own slaves is also a myth. Lee famously had no stomach for it, and whipping was not a “gentleman’s pursuit”.

Lee did in fact have slaves whipped on two occasions, and in one instance he sold some slaves “south”... leased them out to a tough owner to discipline them.

An interesting note about the Lee slaves- he inherited them all through his wife, Mary Custis. Mary was part if George Washington’s family and she inherited them from the late President with the enjoinder that they would be freed once they were able to be self sufficient. Lee never freed them.

You should read the book, “Reading the Man: Robert E. Lee Through His Letters”

I forget the author’s name off the top of my head, but she was a Foreign Service Officer when she wrote it. An excellent biopic, and it does not hide Lee’s significant warts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to one of his former slaves, Lee had the stomach to order and watch, then wash in brine.

The testimony of Wesley Norris appeared in the National Anti-Slavery Standard on April 14, 1866.

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

Testimony of Wesley Norris Link


The Carroll County Democrat published a report on June 2nd, 1859 saying that four fugitive slaves had been arrested in Westminster, Maryland. On June 24th of the same year, two anonymous letters appeared in the New York Tribune. One of these reports that since becoming owner of his wife's family's estate, conditions on Lee's Arlington plantation had deteriorated sharply. The author alleges that an 80 year old man is made to work as a field hand, that elderly women were made to work through the night making clothes for field hands, that food rations had been slashed, and that arbitrary punishment had become common. She or he also recounts a very similar story to the one in the Testimony of Wesley Norris, though in this letter, the whipping is thirty nine lashes for both of the Norris siblings (the legally permitted maximum) rather than fifty and twenty. A second letter reportedly from a neighbour of Robert Lee also reports that the incident occurred, with alarm. Both letters protest that upon the death of his wife's father, the Arlington slaves were supposed to have been freed, and they strongly imply that Lee prevented the publication of the notice of manumission. Curiously, these letters portray Lee in a worse light again - both claim that he flogged the slaves himself:

Letter 1: The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped him herself. These are the facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as farm hands

Letter 2: the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her
Link

Like I said - Lee had his slaves whipped on order. Your first post stated that he did it himself. That is not the case. The testimony you are posting is from Freedmen’s Bureau hearings which were meant to be part of a petition to deny him his parole. The first testimony of Wesley Norris is the account that I know to be accurate- that Lee ordered an overseer to whip the slaves. The two addendums are not attributed and have been largely discounted by historians.

The history is bad enough as it is- there is no need to embellish it. Like I said, do a little reading on the man if you are interested in who he really was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

According to one of his former slaves, Lee had the stomach to order and watch, then wash in brine.

The testimony of Wesley Norris appeared in the National Anti-Slavery Standard on April 14, 1866.

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

Testimony of Wesley Norris Link


The Carroll County Democrat published a report on June 2nd, 1859 saying that four fugitive slaves had been arrested in Westminster, Maryland. On June 24th of the same year, two anonymous letters appeared in the New York Tribune. One of these reports that since becoming owner of his wife's family's estate, conditions on Lee's Arlington plantation had deteriorated sharply. The author alleges that an 80 year old man is made to work as a field hand, that elderly women were made to work through the night making clothes for field hands, that food rations had been slashed, and that arbitrary punishment had become common. She or he also recounts a very similar story to the one in the Testimony of Wesley Norris, though in this letter, the whipping is thirty nine lashes for both of the Norris siblings (the legally permitted maximum) rather than fifty and twenty. A second letter reportedly from a neighbour of Robert Lee also reports that the incident occurred, with alarm. Both letters protest that upon the death of his wife's father, the Arlington slaves were supposed to have been freed, and they strongly imply that Lee prevented the publication of the notice of manumission. Curiously, these letters portray Lee in a worse light again - both claim that he flogged the slaves himself:

Letter 1: The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped him herself. These are the facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as farm hands

Letter 2: the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her
Link

Like I said - Lee had his slaves whipped on order. Your first post stated that he did it himself. That is not the case. The testimony you are posting is from Freedmen’s Bureau hearings which were meant to be part of a petition to deny him his parole. The first testimony of Wesley Norris is the account that I know to be accurate- that Lee ordered an overseer to whip the slaves. The two addendums are not attributed and have been largely discounted by historians.

