“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in he Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.” - Robert E. Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861
_"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861.
Certainly that is an eloquent statement...and if he hadn't been directly responsible for the deaths of large numbers of U.S. troops, I might have thought him wrong, but nonetheless supported him and his right to be wrong. However eloquently one justifies one's position, however "right" one believes it is, you cannot go off and shoot dead U.S. troops on U.S. soil and expect to get away with it scot-free. Certainly that seems obvious in the modern age, and I am not sure I believe the outcome really "deserves" to have been different then. The real difference is pure realpolitik, there were so many ex-confederates who shared moral culpability for the treason and the deaths that it was more pragmatic in healing the nation to let it go than to seek to punish anyone, even among those whose blame was the most egregious. The will of the the hundreds of thousands of ex-confederate soldiers to fight was, at that moment in history, broken and seeking justice would have: (a) felt to them like retribution and (b) possibly reignited the will to fight in too many of them (regionally, at least, being more likely than "all across the South"). Otherwise, as so often happens, the price of justice for the dead was just too high to pay. Plus, to be fair, those fired up due to the assassination of Lincoln probably were just looking for retribution for that death and not true justice.
@@drew7155 Of course they do. But they don't have the right to try and carve out a portion of a nation to create their own slave empire. Anyone who felt America in 1860 was oppressive (it wasn't) was free to leave at any time. The problem wasn't that the Southerners wanted to leave, it's that they wanted to declare a portion of the nation their own for the sole purpose of preserving and expanding slavery.
At every history lecture, there's always at least one person in the audience who takes six minutes to give a mini-lecture instead of asking a question.
It is required by law it seems! There is also the "ask a simple question using needlessly fancy language to look smart" guy and "asks a painfully obvious question if you paid attention to the lecture" guy and many many more. But the guy who "asks" the 10 minute question is definitely the worst since they take forever while also being cringey.
At least in this case the questioner asked a rather astute question that I think gets to heart of whether Lee was a traitor. So I am a bit more forgiving this time.
@@Jon.A.Scholt In this case, the lecturer makes a fool of himself by ignoring the fact that the States are the sovereign entities in our Union, and this sovereignty and the power of the States are derived from the sovereign People. When the majority of the People of a State elect to withdraw from a Union, they are exercising an unalienable right of man that is clearly and plainly stated in the Declaration of Independence.
@Dennis Sullivan Texas v. White was a politically motivated opinion issued for the sole purpose of justifying an illegal war of invasion and conquest against a free, independent, and sovereign State. The States have always been sovereign and independent entities. All 13 of the original colonies were recognized as free, independent, and sovereign States by England via the Treaty of Paris dtd 3rd September 1783. The Articles of Confederation, which is the only document to mention a perpetual union, also expressly defines the States as sovereign. There was no rebellion. The States which seceded from the Union simply exercised the unalienable right of the people to reform their own government in their pursuit of happiness. Given: the Constitution of the United States forms a NEW union. Given: all 13 of the member nations of the original United States did implicitly secede. Given: a sovereign power has the right to withdraw any cessions made by treaty or compact (and the Constitution is nothing else). If the 13 original member nations of the United States did not have the power to secede, then the Articles of Confederation are still in effect and the federal government is virtually powerless. Otherwise, the States which seceded in 1860 and 1861 had the lawful right to exercise the will of their people to withdraw from the union and to resume their full sovereign powers. You treasonous Lincolnites have never been known for your ability to reason.
Lee's resignation from the US Army was to his mind immediate. That the bureaucratic red tape took 5 days is a technicality.At that point in time there was a certain level of honor, dignity, and decency among men. This technicality would have been ignored by any reasonable jury or judge.
The only thing Robert Ely did was become a traitor to his country he was given an order by the president of the United States is CNC commander-in-chief of all the so you're great Patriot with a goddamn traitor and that statement stands on his own . This is only a movie but it probably exactly the meeting went exactly like ruclips.net/video/aeGBpTFZhh4/видео.html
@@charlesneely 1. Lincoln never issued any order to Union Colonel Robert E. Lee. 2. Lee was OFFERED full command of all Union forces after the surrender of Ft. Sumter by Preston Blair at Lincoln's direction. Lee said to Blair at the Blair House across the street from the White House, " "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves at the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?" 3. Every officer in all branches of the Armed Forces of the United States receive a commission from the President, as approved by Congress. 4. All officers can resign their commission and exit service. This is what Lee did and it is completely legal per the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. Lee was not a traitor. Lee was against secession and said so. However, once Virginia seceded Lee defended his home, and country, Virginia. 6. Even before 1776, and after 1787 all Americans considered themselves Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, Etc. They considered their state as their country first, and the United States as their nation, second. That's why each and every unit, North, and South was designated with a number, and the state from which they came. The 54th Massachusetts, The 20th Maine, 2nd Virginia Infantry, et. al. 5. Grant, in following Lincoln's desire to "Bind up the Nation's Wounds" was magnanimous with the terms of surrender and parole at Appomattox Courthouse when Lee surrendered. 6. After Lee had left a Union Army Band began to play in celebration. Grant sent out the order, “The war is over; the rebels are our countrymen again; and the best sign of rejoicing after the victory will be to abstain from all demonstrations in the field.” Meaning there would be no songs or tunes sung or played in celebration of the defeat of the rebels. These men had honor, dignity, and respect for one another even though they were adversaries. Something you could never understand.
@dennissullivan1651 You left out some things as well. Grant and Longstreet met during the Mexican-American War. Grant then dated Longstreet's fourth cousin Julia Dent who he married. Longstreet attended the wedding. Also, after the war Longstreet joined the Republican Party during Reconstruction in the South, and supported Grant for President. Longstreet attended Grant's inauguration and six days later was made the Surveyor of Customs for New Orleans. Because of these choices Longstreet drew the contempt and disdain of a great many Southerners. Lee had no such connection to Grant, and only wanted to live out the remainder of his life in peace and not be involved in politics of any kind. However, Judge John C. Underwood, the US District judge for Norfolk handed down indictments against Lee and others. Lee wrote to Grant and Grant went to Johnson. Grant told Johnson that Lee and the others couldn't be tried as long as they observed the terms of their parole. Johnson asked when could they be tried and Grant said "Never.". Johnson wasn't about to go against the Hero of the Union, and he was in the beginnings of an investigation that would lead to impeachment proceedings in the House. The charges were dropped and Lee never knew that Grant had interceded on his behalf.
Treason requires knowing and willfully making war against the United States. If he intended resign immediately then he cannot be guilty for something out of his control.
@@warlord8954 In general your points are well taken and accurate, but under # 5 and 6 I beg to make a few corrections. 5. Lee, by the letter mentioned in the video (which was to his son Rooney, I believe, not his wife) Lee recognized that 'secession' was actually 'revolution', and was illegal. He noted that Virginia opposed the short-lived New England secessionists in the early 1800's and Virginia's position in 1861 was hypocritical and legally wrong, though he was willing to stand by her come what may. Honest people can disagree about whether or not that was honorable on his part, but it's nearly impossible to argue that he didn't know what he was doing. You can find the letter in the Lee Family Online Archives if you wish to read it in full. 6. "all Americans" did not consider their home state to be their primary citizenship. Obviously such Virginians as George Thomas and Winfield Scott disagreed; and some northerners, notably Pennsylvanian John Pemberton, also disagreed and fought for the rebels. By your definition, Pemberton and his ilk *would* have been a traitor and liable to hanging. It is likewise incorrect that to say that "each and every unit" had a state designation. That was of course the majority, but from the very beginning of the war, the U.S. Army had both infantry and artillery designated as national units, and of course the U.S. Navy was a national force as well. It is worth adding that men could and frequently did cross state lines to enlist in states in which they did not have residency, to say nothing of their state of nativity. How could this be under your concept? Thank you for your kind consideration of my comment.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ~Thomas Jefferson
About New York joining union. To Alexander Hamilton from James Madison, [20 July 1788] From James Madison1 N. York Sunday Evening [July 20, 1788]2My dear Sir Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that3 she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the new Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such a case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more. Know my fervent wishes for your success & happiness. Js: Madison This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection:
At that time there were only 18 states. Mexico, Spain and France all owned parts of what would become The United States. Even Jefferson would have changed him mind about all of the fights he always seemed to support.
Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was a supporter of the original Confederation and was afraid that the States would be sold out to a nationalistic government. He co-authored the Kentucky resolution to allow for its session from Virginia and encourage the same for what became Ohio and Illinois. Jefferson believed that a governable people was 30,000 and felt that when a polity exceeded that number it was the natural state of matter in the human sphere to divide and form new polities. Jefferson believed in small government where democratic principles work best and where republican values and accountability function. These were the principles of the Confederacy and today are best described in the Republican Party, the Libertarians and in the Tea Party, and by Constituionalist.
@@cliffpage7677 Jefferson became a worthless slaveowner. He created financial instruments at banks and insurance companies to leverage slaves, and promoted breeding slaves to make more money. He refused Lafayette's estate to buy out his slaves, too. He does not rest in peace.
_"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an 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"_ --James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster
Robert Lee had a cousin, Samuel Phillips Lee, who stayed loyal to the Union and served in the navy as an Admiral. When asked why he stayed in the Union, Samuel Lee said _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy."_
For a thorough biography of Admiral S. P. Lee, see "Lincoln's Lee: The Life of Samuel Phillips Lee, United States Navy, 1812-1897" by my friend Dudley Taylor Cornish and Virginia Laas.
@@TheStapleGunKid Considering only 20% of Southerners owned slaves. That's including black and Indian slave owners. To say it was a Slave empire is a stretch.
@@Wadzillia You are missing the point. The issue isn't percentage of slave owners, it's the reason why the CSA was formed, which was to preserve and expand slavery: _"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."_ --CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens. That's what makes the CSA a slave empire.
It comes down to a single, simple issue: If people agree to participate in a democracy, do they then have the right to back out when it doesn't go their way? Do they have the right to say "We'll participate in this government. We'll abide by the Rule of Law as determined by our elected representatives. But _only if WE always win!_ If we don't get our way then we'll take our ball and go home! We'll tolerate you 'others' voting for your people, but at the end of the day, we're only going to abide if we get our way!" No! That ain't how a democracy works! The correct, _constitutional_ response of the southern states to Lincoln's election should have been, in so many words "He won. We lost. We don't like it, but that's how it is. We'll try again in 1864."
@@Seenya59 James Madison said an unilateral secession isn't permitted by the US constitution without an explicit consent from other members. By the way, the founders were victors and the Confederates were losers. I believe that's the major difference.
Defensor Rationis - Wow! Oversimplify much? It was a hell of a lot more than just Lincoln winning the election. From the viewpoint of the Confederacy, succession was justified. Lincoln's reaction to succession was that of a tyrant. A megalomaniacal, depressive, closeted gay tyrant who suspended habeas corpus and threw journalists in jail. A USA and CSA would have lived side by side in peace; much like the USA and Canada do today. Not worth the cost in lives and those maimed to "preserve the Union". Gag.
it comes down to a single issue MONEY. Every European country in 19th Century experienced conflict when Industry created more wealth than agriculture. 13 independent states became 3 interdependent regions with textiles industry producing the most wealth for the nation. How that economic development was regulated changed drastically, thus it is called "Industrial Revolution," the governmental responsibilities in ways not anticipated by the Founders. North was correct in needing greater central authority, but overbearing arrogance of wealthy industrialists of Samuel Barlow, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Edmond Dwight, Kirk Boot, in appropriating inappropriate amount of the Federal Budget for Canals for water powering Textile Mills and RRs to transport cotton to their Mills, was an abuse called Crony Capitalism. But the utter hypocrisy of justifying Lincoln's threat of War, in first inaugural, as some righteous crusade is inexcusable.
@@Greenfield-li3bg Virginia was the richest and most important State in 1987 in the Constitutional Convention that created the United States out of the original Confederacy. Virginia agreed to accepted this ratification under a proviso that was in writing. (1) that 12 issues would be amended to the Constitution (2) that the Constitution would include a long list of terms which were adopted into the Constitution (3) that Virginia had a right to secede (that term was not used, but expressed) and the grounds for such secession. The Constitution was written by a Virginian James Madison and the Virginia Delegation was led by George Mason who was the leader in the Amendments stand, particularly the first clause of the First Amendment - the separation of church and state. Virginia was not the only state to write into its acceptance of a constitution its right to secede. The Constitution does not say that States have a right to secede, but it dos provide equall protection and rights to all states and if one state is treated one way, all the others must be treated equally. Because Virginia had a right to secede in its terms of ratification, all other States also must be accorded those same rights. South Carolina was another state that had a written agreement. In 1828 South Carolina threatened to secede over the Tariff of Abomination and that almost created a war then, except for the Compromise of Henry Clay. Those same onerous tariffs were reimposed in 1860 under Buchanan and Lincoln and that to the cotton states was an onerous and tyrannical act of abuse, which gave them the right to secede. This tariff was supporting 85% of of the Federal Treasurer, and they saw their wealth going to pay for Northern and Western railroad expansion and industrialization. This was not fair or equitable and the South resented it. Cotton was the driving force behind the British Industrial Revolution and Northern financiers greed and the profits were being siphoned off for the benefit of the North, unfairly. Seven states did secede, and Lincoln tried to invade and blockade Charleston to collect the tariff, and refused to meet with President Davis's delegation who brought an offer of compensation for Federal lands, fortifications and property. Lincoln invaded Virginia, which was not part of the Confederacy at the time, after burning the Gosport Navy Yard in Portsmouth and part of the City. Virginia Militia defended themselves against Federal invasion at Manassas, twice and the rest of the Southern states joined the Confederacy. This is the true history of what transpired and not the boilerplate Federalist historical revisionism that has bee poured down the throats of American school children for 150 years. Secession was legal. The South accepted within its rights and responded with honor to its invasion and abuse.
If they actually considered Lee a member of the US army since his resignation wasn't accepted until later, then they surely would have charged and pursued him for abandoning his post long before the end of the war. If the colonies had to choose to opt in to the United States, then they certainly had the choice to not be a part of it. Does the constitution say that it is an everlasting contract? Also, West Virgina was allowed to "secede" from Virginia even though creating new states by taking from an existing state, without the consent of all parties involved, is illegal. Is West Virginia therefore illegitimate?
That 'option ' to not join in the United States as you term it, was not entertained or allowed in the times of the American Revolution. Don't kid yourself there.
In light of today's political calisthenics it's interesting that nothing seems to have changed in the course of human events. Interesting lecture and Q and A.
I would argue that until secession was declared by the courts as null and void, that secession legally wasn't treason. Holding Lee legally responsible for violating a legal transgression that has not been defined would be akin to an ex post facto law.
No. Secession wasn't treason, due to the fact that each state is a separate sovereign nation, and there was never a national union; and courts have NO POWER over sovereign nations. This professor is wholly ignorant of the law, so he just WAFFLES over it.
Every state that joined the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787 agreed to Article VI, in which they agreed to subordinate themselves to the Federal government including the Congress, the President, and the Federal courts. To reject the authority of the government under the Constitution is not legal under Article VI. The provisions of the Constitution are self executing and legally effective, and do not require an adjudication by Federal courts before they take effect. Robert Lee violated his oath to support and defend the United States and the Constitution as a US Army officer.
Dr. Allen Guelzo gave a talk on "Did Robert E. Lee commit treason?" at Gettyburg College. The talk is on RUclips and I recommend you watch it. In short, Lee was not charged with treason because 1) Grant (and Sherman) would likely have resigned in protest and made a fuss over Lee or any other Confederate who had surrendered under their terms being charged with treason, as this would be a betrayal of the terms of surrender and they considered this a betrayal of a promise made by them personally and the US government; 2) Legally, while Lee was indeed a soldier of the US Army, he was also a citizen of Virginia, and there was no legal interpretation where a citizen's duty lay after secession (which also was a legally untested concept). Lee had been against secession, but once Virginia seceded Lee's (if one assumes the legality of secession) first loyalty would be to the state of Virginia, and that's the way he saw it. Ergo, he resigned from the US army to fulfill his loyalty to his native state. Ergo, punishing Lee and any other Confederate soldier for treason would be akin to applying an ex post facto legal construction, as these things had not been interpreted by any court at that time. Even with Jefferson Davis and the non-military members of the Confederate government was not done as the Chase and others did not want the case of the legality of secession going to the Supreme Court (moreover, the trial would have been held in Richmond, in front of a likely sympathetic jury, and any acquittal would have been seen as a vindication of the legality of secession). Moreover, Davis's imprisonment drew him the sympathy of many prominent Northerners, including staunch pro-Union abolitionists , so any prosecution of Davis would likely have been politically unpopular. SCOTUS did not make any ruling on secession until 1869, by which time Davis had been released.
Lee would not have been charged with treason for seceding, because the argument from the other side was that secession *_could not take place._* And acts called "secession" were the acts of state governments, not individuals. The charge against Lee would not have been for secession, but for *_making war_* on the United States.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln, First inaugural Address, March 4th, 1861
Try looking up the "Black Codes" that existed in the North prior to, during, and after the Civil War. Indiana had a complete prohibition on any blacks, free of slave from even entering the state. The Illinois Constitution of 1948 prohibited blacks, free or slave from entering. If a slave was brought into the state, the owner had 6 months to sell the slave to a slave owner in a slave state. And of course there was almost a complete prohibition on free blacks from voting in almost all northern states. So, tell me again about how noble the north was.
Robert DuBois The North was not "noble" in anyone's opinion here. The North was in control and decided that slavery was no longer desirable in the United States. Period. The precarious dependence of the South on slavery was actually a very good reason to abolish it, actually. The North was ingenious at finding ways to use taxes and tariffs to siphon off the excess profits from the free labor of slavery. Southerners were hubristic largely because of their superiority complex in owning slaves, considering themselves somehow more important than slaves, then better than Yankees, and so on. Neither Jefferson Davis nor any of his ministers or generals thought it necessary to placate the North or even to negotiate with them during the war; to them, their desires should just be acceded to, not questioned because they were the mighty slaveowners, rich because they didn't pay for labor and life-and-death powerful over enslaved humans. The North didn't like the laziness and immaturity of people who lived in slaveowner society, the threat to free men in the territories or the international humiliation of being behind the curve on abolishing slavery. I don't think that they were morally repulsed or wanted to help the slaves. The terrible lives of the freed blacks after the war proves that.
The South repeatedly attempted to negotiate a peace with the North. Lincoln was having none of it. And historically there were more Southerners in Ivy League schools in the US and abroad. Southerners weren't hubristic from owning slaves. They were because they were making the most money in the US. The Bank of New Orleans had almost as much money as all of NY City banks. There were more millionaires in the South than there were in the North.
Too bad his FACTS are wrong. The American Revolution won the war as thirteen separate sovereign nations; meanwhile the USA claimed that this never happened, but that 1) they were non-sovereign states, and that therefore 2) the Constitution united them as a single nation. This was a LIE, and this professor is ignorant of it.
i procrastinated so much on watching this video because i was afraid of a boring lengthy speech but i heard his introduction and i was like: i am ready to be educated by this man
You weren't educated, because he's WRONG. The American Revolution won the war as thirteen separate sovereign nations; meanwhile the USA claimed that this never happened, but that 1) they were non-sovereign states, and that therefore 2) the Constitution united them as a single nation. This was a LIE, and this professor is ignorant of it.