The history is bad enough as it is- there is no need to embellish it. Like I said, do a little reading on the man if you are interested in who he really was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was using the 2 reports from the 1859 newspapers more as backup to the Norris testimony, than saying Lee lashed his own slaves. The Norris testimony is history that was forgotten or overlooked, while the people that claimed tearing down statues is erasing history. More history is actually being revealed, the good, bad and ugly.

It would have been interesting to see what this county looked like if 40 acres and a mule had come to fruition.

[CitadelGrad]

Yeah, ignore the Constitution when it doesn't support your opinion. That figures.

Where in the Constitution is secession governed?

It isn't. That why it is the prerogative of the states to secede if they choose to do so.

If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the states and the people. 10th Amendment.

You might also want to look into the admission of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island into the Union.

[houndawg]

According to one of his former slaves, Lee had the stomach to order and watch, then wash in brine.

The testimony of Wesley Norris appeared in the National Anti-Slavery Standard on April 14, 1866.

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

Testimony of Wesley Norris Link


The Carroll County Democrat published a report on June 2nd, 1859 saying that four fugitive slaves had been arrested in Westminster, Maryland. On June 24th of the same year, two anonymous letters appeared in the New York Tribune. One of these reports that since becoming owner of his wife's family's estate, conditions on Lee's Arlington plantation had deteriorated sharply. The author alleges that an 80 year old man is made to work as a field hand, that elderly women were made to work through the night making clothes for field hands, that food rations had been slashed, and that arbitrary punishment had become common. She or he also recounts a very similar story to the one in the Testimony of Wesley Norris, though in this letter, the whipping is thirty nine lashes for both of the Norris siblings (the legally permitted maximum) rather than fifty and twenty. A second letter reportedly from a neighbour of Robert Lee also reports that the incident occurred, with alarm. Both letters protest that upon the death of his wife's father, the Arlington slaves were supposed to have been freed, and they strongly imply that Lee prevented the publication of the notice of manumission. Curiously, these letters portray Lee in a worse light again - both claim that he flogged the slaves himself:

Letter 1: The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped him herself. These are the facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as farm hands

Letter 2: the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her
Link

Like I said - Lee had his slaves whipped on order. Your first post stated that he did it himself. That is not the case. The testimony you are posting is from Freedmen’s Bureau hearings which were meant to be part of a petition to deny him his parole. The first testimony of Wesley Norris is the account that I know to be accurate- that Lee ordered an overseer to whip the slaves. The two addendums are not attributed and have been largely discounted by historians.

The history is bad enough as it is- there is no need to embellish it. Like I said, do a little reading on the man if you are interested in who he really was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it says either Lee or the overseer

[Skjellyfetti]

An interesting note about the Lee slaves- he inherited them all through his wife, Mary Custis. Mary was part if George Washington’s family and she inherited them from the late President with the enjoinder that they would be freed once they were able to be self sufficient. Lee never freed them.

Lee inherited slaves from his family before marrying Mary Custis.

[Ibanez]

Where in the Constitution is secession governed?

It isn't. That why it is the prerogative of the states to secede if they choose to do so.

If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the states and the people. 10th Amendment.

You might also want to look into the admission of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island into the Union.

I was hoping you would say it isn't. One could make the argument that we are 1 union, as stated in the Constitution, " Order to form a more perfect Union," not form a collection of states. A union. A single group. An idea carried over from the Articles of Confederation in which the Union is described to be, "perpetual."

Then there is Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 - which gives the Federal Government to admit new states, create new states, partition states. Separation is only allowed if Congress allows it. The dissolution or expansion of the Union, I don't believe, is a right reserved for the states. Rather, it is the Congress that has the authority to dissolve or expand itself.

Finally, James Madison (you know, the man that wrote the document) has a few ideas on the matter...

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy

Basically - make the case that the South was suffering from intolerable oppression and you can secede. Anyone looking at the situation w/o blinders can see it was nothing more of a section worried they were about to lose their free labor.

[GannonFan]

Where in the Constitution is secession governed?

It isn't. That why it is the prerogative of the states to secede if they choose to do so.

If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the states and the people. 10th Amendment.

You might also want to look into the admission of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island into the Union.

As Ibanez wrote already, you're just dismissing the rest of the Constitution and the debates held during the convention. Secession was never permitted. Call it a revolution if you want to be more accurate, but there wasn't a "legal" right to break up the Union, either in the document or left to the states. There was no Constitutional basis to secede.

[Ibanez]

When it came to slavery, Lee was no angel, to be sure.

But that he whipped his own slaves is also a myth. Lee famously had no stomach for it, and whipping was not a “gentleman’s pursuit”.

Lee did in fact have slaves whipped on two occasions, and in one instance he sold some slaves “south”... leased them out to a tough owner to discipline them.

An interesting note about the Lee slaves- he inherited them all through his wife, Mary Custis. Mary was part if George Washington’s family and she inherited them from the late President with the enjoinder that they would be freed once they were able to be self sufficient. Lee never freed them.

You should read the book, “Reading the Man: Robert E. Lee Through His Letters”

I forget the author’s name off the top of my head, but she was a Foreign Service Officer when she wrote it. An excellent biopic, and it does not hide Lee’s significant warts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was a man of his time, let's keep that in mind. He inherited the vast majority from his late father in law - but he did receive his first slaves following the death of his mother. But that doesn't make any difference. The man's words and actions are what are important.

Lee, 1856

I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

Slavery was good for them, in his view.

[Ibanez]

And while you've got me started on this subject - up until the defeat of the CSA, their was an inherent, strong loyalty to state before country. This was a natural feeling that helps explain and understand why so many men who had trained, fought and bled for the US resigned and joined up with the CSA. Robert E. Lee opposed secession but felt a duty and honor to Virginia. In 1861 he's saying he's "devoted" tot he Union with "loyalty to the American Citizen" His son even tells us that Robert said to him that he believed the Union to be perpetual. I can't fathom making the decision to abandon the US, your home and career, and take up arms against it.

It's after the Civil War that we began seeing this change where it's Country over State. But it's not helped by unreconstructed Confederates, like Lee, that perpetuated falsehoods of Southern nobility and states rights over slavery into the Lost Cause movement. A movement, I would add, that allowed Jim Crow to develop.

It's sad really, looking back, that a lot of our current troubles are because for generations "Christian" men thought it was right to own people, treat them with open hostility and disdain, murder them, etc... all because they had darker skin.

[Ibanez]

It isn't. That why it is the prerogative of the states to secede if they choose to do so.

If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the states and the people. 10th Amendment.

You might also want to look into the admission of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island into the Union.

As Ibanez wrote already, you're just dismissing the rest of the Constitution and the debates held during the convention. Secession was never permitted. Call it a revolution if you want to be more accurate, but there wasn't a "legal" right to break up the Union, either in the document or left to the states. There was no Constitutional basis to secede.

Not to mention that previous attempts had stalled, failed or been put down by the Government. There was precedent. South Carolina wanted to secede for allowing California into the Union.

[GannonFan]

As Ibanez wrote already, you're just dismissing the rest of the Constitution and the debates held during the convention. Secession was never permitted. Call it a revolution if you want to be more accurate, but there wasn't a "legal" right to break up the Union, either in the document or left to the states. There was no Constitutional basis to secede.

Not to mention that previous attempts had stalled, failed or been put down by the Government. There was precedent. South Carolina wanted to secede for allowing California into the Union.

Heck, one of the few good things that Andrew Jackson did and that he should be celebrated for was staring down South Carolina and the high priest of the Confederacy, John C Calhoun, during the nullification crisis almost two decades before that. For all of Jackson's faults (of which there were quite a few, and very serious ones at that), he was a staunch Unionist who loved the US and there's no doubt he would've marched an army into South Carolina to hang Calhoun and anyone else willing to stand with him.