This is a very interesting talk, which provides considerable insight into the issue of "Was Robert E. Lee a traitor". Professor Guelzon takes the theoretical position of Abraham Lincoln and lays the groundwork for positions taken by various parties including Gen U. S. Grant, President Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Samuel Chase, and other lesser but very important figures surrounding this issue. He explains well the important distinction of rebellion vs. secession. I very much agree with his logic in this distinction. In one specific, I take objection. I will presume that he is trying to speak for Lincoln historically, but he gives no reason to believe that it is not his position also. I believe that Lincoln was quite wrong in his logic and arguments that the Southern states were in rebellion. Professor Guelzo is certainly aware of the dangerous waters that Lincoln was treading in making such assertions, but fails to fully explain to his audience why this was so. That needs to be understood by all the Sons of Dixie. The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified in 1787 without the agreement and support of Virginia. Virginia ratified the Constitution with provisos and recommendations for both a Bill of Rights and for Amendments which is laid out at length. Particularly it stated in its ratifying agreement that "in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that 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..." This statement was an assertion that spoke to the right of Virginia to secede from the union. The Virginia Article of Secession was a peaceful exit from the Union. Furthermore, the Article also absolved its ratification of the Constitution. The break with the Union was clear and incisive and inclusive. At the time the standing army of the United States was very small and insufficient to carry out any war against anyone. The states all had militias who came under the authority and command of their Governors. The other States also had ratifying statements of rights of secession like Virginia. Texas had been an independent republic, which gained its freedom from Mexico, not Great Britain, and voluntarily joined the Union with a written agreement of secession also. (In the case of Texas v. White, this issue is not addressed and the fact that various states had ratified the Constitution with written provisos of their rights to secession is hardly mentioned by many historians today.) The Constitution requires that all States coming into the Union must do so as republican forms of government. It also guarantees a republican form of national government. Furthermore, all States are guaranteed equal rights, therefore, the rights of secession as expressed in the ratification agreements of the various States are equally guaranteed and protected for all the other States. This is an unwritten guarantee of secession that is not directly addressed in the body of the Constitution itself. Virginia had a right to secede and therefore every other State had an equal right. Virginia twice voted in the referendum regarding secession. First, it voted not to secede and then it changed its mind after the Gosport Naval Shipyard was burned, Federal troops abandoned it and part of Portsmouth was burned in the conflagration. Then-President Lincoln demanded of the Governor's, troops (he wanted to raise a 75,000 man force to march on Charleston) to cross their borders, which Virginia refused. United States troops marched into Virginia and invaded the State without the Governor's permission and were defeated twice at Manassas. Virginia was protecting its own State sovereignty from invasion. The US Constitution prohibited bringing Federal troops into a state without the express permission of the State Legislature or the Governor if the Legislature was not in session. Virginia joined the Confederacy for its own defense. Maryland had been invaded and half of her Legislators arrested by Mr. Lincoln, habeas corpus suspended unconstitutionally by him, and newspapers shut down and editors and publishers arrested. The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia was first flown at the Second Battle of Manassas by Gen Thomas Jackson. It would later become universally recognized as the standard of the Confederacy and this Battle Flag and was adopted as the Confederate Naval ensign, in its elongated form. The Southern States were not in rebellion, nor were they military rebels. The Southern States that removed themselves from the Union did so peacefully. These states formed a new collective confederation of equal standing to their old alliance the United States. The first victim of Mr. Lincoln's War was a Florida Militiaman shot and killed by Federal troops in Pensacola. President Lincoln attempted to land Marines in Charleston after South Carolina seceded, but their Commander refused to land and carry out his orders, knowing that to do so was a violation of the Constitution and that this would have been an act of war against a sovereign state. This action took place while Virginia and other middle-Southern States were in Peace Conference with Congress in Washington, Lincoln and Sen. Corwin were proposing to the South the acceptance of slavery in exchange for no secession. Then Lincoln sent an armed flotilla to South Carolina and the Star of the West exhibited that she was armed (after giving its word that it was only reprovisioning Fort Sumpter with food) by mistakingly firing on a USN vessel. These actions by Lincoln were aggressive acts of war, which precipitated the firing on Fort Sumpter which Lincoln intended to use as a provocation to impose the Morell Tariff upon South Carolina, even after she had seceded. South Carolina seceded as she had threatened to do in 1824 over the Tariff of Abomination. That secession was only avoided by the Great Compromiser Henry Clay. At the same time that South Carolina seceded the Mayor of New York and his Council voted to secede, but reversed themselves when the NY Governor threatened to use the State Militia to invade the City if they did from the State and the Union. Town Line above Buffalo, NY did secede at the same time and was the last community to officially return to the Union during the Truman Administration in 1946. They flew the flag of the Confederacy and its Firemen wore a patch of that flag on their uniforms until that time. They seceded, like Virginia when Lincoln tried to call up his 75,000-man army to invade Dixie. Before the War, most states and citizens understood and believed in the rights of their sovereign states to secede. That right was not specifically noted in the Constitution, but in the ratifying words of various States and in the words of equal protection that indeed were in the Constitution as a guarantee! One additional last caveat. President Buchanan and his Attorney General concluded and stated that the Federal Executive could do nothing to prohibit a state from seceding and to reflect that belief he entered into a military armistice with the Confederate States before Lincoln took office. Lincoln broke this armistice by ordering a blockade and sending a naval force to Charleston and Pensacola to seize the military forts there. Likewise following the capitulation of the Confederacy the advice from the US Attorney General regarding a trial for President Jefferson Davis for treason was strongly opposed and such a trial would undermine the US revolution and the trumped-up reasons for the United States invading and causing war against the Southern States. Davis never asked for pardon or to have his citizenship restored. Instead, he insisted that the United States try him for treason to throw him in the briar patch. Davis has resigned from his position of Senator representing Mississippi when his State withdrew from the Union. The only Senator who did not take such action was Senator Johnson of Tennesee who was a firm Unionist. He was later impeached by the Radical Republican Congress, but acquitted by a single vote.
"....were defeated twice at Manassas. In both instances, these battles took place before Virginia had joined the Confederacy." Not even close to being true. Check your facts.
Lee's citizenship argument is hollow because Virginia did not forcebly conscript him into it's army, he was essentially a volunteer. Their is no compelling force exerted by Virginia on him to take the moral decision out of his hands. If Lee is a dual citizen of both Virginia and the US his only choice is to be a non-combatant as then he will not be committing treason on either of his citizenship statusus. As a legal argument only the removal of his US citizenship would free him the crime of treason, but this implies that Virginia's sucession can unilaterally strip a person of their US citizenship, which is clearly impossible.
The central government was already corrupted beyond mending when Lincoln was elected. The War of Northern Invasion" was 100% Lincoln's war. He wanted it, he promoted it, he manipulated the South to get it, and he deserved a much more painful death than he got.
Guelzo makes the astute point in his book that Lee was raised in Alexandria before it was actually part of Virginia- since the Lost Cause folks like to split so many hairs....
@@gordonsheaffer1863 And the intellectuals love to sit around, those self righteous characters, those who would be sailing around on their million dollar yachts shadowed by New York's skyline, demanding that Lee and Davis be hanged for treason. Lee and Davis being judged by those who in their own pompous, arrogant ways deserve the gallows much more than Lee and Davis who were just pawns in a much bigger game. There wasn't a single New York banker that didn't deserve to be hanged. Even Lincoln said that the Southern army wasn't his biggest enemy. His biggest enemy were the New York bankers. The longer the war lasted, the richer the bankers get. Today, as in the past centuries, the world banks have been financing both sides of the wars being fought. Don't matter who wins or loses, the world banks always walk away with the gold. This world is owned and controlled by Satan but for a good reason. God is allowing Satan to hold this Earth captive to drive mankind into aversion therapy to force mankind to become sick and tired of being sick and tired of man's form of government in which man has taken on satanic nature in order to govern. God is proving to puny, pompous, arrogant man that apart from God and His Ten Commandments, man is incapable of ruling over man. As long as Satan sits on the throne of Earth, man and woman will continue to be submissive to Satan's way of me, me, me, get, get, get, self pleasure, hedonistic lifestyle and instant gratification. Only when Jesus Christ returns the second time in power and glory and casts Satan and his demons from Earth into outer darkness will man and woman be free to submit to God's way of life. Only then will their judgment and salvation begin. Only then will the wickedness and evil be removed from this Earth and from the minds of humanity.
If an officer of the United States Army can resign and the men take up arms against the country to whom he had pledged allegiance cannot be found guilty of treason than who can?
@Bob Simpletown A country (the United States) cannot invade a state (such as Virginia) because the word "invade" presupposes that it is a sovereign and independent power that is violently moving its armed forces into another sovereign and independent power. The United States is a sovereign and independent power. The individual states are not and have never been so. Thus, the Union never invaded any state.
@Bob Simpletown 1. Re: "There were sovereign states, not nations." - That is a contradiction in terms because sovereign states are by definition nations and vice versa 2. Re: "Where in the US Constitution does it say that the states can not secede from the Union?" - The question that needs to be asked is, Where in the US Constitution does it say that the states can secede from the Union? Surely if the Founding Fathers and the agreeing states thought that if there should be a constitutional way for the states to exit from the Union then they would have specifically stated so in it. Additionally they would have included in the US Constitution a specifically laid out, detailed procedure for doing so. The US Constitution is, in its essence, a contract. For years I owned a construction industry business and signed many contracts. If the parties involved thought that there should be some legal way to withdraw from the agreement then in that contract and before they signed it they outlined a specific, detailed, step by step process by which that could be accomplished. Finally, in Texas v. White (1869) the U. S. Supreme Court ruled flatly that secession was unconstitutional. see www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White. 3. Re: "When the Constitution is silent on anything, the issue is left to be decided by the states. That would be the 10th amendment." - The 10th Amendment says verbatim, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - see www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992. On the basis of the 10th Amendment itself the votes to secede were unconstitutional because they only represented the southern white, male, landed gentry. In other words, they did not include black people, women, and most poor white folks. The vote of only a segment of a state's population cannot be constitutionally representative of that entire state and, thus, cannot express that state's will. In short, the 10th Amendment itself invalidates the secessionist vote.
If you were offered an army for the purpose of invading your own state, killing your own people, what would you do? All the people passing judgement are ignorant and arrogant. Most of them aren’t even worthy of touching the ground Lee walked on. He was an amazing person and soldier. What he did, he did out of honor and a sense of duty.
Sure he fought for his freedom to take away the freedom of others. He still fought against the US which makes him a traitor. No man on earth has the right to put others into slavery or even discriminate against another people. If they are so superior, why are they so dumb!
Once I would have agreed with you. Not so much now. The more I learned the less I agreed with your statement. 1/3 of all the West Point officers from Virginia stayed I. The US Army during the Civil War. That’s 33%. The other 2/3’s got it wrong. I would have stayed loyal to my country not my state. Lee was a rebel just like the rest of them. And if I had been in charge back then I would have put Lee, Jeff Davis, all the higest ranking members of the Confederate millitary and every single state legislator who voted for succession, on trial for treason and everyone else would have been spared. But those individuals would have went on trial and I think we all know what happened to people who were found guilty of treason.
@@NathanDean79 I’m not sure you understand what treason is. Treason is a breach of allegiance and of the faithful support a citizen owes to the sovereignty within which he lives. Lee lived in Virginia. The sovereign state of Virginia seceded from the United States. Lee was no more committing treason than any of our founders were against the crown of England. Another aspect of treason is the attempted overthrow of your government. None of the confederates tried to overthrow the government of the United States. They simply tried to separate themselves. By definition that’s a revolution, not a civil war. Nothing they did fits the definition of treason. Quite frankly if you’re the type of person who would fight against your own family, your own community and kill your own people then you have no honor and no real sense of duty. If you think your allegiance to your country supersedes your allegiance to your family and your community I have to question your integrity.
@@davidkomyate8014 He swore a sacred oath to the United States of America, and to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution. He broke that oath. Instead of fulfilling that oath, he joined the secessionist who had already aggressively attacked the United States. That sounds like a treacherous traitor to me. This “state loyalty” whitewashing is bullshit.
By international law the original 13 states were Recognized as independent states or nations by the world in the treaty of Paris 1783. This was reinforced in the articles of confederation where it stated “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Later the states would ratify the current constitution with the premise that the states maintain their sovereignty remained in place. The idea of succession is seen throughout early history.
The treaty of Paris provides no aid to modern Neo-Confederates. It calls for peace between "two countries", not 14. It's opening line lists all the countries involved, the last one being "The United States of America", not the individual states. Of particular note was the American representatives who signed the treaty. Who were they? Were they representatives from each state? No, only three Americans signed the treaty: Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams. Why? Because they selected as representatives by the continental congress, not the states. As for the articles of the Confederation, they state the Union shall be perpetual, and this status could only be changed with the consent of congress and the legislatures of every state. Of course the idea of secession was seen throughout history, but not seen as legal. It was, as James Madison said, even under the most justified circumstances, _"Another name only for revolution."_
41:14 If Lee believed that the 10th Amendment granted a state the right to secede, then his state left the United States through a power defined in the Constitution, and therefore he based his exit on the Constitution, not in defiance of it. Lee never sought to end the United States. States that wanted to stay, could. Today we all agree that states cannot secede, because of the Civil War.