[Ibanez]

Not to mention that previous attempts had stalled, failed or been put down by the Government. There was precedent. South Carolina wanted to secede for allowing California into the Union.

Heck, one of the few good things that Andrew Jackson did and that he should be celebrated for was staring down South Carolina and the high priest of the Confederacy, John C Calhoun, during the nullification crisis almost two decades before that. For all of Jackson's faults (of which there were quite a few, and very serious ones at that), he was a staunch Unionist who loved the US and there's no doubt he would've marched an army into South Carolina to hang Calhoun and anyone else willing to stand with him.

That was our first attempt at secession. Jackson called it in the 1830s. He said that the nullification crisis was just the beginning. The next time a state tries to secede it'll be over slavery.

[AZGrizFan]

It isn't. That why it is the prerogative of the states to secede if they choose to do so.

If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the states and the people. 10th Amendment.

You might also want to look into the admission of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island into the Union.

I was hoping you would say it isn't. One could make the argument that we are 1 union, as stated in the Constitution, " Order to form a more perfect Union," not form a collection of states. A union. A single group. An idea carried over from the Articles of Confederation in which the Union is described to be, "perpetual."

Then there is Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 - which gives the Federal Government to admit new states, create new states, partition states. Separation is only allowed if Congress allows it. The dissolution or expansion of the Union, I don't believe, is a right reserved for the states. Rather, it is the Congress that has the authority to dissolve or expand itself.

Finally, James Madison (you know, the man that wrote the document) has a few ideas on the matter...

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy

Basically - make the case that the South was suffering from intolerable oppression and you can secede. Anyone looking at the situation w/o blinders can see it was nothing more of a section worried they were about to lose their free labor.

Well certainly it was “intolerable oppression” to their way of life....

[AZGrizFan]

And while you've got me started on this subject - up until the defeat of the CSA, their was an inherent, strong loyalty to state before country. This was a natural feeling that helps explain and understand why so many men who had trained, fought and bled for the US resigned and joined up with the CSA. Robert E. Lee opposed secession but felt a duty and honor to Virginia. In 1861 he's saying he's "devoted" tot he Union with "loyalty to the American Citizen" His son even tells us that Robert said to him that he believed the Union to be perpetual. I can't fathom making the decision to abandon the US, your home and career, and take up arms against it.

It's after the Civil War that we began seeing this change where it's Country over State. But it's not helped by unreconstructed Confederates, like Lee, that perpetuated falsehoods of Southern nobility and states rights over slavery into the Lost Cause movement. A movement, I would add, that allowed Jim Crow to develop.

It's sad really, looking back, that a lot of our current troubles are because for generations "Christian" men thought it was right to own people, treat them with open hostility and disdain, murder them, etc... all because they had darker skin.

*there

And Americans didn’t invent slavery. It had been going on for thousands of years, and was considered perfectly acceptable across the globe. In fact, it still goes on today....just not something that’s talked about.

[Ibanez]

I was hoping you would say it isn't. One could make the argument that we are 1 union, as stated in the Constitution, " Order to form a more perfect Union," not form a collection of states. A union. A single group. An idea carried over from the Articles of Confederation in which the Union is described to be, "perpetual."

Then there is Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 - which gives the Federal Government to admit new states, create new states, partition states. Separation is only allowed if Congress allows it. The dissolution or expansion of the Union, I don't believe, is a right reserved for the states. Rather, it is the Congress that has the authority to dissolve or expand itself.

Finally, James Madison (you know, the man that wrote the document) has a few ideas on the matter...
Basically - make the case that the South was suffering from intolerable oppression and you can secede. Anyone looking at the situation w/o blinders can see it was nothing more of a section worried they were about to lose their free labor.

Well certainly it was “intolerable oppression” to their way of life....

They left b/c they THOUGHT something was going to happen and in the end they got exactly what they feared.

If only they weren't so short sighted and waiting. The Corwin Amendment was the Souths "stay in the Union card". It had Presidents Buchanan and Lincolns endorsement.

[Ibanez]

And while you've got me started on this subject - up until the defeat of the CSA, their was an inherent, strong loyalty to state before country. This was a natural feeling that helps explain and understand why so many men who had trained, fought and bled for the US resigned and joined up with the CSA. Robert E. Lee opposed secession but felt a duty and honor to Virginia. In 1861 he's saying he's "devoted" tot he Union with "loyalty to the American Citizen" His son even tells us that Robert said to him that he believed the Union to be perpetual. I can't fathom making the decision to abandon the US, your home and career, and take up arms against it.

It's after the Civil War that we began seeing this change where it's Country over State. But it's not helped by unreconstructed Confederates, like Lee, that perpetuated falsehoods of Southern nobility and states rights over slavery into the Lost Cause movement. A movement, I would add, that allowed Jim Crow to develop.

It's sad really, looking back, that a lot of our current troubles are because for generations "Christian" men thought it was right to own people, treat them with open hostility and disdain, murder them, etc... all because they had darker skin.

*there

And Americans didn’t invent slavery. It had been going on for thousands of years, and was considered perfectly acceptable across the globe. In fact, it still goes on today....just not something that’s talked about.

I didn't say we invented slavery. It still exists, for sure. But for us, it's our Original Sin. It'll continue to haunt us.

[GannonFan]

Well certainly it was “intolerable oppression” to their way of life....

They left b/c they THOUGHT something was going to happen and in the end they got exactly what they feared.

If only they weren't so short sighted and waiting. The Corwin Amendment was the Souths "stay in the Union card". It had Presidents Buchanan and Lincolns endorsement.

Nah, that still wouldn't have worked in the end, the resistance to slavery on the one hand and the fear that slavery would end on the other hand would've still been too much. There would be plenty of legal fighting over whether a constitutional amendment could legally say there couldn't be any further constitutional amendments in opposition to it and that would always leave the chance for slavery to be abolished. And heck, there were at least 7 states that had already left prior to the Corwin amendment - far too late in the game.

[CID1990]

Like I said - Lee had his slaves whipped on order. Your first post stated that he did it himself. That is not the case. The testimony you are posting is from Freedmen’s Bureau hearings which were meant to be part of a petition to deny him his parole. The first testimony of Wesley Norris is the account that I know to be accurate- that Lee ordered an overseer to whip the slaves. The two addendums are not attributed and have been largely discounted by historians.

The history is bad enough as it is- there is no need to embellish it. Like I said, do a little reading on the man if you are interested in who he really was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it says either Lee or the overseer

Gil said that - the testimony does not.

It is a small point - Lee owned slaves and in at least two instances he had two of them whipped. But this is how history gets twisted... the small details are given short shrift in favor of “larger truths” and then the actual history winds up distorted. It matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

An interesting note about the Lee slaves- he inherited them all through his wife, Mary Custis. Mary was part if George Washington’s family and she inherited them from the late President with the enjoinder that they would be freed once they were able to be self sufficient. Lee never freed them.

Lee inherited slaves from his family before marrying Mary Custis.

Yes Lee had slaves other than the Custis slaves. I was talking about the Custis slaves who were supposed to be freed according to the will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Not to mention that previous attempts had stalled, failed or been put down by the Government. There was precedent. South Carolina wanted to secede for allowing California into the Union.

Heck, one of the few good things that Andrew Jackson did and that he should be celebrated for was staring down South Carolina and the high priest of the Confederacy, John C Calhoun, during the nullification crisis almost two decades before that. For all of Jackson's faults (of which there were quite a few, and very serious ones at that), he was a staunch Unionist who loved the US and there's no doubt he would've marched an army into South Carolina to hang Calhoun and anyone else willing to stand with him.

Jackson was a complicated character to be sure. His story is instructive on how historical figures are to be taken as a whole, rather than nit picking those parts we like or dislike and focusing on those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silenoz]

Shortest guy there. Real shocker.