Clem Cornpone Ahhhhh...sounds like Clem's a lawyer! Gee whiz.... its not like half of the lawyers aren't wrong in every courthouse, all day long, everyday! So $200 for more of your time? What If i pay you $300 dollars, would you write a response on why Lee was not a traitor....? (and to answer your question about rape, even if you are a lawyer...you probably shouldn't do it.....) And the
Clem Cornpone Hey Clem, Your education has exceeded your intelligence! You took the first attacks by calling those who do not agree with you as "Bubbas..." So while you get all geeked up in your self indulgent, grandiose opinion of your interpretation of the constitution...remembet that if it was so black and white we could dispense with the supreme court. (Why America could just ask you!) Not being a lawyet I seem to remembet, while wallowing in ignorance, that the law of the land also states a man is innocent until found guilty. You can hold your mental court cases all you want but technically and by the law you are so expert at...Robert E. Lee is not guilty of treason. And you and me and evety other person in America can glad he did not participate in treasonist activities! Because if Lee wanted to commit treason, in doing so he could have certainly caused the North to lose the war. For Petes sake, he was offered to lead the union in the war! Get it? Do you not think a guy who graduated numbet 2 in his class at West Point (with no demerits!) would not have known that his best use to the South would have been to accept leadership of the Union Army!? Do you not think he would not have had the discipline and smarts to lead the Union to failure! Give me a break! But he didnt...why...because he was not a "traitor". He was loyal to his State, for reasons you definitely will never know. He gave his resignation to the Union and defended what he believed was his first order of citizenship. He was a stand up guy, straight in his dealings, and the exact opposite of subversive. And every American today can be glad that he was not interested in treason or the war would more than likely would have had a different ending! He let his loyalty to his state lead him to a war that he knew was a long shot. Slavery is a beyond description evil. The way the South did it was the worst form of slavery: racially driven. The South deserved everything it got. Still there were other factors for the division. For instance, as a Southern person I was taught to have empathy for black people, not to dislike or hate people of color. However, i was raised to distrust know it all, bubba smirking, self- aggrandizing Yankee Scrotum Heads....you know...people like you.. Anyway, Robert E.Lee personally suffered to avoid treason (even though he had great opportunity to commit treason) and he was never convicted of treason. So he is not guilty of treason. Neither in spirit nor the technicality of the law. So why dont you have another mental court case and convict yourself of slander! .
Oh it most certainly was determined by overwhelming brute force. And you just proved the fallacy of your analogy. The North was stealing the wealth of the South via tariffs. Tariffs that were paid by the South and exclusively used for the benefit of the North. With your analogy the South was being economically raped by the North. Therefore, the South, the woman being raped, was justified in fighting back against the rapist North. Veteran, US Army, Bachelors of History
Blacks who deprecate Lincoln’s views of emancipation seem ignorant of his letter to the Illinois State Convention. in 1864. The tribute he paid to Black Troopers anticipates his remarks in Dc in April, 1865, about black suffrage.
@@JRobbySh Lincoln was a tyrant, with no interest in freeing any slaves. The emancipation proclamation only applied to slaves in confederate states, NOT norther states. Funny that, and it only came later in the war. Blacks weren't given rights for a hundred years after. It was all a political stunt to justify the continuing war, to turn it into a moral crusade. Lincoln as ONLY interested in crushing the rebellion and restoring the union. Like an abusive partner that won't let a spouse leave. That is the reality. Slavery had very little to do with it.
@@TasmanautThe CSA was founded to protect and encourage slavery. Lincoln would have let the existing Southern states keep their slaves, but the newly formed states and territories in The West were to be off limits to slavery. This was unacceptable to the South. They were afraid that, sooner or later, the free states would outnumber the slave states, and the slave states would lose their influence over the federal government. While it's true that the average CSA soldier was fighting for many reasons other than the preservation of slavery, the CSA itself was for the protection of slavery. All of the CSA state constitutions mention slavery. The war wasn't about states' rights. The war was fought to defeat the CSA and bring those states in rebellion back into the US. The CSA was all about slavery. Therefore, the American Civil War was fought over slavery. I hope this helps you. Watch other historians' take on this. Most say the same thing.
@@bsb1975 I've read your argument, and I've heard it before. I understand it is the mainstream view. I do not agree, however. As you said, ' The war was fought to defeat the CSA and bring those states in rebellion back into the US' - that is exactly my point. Technically the war was to crush the rebellion, not to end slavery. You can argue that it was by extension, I'm saying, technically, I disagree.
Misiulo, Yes they executed John Brown, because he was found guilty in a court of law of TREASON. I tried to start a war by trying to instigate Slave Uprisings. The slave uprising in Haiti was fresh on the minds of the Southerners. The black Haitians did not leave a white person alive. And they killed all the French soldiers sent in to quell the uprising.
And yet the state of Virginia later did the same thing they executed John Brown for doing: Taking over the arsenal at Harper's Ferry to wage war against the government. Funny how Virginia no longer considered it treason when they did it, just like it's funny how they wouldn't let West Virginia secede without a fight. "Secession for me, but not thee"
But it was alright for the slave owners to beat, whip, and murder slaves? At least freeing slaves served a good purpose. Nothing the south did served a good purpose.
Outstanding presentation. The only disagreement I have is in the questioning whether or not the Founding Fathers had a revolution. Professor Guelzo stated it was a revolution because of discontinuity, and that we were abolishing the monarchy. I disagree here because our intent was never to overthrow the monarchy, but instead, to break away (or secede) from the Crown. I acknowledge our system of government was revolutionary, and I agree with Dr. Guelzo on this, but I contend that our so-called Revolutionary War was in fact a War of Independence, not a revolution. We had no intent to overthrow the monarchy in London, hang King George III and the Parliament, and rule by decree. And yes, had we lost, George Washington and the Founding Fathers would have all lined up for the High Jump (the gibbet) for treason. I think Lee was correct in that assertion to Lord Acton. We can't simply say the Founding Fathers were right in their actions simply because they prevailed. They were all British subjects at the time.
Professor Guelzo is grossly in error. There was no discontinuity of the governments of the colonies which were recognized by England as free, independent, and sovereign States. These States did form multiple limited unions but they retained all of their sovereign powers during the first three versions (i.e., First Continental Congress, Second Continental Congress, and Articles of Confederation). The States ceded only limited powers to the federal government under the fourth version of the United States via the modern Constitution. So, where is the discontinuity? I find none. Just FYI - a strong argument could be made that the current United States is the fifth version bearing this name, for it is a tyrannical empire in which the Constitution and the rule of law has not been honored since Lincoln illegally invaded Charleston Harbor while in negotiations with representatives of South Carolina's Peace Commission.
"Secession is a Constitutional and legal impossibility". Nonsense, by his own admission, secession is not addressed in the Constitution. During the ratification of the Constitution, the states did not grant, nor delegate, the authority nor power to the United States to prohibit state secession. In 1860-1861, the secession of the southern states was a right of the state in accordance with the 10th Amendment, which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Secession was neither a Constitutional nor legal impossibility. It was, in fact, a right granted to the states by the 10th amendment.
A) King George III recognized the independence of the 13 colonies individually as sovereign states. B) As sovereign states they united under the Articles of Confederation. C) As sovereign states they seceded from the Union as it existed under the Articles to join a new Union under the current Constitution. D) No one involved in the Hartford Convention was prosecuted for conspiracy to commit treason. E) When the Republic of Texas, recognized by the USA as a sovereign state, joined the Union by popular vote there was no constitutional provision that they could not withdraw by popular vote as they later did. By this professor’s argument, a law cannot be made retroactive to change the terms of a treaty (and the Republic of Texas joined the Union by treaty) already agreed to. F) Lee didn’t commit treason if for no other reason than that he was never convicted of such and thus the presumption of innocence applies. Simple.
King George recognized the colonies right to self determination after they whooped his army, and he did not dictate that they were 13 separate states and would of had no right to. That's ridiculous. See: the Treaty of Paris. There was no secession when adopting the U.S. Constitution. "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" is the first contract, and the "U.S. Constitution" is a second contract expanding on federal powers. sorta like if you contracted a house, then decided to add an attached garage before the house was finished. A second contract does not automatically void a first contract without explicitly saying so and agreed too by all parties in writing. The Articles clearly state how to secede from the first contract with a petition of congress and a vote of all states legislators agreeing. no such vote was ever taken. And there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about voiding the Articles of Confederation. The United States of America has had a continuous government from 1777. So unless you can cite me the vote, you are incorrect. The law of the U.S. Constitution supersedes the Articles of Confederation on those issues they share in common. Those parts of the Articles of Confederation that are not superseded by the U.S. Constitution are still in full affect. This is basic contract law in the United States. Most of the Articles were superseded as to taxation, representation, powers of the legislator, eccetera, but at least one part of the Articles relevant to this conversation is still in full force and that is Article 13. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution changes that. It is the agreement of the colonies as to what type of union the United States of America was to be. And the answer is Perpetual, with the law only able to be changed in congress with all legislators agreeing. highly unlikely then, and more so now with 50 states. While states do have some degree of sovereignty, they have never had the right to unilateral secession. What's more, all states are equal, meaning Texas is under the same rules as all other states. Texas did put forth an attempt to join retaining the ability to secede if they chose to, but it was rejected by congress, then Texas agreed to the rules set forth by congress, the same rules as every state. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the law and the intent of the founders in the case Texas vs. White, and found that no unilateral secession is allowed. This was all settled over 150 years ago, but modern Neo-Confederates, and Anti-Federalist just keep crying and crying and crying. Lying and lying and lying.
Ok, the original 13 states, Vermont, and Texas were sovereign before forming/joining the Union, but there were 33 states in 1860. Can Louisiana, for example, was a Federal territory, bought with Federal money, claim the same rights of sovereignty as Virginia?
@@occamtherazor3201 All states that join the union are equal as well as equally bound. There is no unilateral succession. Federal law supersedes any state law and they knew what they were signing when they joined.
@@occamtherazor3201 sorry if I sounded short tempered. I've been trouncing neo-confederates on youtube. It's like shooting fish in a barrel when you know the material. haha
I love how this "professor" of history glosses over a key exchange between Grant and Johnson. Johnson asked Grant, "If we cannot try them now, when can we?" To which Grant replied, "Never". Making a case for treason and leaving out key details means this man has an agenda and an axe to grind.
I love how YOU cut off Grant's response to Johnson after the first word. Grant's reply was "Never, unless they violate their paroles." Grant never said that Gen. Lee did not commit Treason. Grant clearly believed that Lee did commit treason, as did Lincoln. But they wanted the killing to end. So they made a bargain with Lee. Grant believed that bargain should not be reneged on.
@@drsbhs Neither Grant nor Lincoln ever expressed in words, written, or spoken that I've ever found that Lee committed treason. If either did and you have an original source I would be most interested in seeing it.
@@warlord8954 They never expressed in words that Lee DID NOT commit treason. By your logic that would prove my point. But your logic is silly. We have no statements from either of them either way so we are left with our impressions of what they believed. I stated my opinion that Grant and Lincoln clearly believed that Lee did commit treason based on the fact that they granted him a parole to protect him from charges of treason, the fact that they did not recognize the CSA as a nation which negates the "not a citizen" defense, the fact that Grant supported their trial if they violated the parole, and the fact that they never stated that Lee or any of the Americans who were waging war on America had not committed treason. On what do you base your opinion that they did not believe Lee committed treason?
@@drsbhs "Parole" with regard to warring parties dates back to the late 15th, and early 17th centuries. Stemming from "parole d'honneur". Meaning, "word of honor". A prisoner of war could be granted parole upon taking an oath of honor that they wouldn't take up arms in said conflict. The parole given to Lee, and the Army of Northern Virginia wasn't the same as parolling someone convicted of a crime and imprisoned. Although that form of parole has its origins in the wartime practice. Even so, you're making an assumption about what Lincoln and Grant MIGHT have thought without any foundational proof such as in the written word or public statement. You're engaging in rank speculation. Or, possibly projection.
@@warlord8954 I know what parole with regard to prisoners of war means. The agreement that Grant made with Lee went beyond parole for enemy combatants that require a pledge to not take up arms in the present conflict. "each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles AND the laws in force where they may reside." Grant revealed what that last part meant when he told Johnson that if they violated that part they would no longer be immune from charges for treason. And yes, I am making an assumption. And I am providing the reasoning for my assumption. Something you have failed to do to support your opposing assumption that Grant and Lincoln believed that Lee did not commit treason. I was merely making the point that the previous post that trashed the presenter for not mentioning Grant's response to Johnson mischaracterized Grant's response in a way to make it appear Grant believed Lee did not commit treason. It just seems logical to me to conclude that Grant believed Lee committed treason. If he did, I couldn't say whether he was correct. I do not believe the clause he added about being protected as long as they broke no laws had any legal force as it went beyond parole for a prisoner of war. I ask again, on what foundational proof such as in the written word or public statement do you base your own rank speculation to the contrary? I'll give you the final word as it is really not all that important to me if someone holds a differing opinion to my own.
It would be interesting to hear what Professor Guelzo has to say about the Hartford Convention 1814. Northern secession against the assertion of the slave power is seldom discussed by historians, but it was obviously a right that many Federalists seemed to endorse or consider....
It's also interesting to hear what Robert E. Lee said about the Hartford Convention...he called it treason. You can read the full letter he wrote to his son Rooney in the Lee Family Online Archive, but here's the salient passage: "Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
He took an oath to defend the Union, quit, then took up arms against the Union including invading what he would have claimed was foreign territory (Maryland and PA). If that is not a traitor then there is no such thing as a traitor.
Then George Washington was a traitor. However Lee was no traitor, because Virginia was a sovereign nation: the USA never was. He was just a FOOL, who was ignorant of this fact; and so he lost the war, by agreeing with Lincoln's claim of national union. So he is praised by both sides, since the Union couldn't have won the war without his ignorant fumble.
According to a History channel video on West Point Classmates and Civil War enemies cadets at West Point took an oath of loyalty to their home state. Apparently that changed to an oath of loyalty to the Union after secession. Since Lee graduated well before the Mexican-American War his loyalty should have been to the state of Virginia. Unlike the Articles of Confederation the Constitution had no provision precluding secession. The Southern states were well within their rights to secede. For example, Massachusetts had previously threatened to secede, and Jefferson told them to go ahead. Even today some Californians threaten secession. As Lincoln invaded the South he was clearly the aggressor prosecuting an illegal war. While Abolitionists saw the war as their opportunity to end slavery Lincoln would come to use slavery as a "moral" excuse for his immoral war. When Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter the Union was reinforcing the fort with munitions and men. Since this was technically Confederate soil they were within their rights to seize Fort Sumter. I have not watched this video. Maybe I will.
It should be noted that all 13 of the original States implicitly seceded from the third version of the United States (which existed under the Articles of Confederation) in order "to form a NEW union". One could argue that Rhode Island (which earned itself the nickname "Rogue Island" for refusing to join the new union) did not secede, for the "perpetual union" could no longer exist with only one member nation remaining. Why do historians ignore the fact that all member nations (or States) of the previous "perpetual union" seceded by act of ratifying the new Constitution and achieving the required nine member States? Note: A legal argument can be conclusively proven that the required nine States of the original 13 never lawfully ratified the Constitution and the new Union of the United States does not legally exist.
A major point of contention from this dr. guelzo, is that the trial for treason must be held in Virginia, and that it was exceedingly unlikely that Virginians would find Lee guilty of treason. That argument falls apart by simply bringing the lawsuit from Pennsylvania, where Lee most assuredly waged war against, and aided & abetted enemies of, the United States. There were many many jurisdictions in that state that had standing.
They couldn't simply drag Lee to a court in Pennsylvania at the time. The trial for treason must be held in the state where the accused is native of. Nevertheless, Lee conceded his defeat and acknowledged he had committed treason by signing so-called Amnesty Oath. Therefore he was not tried.
@@Greenfield-li3bg On my....you have a basic lack of knowledge about jurisprudence. Trials occur within the jurisdiction in which the crime ocurres. He could have been tried therefore in Pennsylvania.
It doesn't matter. When one looks at the history of how that Constitution was ratified, in secret, by men not authorized to represent their soveriegn states nor the united states as defined under the Articles of Confederation, it is then you realize that the Constitution as it was in Lee's day and today, is an act of treason.
@@LarryNathanielPhoto You ARE WRONG when you speak of 'sovereign' states. The States are from from sovereign regardless of what some think. Almost every last power a sovereign state has is denied to the States by the Constitution.
Nor Winfield Scott, nor William Terrill, nor Robert's own cousin Sam Lee. Some of the Union's best officers were Southerners, including a considerable number of Virginians.
I think Guelzo was telling us -- and the now published biography spells it out -- that Lee was reaching for a plausible justification for a decision that he had already made on other grounds. The decision has plausibility in the contemporary context. And that was all people could demand of him. Guelzo wasn't giving him a pass, I don't think. I repeat, the biography is very good in spelling out the motivating factors. They are not entirely in Lee's favor.@@TheStapleGunKid
Treason is basically defined as “The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.” The Civil War itself was in the mind of Lincoln anyway , initially about secession based on him saying ,” if keeping slavery held the union together he’d do that and if abolishing slavery would keep it together he’d do that . Therefore Lincoln’s goal was to keep the US together Secession although not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution either prohibiting or permitting it unless of course you consider the 10th Amendment, was dealt with by Thomas Jefferson , an actual Founding Father who wrote concerning secession of new western territories in a letter to John C Breckinridge. “That should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede from the Union at some point in the future, he was perfectly fine with that…” I don’t agree with the underlying cause for this secession which was cattle slavery but secession is something we as individuals do in our daily lives. Such as going to a party and not liking it so you leave or in other words secede, to simply walk away from . Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis or any other Confederate did not commit treason by following the decision of their respective States Legislatures deciding to secede and form a new Country. Furthermore We didn’t consider ourselves Americans at this point in our history but rather identified by our respective States. What happened after Robert E.Lee resigned his commission as did Jefferson Davis from his Mississippi Senate Seat and returned to their respective States, they basically gave up their US Citizenship ( The Union)and become citizens of a new Country . Simply leaving the party is not treason ! That Country we know as the Confederacy then went to war with the United States and lost . However how does fighting for their new country, now the Confederacy , make Robert E. Lee and Davis a traitor / guilty of treason against a country they initially and peacefully left ? Jefferson Davis was actually charged with treason and there’s a variety of circumstances surrounding litigation. However the biggest problem in trying Davis would be the chance the SC ruling secession is Constitutional, a chance the prosecution wasn't willing to take . Smart move actuality, they let it rest and 157 years later, maybe we should ?
The idea that "we didn't consider ourselves Americans at this point" is ridiculous. Of course we did. George Washington's Presidential farewell address was all about how we should consider ourselves Americans first and not let state loyalty divide us. Sure some people put state loyalty above country, but certainly not all. Ove 100,000 Southerners fought for the Union during the war. _"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an 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."_ --James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster. _"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861. Also secession was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1869. The rebels lost the legal war for their cause just as badly as they lost the military one. If Davis had gone on trial, there's every reason to believe he would have been convicted.
Simply because George Washington addressed the people of the US as Americans doesn’t change the loyalty of our ancestors had to their respective States over the that of national interests . Furthermore neither Davis or Robert E. Lee were secessionists. In fact they were opposed to it . However both chose their loyalties of their home states legislatures over that of the national government. A view widely reflected by the population in that era . After all it was the individual States Legislatures who decided their respective States decision of secession and not Davis or Lee. The case of United States v. Jefferson Davis never went to trial, and yes that decision was finalized in 1869 as United States Supreme Court, as the US Government chose to prosecute a less sensational case , two months after dropping the charges against Davis. In doing so the trial of Texas v. White, in April 1869, gave the US Government exactly what they wanted , a ruling that stated succinctly that the Confederacy’s secession had been “absolutely null.” So the US Government got what it wanted in what turned out to be weaker case supporting secession, as opposed to what they knew would be a stronger defense of trying Davis ! Again the federal government reached its decision in part because it feared that Davis would either prove to a jury that secession was legally permitted under the U.S. Constitution or he would be transformed into a martyr if convicted and executed. That’s why federal prosecutors entered a “nolle prosequi,” or statement of decision not to prosecute. Davis was imprisoned in Virginia’s Fort Monroe for two years after his capture during which time he was indicted for treason. In May 1867, he was released on $100,000 bail, most of which was posted by a surprising group of Northerners including Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, business magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt and Gerrit Smith, who was among the “Secret Six” who funded John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. The Northerners advocated for a speedy trial or release of Davis in order to heal the country.
I don’t think General Lee was a traitor or at least I wouldn’t charge him with it because I served 5 years in the military and was ALWAYS very proud to be New Yorker first. And I think most ppl felt that way about their home state (especially Texans) if my New York had tried to break away from America, I believe I would have followed my home state. I would have found it very impossible to take up arms against my home state especially since a lot of that war was fought in his home state (Virginia). The only way I might have turned on my home state is if my state was fighting for a horrible institution like slavery. But in those days the southerners were taught black ppl were inferior to white ppl. I don’t understand that belief, I would have to be raised that way and I wasn’t. But if I was I would like to think I would take the moral stand and stand by my country over my home state. But again I wasn’t raised that way, but I do understand how it might be almost impossible to take up arms against my home state. I wouldn’t call him a traitor just a man in a really shitty position. If I was on that jury I wouldn’t find him guilty of being a traitor.
Exactly... It is too bad he based his decision to go with the Confederacy on his loyalty to his state, rather than thinking about things philosophically. It doesn't make much sense to defend one's freedom to take away someone else's freedom. If he had accepted Lincoln's offer to lead the Union forces, the war probably would have been a lot shorter.
@@billscannell93 no doubt but I don’t think he would have EVER approved of “Sherman’s March” he just never would have signed on for that. And I personally think it was wrong on so many levels.
Fighting for my city! do you belong to the Greeks of the 1st Century? You are a moral coward if you can not stand up for what is right. If you think every Virginian was a moral coward like Lee was, then you are wrong. Some of his families fought for the union and did not speak to him after the war. I am telling you right now If my city which I love so dearly decided to enslave and rape people, I would be the first to go against it.
Bob did go to the US Capitol to try to get his citizenship back. Also, Bob loved church since his boyhood in Alexandria and was a deacon near W & L. Prayful even the day he died. Cheers.
Mrs. Grant wrote in, The Personal Memoirs of Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant: “We rented our pretty little home (in St. Louis) and hired out our four servants to persons whom we knew and who promised to be kind to them. Eliza, Dan, Julia and John belonged to me. When I visited the General during the war, I nearly always had Julia with me as nurse.” (Pages 82-83) So if the Abraham Lincoln War was all about slavery, I guess General Grant was fighting the war to free his own slaves.
Very good presentation. Unfortunately it shows why so many people have little respect for our legal system which consists of lawyers parsing language with their unique theories decided by other lawyers and force the rest of us to have to live with their theories.
Lee was an IDIOT who lost the war, by claiming in January 1861 that "secession is nothing but revolution," and so he fought it as a revolution rather than a national defense. In reality, Virginia was a SOVEREIGN NATION, and the USA never was; so he GAVE Lincoln the victory by agreeing with his FALSE legal argument. Lee was the Jubilation T. Cornpone of the war: Lincoln couldn't have win without him.
@@SovereignStatesman that isn't a fair characterisation. He became a folk hero to both side, and by all accounts was a gentlemen. He fought bravely and was gracious in defeat.
No, he didn't. They decided not to try him bc the question of "Was succession illegal?" was feared that it would be found that it was not. Many law historians have had lectures on this.
Dr. Barton Myers is a friend and excellent historian, Your lucky to have him on your staff! this gentlemen that teachers at W&L politics seems very smart too!
Will mention this. If secession is not defined in the Constitution then it goes by the individuals of the state that vote for it. Because it’s not defined in the constitution or Bill of Rights. So forth is a state issue. And was dealt as a state issue. Which makes secession legal in that retrospect.
The Preamble states 'We the people...' It does not say 'We the States...' A phrasing some of the founders considered but never pushed. Hence when a State agreed to this contract it surrendered the right to act as a separate sovereignty.
@@louismilum8663 Yes states do have sovereignty. However while criminal law is mostly in the hands of the states while jurisdictional is over seen by the federal. Further if one examines the motives and intent of Gouverneur Morris he knew exactly what he was implying and although some begrudgingly all signed it and then all thirteen colonies adopted it.
It is a federalized union, unlike the UK. The 50 states would maintain most civil and criminal laws on their own, and only give over sovereignty *specifically handed over* in the short articles of a very short constitution. The preamble is just a mission statement, not a specific enumeration. The raw Constitution is primarily just an outline of how a federal government will be elected or appointed BY THE STATES and how these officials shall perform their duties. Most citizens misunderstand their own Constitution. An essay only nine pages long in modern plain English. Secession is not clear, Buchanan and Lincoln did not allow it to be reviewed by the courts, especially the Supreme Court as they were as likely to say it was not prohibited. However the various activities of the leaving states prior to (and before) their reviewed departure and recognition as independent states did violate several enumerated rules in Article I: 1) making a regional confederation. Virginia and several states attended the confederate conference BEFORE they declared separation. 2) raising independent navies and armies. 3) minting and printing currency in opposition to the federal treasury 4) properties ceded to or purchased by the central government shall not be returned to the states without the approval of the central government. 5) making war upon the Union The Confederacy knew exactly what they were doing. President Davis and his government were mostly constitutional attorneys and had held federal offices. The Union was not really making any true plans for war until Lincoln took office. The Confederacy needed to draw the Union into a war of insurrection to obtain foreign recognition and fight the war quickly as they knew they had two years of strong stands to be able to negotiate the independence from a point of strength. Therefore the new government particularly chose to besiege federal installations. They took dozens without a conflict between Dec 1860 and April 1861. Firing on The Star of the West and then Sumpter was to get a declared war that could be sold overseas as self preservation, not attack on the US. Placing the US in the hypocritical position of enforcing government against the will of the states and their people involved. They knew this because they were the descendants of the 1776 Revolutionaries. That war was won by breaking the UK Tory Parliament and obtaining a Whig peace. Davis expected a midterm election slaughter of the Union Republicans in Nov 1962. That, however did not happen.
Louis Milum. The Confederacy of Montgomery had arranged to fund their new nation on selling Cotton Bonds abroad and expecting a war which would horribly inflate the cost of cotton, and bankrupt the US whose primary wealth in 1860 was southern agricultural export. Davis had been Sec of War under Franklin Pierce until 1857, a senator thereafter, and his treasurer was an international banking genius. Thus they needed the war. They needed to hold back cotton in Natchez, Vicksburg, Mobile and the New Orleans for 18-24 months and sell it by 1863 to continue the cash flow that would have been exhausted by the Spring of 63. By losing New Orleans in the spring of 1862, that whole plan dissolved. Thus the urgency in 1862 and 1863 to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania to besiege Washington City and get a negotiated peace or so embarrass and frighten the people of the North that they would vote in Copperheads in the next elections. Admiral Farragut actually won the war for the Union. The Union was able to sell the banked cotton they captured at the inflated prices. The CSA could not get theirs out. It was a two year, then two year overall plan. They knew the government they were fighting. They knew her weaknesses. However the Union government also knew the CSAs weaknesses, as they had constructed her defenses and economy in those four score and several years.
Louis Milum. Also firing on USN The Star of the West was clearly an act of war as much as if Cuba fired on a ship supporting GitMo. Lincoln did not ask for a war declaration, as Washington City was completely undefended. No state militia or major regular army units were in the city. He requested assistance from the governors of Virginia and Maryland (still in the Union) and had been ignored. Yet he could watch the Virginia militias drilling in Alexandra. Not until the Old Greybacks from SNY marched in did Lincoln feel confident enough to declare an insurrection and ask Congress for war. Fort Sumpter became the next opportunity. If not that it would have been Fort Pickens, the Arsenal at Harpers Ferry or Norfolk Navy Yards. Jeff Davis knew exactly how unprepared for war the US and her loyal states were, as he had been the War Secretary until 1857 and had served on the War Committee of the Senate until Mississippi left the Union. Lincoln was CLUELESS to those facts after his election. He got such bad news when he snuck into DC on the secret train that March. John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry had mobilized the pro slave state militias prior to 1861. They were ready. That's why Lincoln threw the government of Maryland in prison as one of his first acts. The US Regular Army was tiny and in disarray in early 1861, with all the resignations. The bulk of enlisted men were from the South (just as today) and a third of the commissioned officers were too.
Louis Milum. Lincoln was no mastermind. He has been recreated as Pericles, mounted in marble on Pericles throne chair and even plagiarized Pericles for his Gettysburg Address. Lincoln has become the reimagining of The United States as a strong central government Federation (thus his digest of Pericles Funeral Oration). He was no slouch for a self made man, but he was no genius either. He did, however hold the line and stick the course. He did put his ego aside and assemble a cabinet of more than just his friends and cronies. The Republican party was almost brand new. They had only run one person for president prior to Lincoln, John C Freemont.
In one sense (the legal sense) Lee was not a traitor, because he was neither convicted of treason nor probably ever could have been convicted of that crime. As Dr. Guelzo says, the definition of treason in the Constitution was very narrow, a trial of Lee would have had to be held in Richmond, the document agreed on at Appomattox protected CSA soldiers from prosecution, and Salmon P Chase (Supreme Court) would likely have been against the conviction of it had been appealed. That may be the legal status. But in the more popular sense, he committed treason against the US in order to not be a traitor to Virginia and the southern states.
Lee most certainly did NOT commit treason. Lincoln trampled all over the constitution and therefore it was he who was the traitor. Lincoln was a racist a tyrant and the most unconstitutional president in history.
The whole lecture did mean that the Confederates (Davis, Lee, Longstreeet, etc.) did commit treason and that it wasn't punished fit as such because of Grant's surrender terms at Appomattox and reluctance by Grant himself, Salmon P. Chase and others to indict the confederates fearing it might hamper the reconstruction.
And it took 100 years to turn a stone age race into modern basketball playing.men. and of course the British introduced slavery to the 13 colonies as the catholic Spaniards did not protect slavery.
A lot of that "carpetbager" postwar propaganda was false. Much of it was assisting the freed slaves. It's a pity that the south didn't treat their country as well as they criticized it. All of the bad situations of the south was of their own actions. And don't forget the next 100 plus years of continued mistreatment of the former slaves.
@@tlee51ftw The vast majority of slaves remained in the South where there was no work for them which caused profitable trade. Their former work deemed unprofitable without a slave work force. Thre North took no responsinility for the slaves assumimg freedom would cure their ills.
Except knowledge of the facts and relevant law, since he doesn't know the first thing about national sovereignty; he just argues the Constitution like it's a matter of opinion. REALITY: Each state ratified the Constitution as a separate sovereign nation, which VOIDS any claim of national union.
Strange that the Trail would not be in Washington, DC; capital of the United States; having it in the States and Districts actually supports Lee argument. Did not States entering the Union agree they could not leave with sanction for the other States? Why do things have to be mentioned directly, and not simply implied by the circumstance and meaning of an agreement; especially at such high levels of governance?
So many comparisons here of Lee to George Washington. But their circumstances are not the same. The colonists left Britain because the British government had largely stripped away their autonomy and ability to self-govern themselves. The colonists had no representation in the British government, yet they had to submit to laws passed by British parliment. Not so for the Confederates. The South had full self-governance and autonomy at the state and local level. Furthermore, the idea that they were suffering under the federal government is absurd. The South held a massively disproportionate influence over the federal government for the nation's entire existence leading up to the war. Look at how many Southerners were presidents. Look at how many Southerners were supreme court justices. In summary, the South was fully represented at the local, state, and federal level. In fact, for most of the nation's history the South dominated federal politics. They left the Union because they lost one election and were upset they would have to give up some of their disproportionate federal power for a span of 4 to possibly 8 years. That is not a valid cause for secession at all.
You forgot about excessive taxes the British imposed on the colonist. The very reason for throwing British tea in the harbor. Self governing was already established and the British were in charge. Governing wasn't the reason for the revolution, taxes were. This was the same reason South Carolina seceded from the union. Read South Carolina,s history not the federal version that was driven into our heads in school.The federal,s reason for the war between the states if you believe it was slavery? Ironically only four southern states even mentioned slavery for their reason for seceding? The reason slavery was even mentioned was to be on the moral high ground.Lincoln didn't even free one slave! What he did was free them in states he had no control of while in the north slavery was alive and well. Lincoln was a racist by our present standards.Lincoln did some bad things prior and during the war by walking on the constitution.
Robbing a bank isn't more justified because you are going use the money to pay off your mortgage or send your kids to college than if you're going to use the money to buy a Ferrari. Either way it's robbing a bank for your own self-interest. Treason is treason. And both the 13 colonies and the southern states committed it for self-interested political reasons. George Washington doesn't get a pass just because people like his excuses better.
@@Nitroaereus ,I respect your right to express your beliefs but in this case you are so wrong! The south and the north had the right to leave the union. If one digs deep into the history of the states they will find that S.C. wasn't the first to try to secede only the first state to do it.The first states that were going to secede were in the north. I could go deeper but My time is limited due to obligation to my business.
I disagree with the speaker on the legality of secession. It would have been spelled out clearly in the Constitution if the people of the State who ratified the Constitution could not later choose to unratify it. Those people would not be any less authoritative to speak for their state after ratifying the Constitution.
@@JohnnyRebKy Most of the Constitution is not specifically/explicitly spelled out, hence 'THE FEDERALIST PAPERS." That's why you people who still argue over an issue that a Civil War was fought over are not Constitutional scholars because you're making the same arguments that were deemed wrong in 1865 for perpetuity.
@@NewarkBay357 who "deemed" those arguments to be wrong? Might does not make right. It was the "supreme authority" of each state (the people) who deemed authoritative inherently to override their states' obligations to the Articles of Confederation and t replace it with the Constitution. That same "supreme authority" in each state still gets to decide regarding any association their state has with other states. That is their inherent right.
@@tlee51ftw Not exactly. He said that regarding New York's request to have conditional ratification with an expiration/renewal. "Prenups" were not permitted. A State could only ratify with the intention never to depart. However, New York's ratification included a clause retaining the right to recall the powers they had delegated to the Federal Government...."That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Congress approved this ratification. As New York's ratification also states, " That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.." Again, all power in each state is inherently of the people. Lee acted by the authority of the people o his country, Virginia, and defended their will.
“The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly 2000 years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! I can only say that I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation.” -General Robert E. Lee
No. Robert E. Lee. He became president of Washington college at the end of the war, and died there in 1870. One of Lee's sons served as president a number of years following.
There were 8 US Army colonels from Virginia at the start of the war. Out of all them, Lee was literally the only one to join the rebellion. In fact, out of the 15 pre-war US Army Colonels from all Confederate states, Lee was just one out of three to join the rebellion. So no, joining the rebels wasn't the default choice for men in his situation. The vast majority who were in his situation made the opposite choice.
@@IAMACollectivist Yeah he "sucked" so badly that Lincoln wanted him to lead the union army and Lee said no because he didn't want Washington telling states what to do. He was right then. He is right now.
Lee, in his letter to General Windfield Scott, last sentence, said, "Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.” It was his greater love for his state, than his country.
@@tlee51ftw With his loyalties divided the disgusting nature of slavery should have tilted his allegiance to the Union over his state, but instead he chose to take life in the defense of the indefensible. He wasn't a good man.
The funny thing is, Robert Lee himself openly admitted secession was treason in a letter to his son on January 29, 1861: _"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_
Maybe he felt that way on January 29, 1861. And he certainly was against secession even in April of 61. But did his justifications for VA seceding change when VA was asked to make war on the Deep South, to blockade the Deep South, to allow federal troops to traverse VA to make war on the Deep South...all actions not expressed as powers to the Federal government....an experiment 70 years old...when VA had existed for 150.
Regarding your comment on the Militia Act of 1792... only applied to States in the Union. VA reserved the right to resume the powers it delegated to the federal govt.
@@TheStapleGunKid Article I, Sect 8 lists what the federal govt CAN do.. Article 1,Sect 10 lists what the states can NOT do.. Neither place mentions secession. VA upon ratification, warned that they might be leaving if the federal govt ends up harming VA...there was no debate and the ratification was gladly accepted. Jeremiah Black, Buchanan's AG said the federal government can not coerce a State to stay in the Union. I guess you know more than he did....or are you victim of history rewrites?
It makes no difference whatsoever what Lee believed that secession was. In 1860, secession was not illegal because no law existed which prohibited it. Furthermore, legal precedent for secession did exist.
It wasn't treason as the law was ill-defined and Northerners had also argued they had the right to secede in earlier disagreements....such as the issue of paying state debts from the Revolution. The North liked the idea of secession when it suited them, then it became treason, yet both treason to the union and the right of secession could both be interpreted by a court either way. Guelzo's logic concerning secession is in direct conflict with the Constitution itself which states the Federal Government only has the powers outlined in the Constitution and all other powers fall to the states. Basic contract law: Since it is not stated that the Constitution gives the Federal government powers to prohibit secession, then it has no such powers over the states as much as we like to pretend it does. That is why the Chase court later reached back to the Articles of Confederation "perpetual union clause" to fabricate an argument knowing full well that the Articles perpetual union language also made the Constitution illegal since by strict interpretation the new Constitution was to "form a more perfect union" ....which in itself violated the Articles of Confederation since it is not the same union. There was also nothing in the Articles of Confederation that allowed the Constitution to replace it....so effectively the Constitutional Convention was a mass treason against the existing Union.
"The North liked the idea of secession when it suited them" A handful of secessionists in New England during the early 1800s is not "The North". The North, as with the rest of the country, was overwhelmingly against secession at the time. The real irony is that Virginians at the time called the New England secession movement treason, something Robert Lee himself pointed out _"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861.
@@TheStapleGunKid You need to hit the books, kid. You are skipping over a hell of a lot. I'm no southerner, so I know your type well. You are too indoctrinated and personally invested because you associate the north with yourself having grown up there. To you, it is "us the good guys" and that clouds your reasoning as you are not impartial. Clearly you've also never read Lee's defense strategy against claims of treason post war or that his views evolved and instead you promote a rhetorical question based on Lee's flawed understanding of the "perpetual union" that you hold up as a conviction. You did not read my statement closely and fail to realize that his belief was based upon the erroneous belief that the "perpetual union" language was in the Constitution. It was not. Funny too how you believe the Hartford Convention only represented a few people's views. Try reading up on Northern politics in the war of 1812. New England by the way, held a much larger percentage of the US population. I'll bet you'll contort anything to to suit your biases, so go peddle it to someone else.
@@lmyrski8385 Nice try, but after all that rambling my point still stands: The New England secession movement was not "the North". Secessionists didn't even represent the majority of New Englanders, much less the entire North. And regardless of what Lee did after the war to defend his conduct, the fact still remains that he pointed out the reaction to secession was a display of Southern hypocrisy, not Northern hypocrisy. As he said _"In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_
ok, so a revolution is different than a secession --- but he sill does not explain why a 'revolution' - à la the American revolution - would be more ''legal'' than a 'secession.'
Splitting entities makes it easy every time a single one gets their feelings hurt. This country would have been totally destroyed before1860. Washington, himself, went out to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, where a tax on whisky perturbed them and they refused to pay it. Even Lincoln acknowledged that the entire union could change, in his 1st Inaugural. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it. "
Read Lincoln’s Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861, wherein he very concisely explains the difference between revolution and secession.
Sophistry. He is the greatest single killer of U.S. troops in the 19th century and, while he had many noble and admirable qualities, that doesn't absolve him of moral responsibility for the deaths...certainly mere legalisms and loopholes do not change the ethical or moral calculus. You can of course find technicalities to suggest he wouldn't be *convicted* of treason by a jury in the proper jurisdiction (the killers of Medger Evers were not convicted of murder due to jury bias and that doesn't make them "not murderers," and similarly OJ Simpson...not a murderer by this argument since he was acquitted in the criminal trial). In my mind, that doesn't fundamentally get to the underlying question. The pardon by President Johnson is better evidence (in fact, conclusive evidence) that he couldn't have been convicted in a hypothetical court, far better than the venue of the hypothetical trial and the beliefs of a hypothetical and partial jury itself likely filled with his fellow potential "traitors." (Even if the hypothetical Virginian jurors despised him, as likely Confederate supporters themselves they were likely equally guilty of the same offense as Lee under the law, and that probably would bias their decisions. In fact, that kind of bias is usually grounds to dismiss a juror, at least in modern times.) More practically, from a moral standpoint, Lee is a fascinating individual who seems to have never expressed any remorse for the mass deaths he caused. So arguably he's more sociopath than hero, and a sociopath who definitely helped to aid and abet an open and violent rebellion against the U.S. government, killing "many thousands" (to be generous) of U.S. troops in the process. The moniker "traitor" is perfectly good to describe that aspect of the man.
@@TheStapleGunKid Not taking your loss well?... fledgling and grasping for a win wherever may find one. The effort is the point. I'm sure when Kurt wrote his ten page righteous diatribe he was optimistic that he would get the righteous validation he so desperately was seeking... to no avail. Poor Kurt.
The loyalty question was simple: Lee upheld his oath to defend the Constitution while Lincoln and every Union soldier did not. We were a federal republic and a voluntary union of free and independent States. Lincoln got it all wrong. The founders would be appalled that any State would be coerced to stay in the Union. The founders' writings, the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federal Papers, James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc., etc., made this crystal clear! Thank God an unintended consequence of the War was that the slaves were set free. It was an egregious evil. However, Lincoln and Congress emphatically and repeatedly made the point the War wasn't about slavery, but suppressing secession. In doing so, Lincoln destroyed the founders' voluntary Union and the Constitution. Lee fought to preserve the Constitution's principles. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the federal republic that was created. If you find any of what I've written objectionable, I encourage you to learn about our "wonderful" 16th president in The Real Lincoln, by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo. It will certainly leave you wondering why you weren't told the truth about him, our history, and the Constitution. To the victors shamefully went the writing of the history.
James Madison disagreed with you though. "I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an 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" --James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster And again when New York wanted to join the Union but reserve the right to secede if constitutional amendments were not adopted James Madison wrote to Alexander Hamilton, 20 July 1788: "My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. *_The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever._* It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification."
@@Pandaemoni James Madison reversed himself on multiple issues, most importantly on nationalist issues, and he is on the record, as you clearly show, for doing so. His quote here clearly contradicts points he made in Federalist No. 39. It was the Federalist Papers, and James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, that sold people on ratifying the Constitution. It was the ratifying understanding of the Constitution that counts, not how Madison changed his mind. And, much more significant than cherry-picking a couple quotes, Dr. McClanahan is very thorough in a clear, concise, and conclusive justification for secession in the following video, "Secession: The American Tradition." The founders and the people of the States would have never ratified the Constitution without the understanding they could opt out. New Jersey's and Virginia's ratification documents had the same language as New York's. ruclips.net/video/j_7WISmYxAg/видео.htmlsi=vDaZP5KI-QwjsNYW
@@Pandaemoni Also, Madison said there was no coercive principle to the Constitution. And, if, as the Constitution clearly says, the States delegated powers to the central government, greater entities always delegate to lesser entities, not the other way around. Delegation always implies the ability to rescind the delegation. The 10th Amendment, that Jefferson called the most important amendment and the very cornerstone of the Constitution, makes it clear: any powers not delegated are reserved to the States. The key word used is ANY. Secession would be a power reserved to the States because it was was not denied by the Constitution. Jefferson said if any State in the Union preferred separation to union that he had no reservation in saying, "let us separate." In his first inaugural address, Jefferson also referred to New England States wanting to secede as "unwise" at the time but nothing about secession being prohibited. He called for tolerance of their position. The very concept of secession being "prohibited" is wholly antithetical to the founding principles.
Where do we find The Story of the established agreement between those who held the land that United States of America uses? I've heard that this land IS THE AFRICAN EMPIRE.
Yes Lee was a traitor who fought to defend a treasonous slave empire. However, it must to be noted the condition of his surrender was that his army (including himself) would be free so long as they returned home and promised never to take up arms against the Union again. So based on that, they really couldn't prosecute him because that would be going back on the treaty they signed. Also prosecuting Lee probably would have been bad for reconciliation. So yes Lee deserved to be prosecuted for treason, but in retrospect, not prosecuting him was probably a smart choice based on the conditions of the day.
Virginia ( as well as RI and NY) reserved the right to "resume powers" delegated to the federal government when they submitted their ratifications. These ratifications were accepted, fully, and without debate. It may be debated, but Virginians considered that reserved right in play, and who could blame them for believing in such?
An interesting detail I hadn't known. Thank you for pointing it out. However, some quick reading makes it clear that these states reserved the right to resume powers to "the People of the United States" (VA) and "the People," i.e., the people of the Unites States generally (NY & RI) and not to individual states. Rhode Island even separately distinguishes powers it does reserve to the several states or people thereof. Secession or a general overthrow of federal government are not among them.
@@mikelake1306 That is an ridiculous, though popular historical twist. First, if you read the notes on the VA secession convention, they believed just what the ratification declared, that they could decide to resume the powers. They are the determiners of what THEY meant. Not post bellum historians. Secondly, the People at that point in time ONLY operated via their State governments. The Constitution was ratified by the States, and any decoupling would follow the same path. And finally, how could VA, if the reference was to the People of the nation, speak in behalf of the citizens of MA, PA, etc.? Another point, if VA RI and NY all included that language, and it was accepted by the Convention, because the Union was an equal bargain amongst states, those rights to resume powers thus emanated to the other 10 original States.
Virginians in their secession convention didn't see it that way. And they were the authors of the ratification. Also, the Constitution was ratified by the People through their States, and any undoing would require the same path in reverse. Thus the States did the ratifying, not the People en masse, and the States would initiate the resuming of powers delegated. There is no mention of a required agreement with any other states for the resumption to occur. And finally, how could VA NY and RI speak for other States or the people of other states? They had no authority. Your notion is a popular one, but doesn't hold up when studied in detail....and facts.@@mikelake1306
No it was America. The states are simply subdivisions of the federal government, not countries. A state can no more claim to be a country then a county or a city can.
@@TheStapleGunKid , brother, do you ever need to study the history of that pre - war period, to wit, the matter of how a large majority of Americans of both regions viewed the matter. They certainly did not have your view.
Virginia was never a "country," no matter how hard the Lost Cause crowd wishes it so. Such a notion is absurd, even ridiculous, on its face. I'm a native-born Montanan. It would never occur to me to say that "I am a citizen of the country of Montana." People would laugh at such a statement, and rightly so!
He didn't shut down the 10th Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is fully applicable in this case. The Tenth Amendment states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Secession was not a power delegated by the U.S. Constitution to the United States government in 1861. It was likewise not a power prohibited by the U.S. Constitution to the states in 1861. It was therefore reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Great talk! The answer is complicated. It comes down to the question, can you convict? If not, then don't. In 2021 the board voted 22 to 6 to not change the University name. W&L is a private liberal arts university in Lexington, Virginia. I suspect a name change will take place by 2030.
The wind blows in all directions. Don't hold your breath. Virginians have awakened and made it crystal clear, they do not wake. Retribution will soon be upon the mountains, the piedmont, and the tidewater of the Old Dominion! Already whetstones are turning all across the Commonwealth.
@@cliffpage7677 I don't understand. Are you saying you think renaming the college will happen or will never happen? I'm sure how you're defining "awakened".
The Red counties of Virginia have been awakened and they are not "woke". Retribution will come to those in power now who have damaged and defiled the Commonwealth and the symbols of its heritage.
On July 22, 1975 the House restored U.S. citizenship to Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate Army during the Civil War and became an enduring icon of the South’s “lost cause.” The 407-10 vote came after a campaign spearheaded by Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr. (D-Va.). Though President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation of amnesty and pardon to the Southern rebels in 1865, it required Lee to apply separately. On Oct. 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Va., he signed the required amnesty oath and filed an application through Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. Nonetheless, neither was Lee pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. After receiving it, Secretary of State William Seward gave Lee’s application to a friend as a souvenir. Meanwhile, State Department officials, apparently with Seward’s approval, pigeonholed the oath. In 1970, an archivist, examining State Department records at the National Archives, found Lee’s lost oath. That discovery helped set in motion a five-year congressional effort to restore citizenship to the general, who had died stateless in 1870. President Gerald Ford signed the congressional resolution on July 24, 1975, correcting what he said was a 110-year oversight. The signing ceremony took place at Arlington House in Virginia, the former Lee family home. Several Lee descendants, including Robert E. Lee V, his great-great-grandson, attended. “As a soldier, Gen. Lee left his mark on military strategy,” Ford said. “As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox
@@tlee51ftw valid concerns but Lincoln did not want that and many feel he knew best. Our country was originally founded by treasonous traitors and they had slaves too. Very sad US history...
The Colonies were not allowed rights in parliament, or rights on their taxes. They had argued the issues for years, with no success. They chose to fight for their rights, as a whole, not partially. The south wanted to to secede that part of the union willing to do so in order to protect, and expand, slavery. Not hardly anything at all equal.
This man, as a Lincoln admirer, gives a surprisingly balanced and fair summation of Lee's actions and the circumstances of the era. For this, he deserves credit. I find one logical flaw with his argument, asserting that by definition, Lee committed treason. Though the speaker understands the fact that state vs. national citizenship obligations were far from settled at the beginning of the Civil War. Despite this, he accuses Lee, by definition of treason. How can such a verdict be reached when the term's definition was unsettled? Perhaps he felt compelled to give a definite yes or no answer, so he had to come down somewhere. But which definition of treason is he using? The unsettled, debated, and ill-defined definition of 1861? Or the settled-by-military-force understanding of 1865? But, once again to his credit, he finishes the speech by saying no historian is qualified to settle the issue. To the speaker, well done, sir.
No it isn't. They took an oath to the federal government. Robert Lee's cousin Samuel Lee, a navy admiral, made a point of this when explaining why he stayed in the Union: _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy."_
@@TheStapleGunKid They did not take an oath to the Union. As for Samuel Lee, he served in the US Navy -- the only element of the US military forces authorized to exist on a permanent basis. Other members of the armed forces served in the armies of the various member nations of these United States. The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent the federal government from maintaining a standing army, for the Founding Fathers knew that such an army would be used by tyrants to oppress the people of the States.
@@gaiustacitus4242 Prior to the civil war, soldiers took an oath stating _"I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies.”_ The united states, not any individual state.
@@TheStapleGunKid They actually took TWO oaths: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." There are three important points: 1. Citizenship in the United States is contingent upon the State remaining a member nation of the Union. Upon withdrawal from this Union, citizenship reverts to the State along with all allegiance. [Note: The last formal opinion by the SCOTUS on citizenship of people native to the territories is that they are not U.S. citizens but merely subject to the laws of these United States.] 2. When Virginia exercised the unalienable right of its people to withdraw from the Union -- a right also reserved in its articles of ratification -- its citizens were no longer citizens of the United States. 3. If, as Lincoln and his supporters have often claimed, that Virginia did not lawfully secede from the Union, then, when Lincoln raised an army without the approval of Congress and marched that army into Virginia, he and every man involved in the campaign did violate their oaths and did commit treason against these United States. It was the lawlessness of the Yankee nations which lead to peaceful secession by the South. It was the invasion of their free, independent, and sovereign nations (or States, the terms being synonymous under the Constitution of the United States) that prompted Southerners to take up arms against the remaining member nations of the Union.
Lee was not a traitor. He was fighting for his home: Virginia. Before 1861, Americans believed in the Jeffersonian ideal. That the role of the federal government should be limited. The states sovereign and independent from a central authority. This how the Constitution was sold to the states originally. What the founders created was not a nation, but rather a confederation of states. Thus the Articles of Confederation. Which was structured to preserve the rights they had been guaranteed under the "ancient constitutions" of Parliament. Southerners saw Lincoln and the federal government's actions (i.e. excessive tariffs, restrictions on commerce) as a violation of those rights. And what Guelzo doesn't want to admit in this lecture, is that no state has ever been under any obligation to stay as a member of the United States. You see, folks, secession is the ultimate American principle. And it is through secession that true independence is achieved. If Lee is in fact a traitor, then so are Washington, Jefferson and Paine for leaving Great Britain.
_"Before 1861, Americans believed in the Jeffersonian ideal. That the role of the federal government should be limited."_ The South clearly didn't believe that. From 1850-1860, almost every federal law and federal court ruling went in favor of the South, usually at the expense of states rights. The 1850 fugitive slave act was the single largest expansion of federal power over the states in US history up to that point. The Dredd Scott ruling in 1857, another ruling to appease the South, was another blow against state autonomy, since it ruled that states had no power to make blacks citizens of the country, despite the constitution leaving the matter of citizens entirely up to the states, and never saying anything about who could or couldn't be a citizen. Quite frankly, the idea that the South was for small government was pure hogwash. They didn't want a small federal government, they wanted a big strong federal government to protect slavery, and punish the Northern states that passed anti-slavery laws. Your claims about "excessive tariffs and restrictions on commerce" are equal nonsense. What restrictions on commerce? You can't name any from the federal government in 1861, let alone any excessive ones. As for tariffs, the last federal law passed on tariffs before secession was the 1857 tariff act, which reduced tariffs to historic lows. In all 11 Confederate state declarations of secession, the word "tariff" doesn't appear even once. The Confederate states made it perfectly clear they seceded entirely to preserve slavery.
@@TheStapleGunKid Yes, it's true the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act worked in the favor of the slave holding states. However, the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision in the Dred Scott case was based primarily on the text of the Constitution's drafting of 1787. Specifically Article II's definition of diversity of citizenship. As well as the state laws in Missouri. But the Fugitive Slave Clause first appeared in the U.S. Constitution in 1789. And even though Missouri joined the Confederacy, it was actually a border state. New Jersey btw, did not abolish slavery until between December 1865 and January 1866. Delaware would be the last state to end the practice in 1901.
@@culturalconfederacy782 Nowhere in article 2 or anywhere else in the constitution does it say who can or can't be a citizen. The constitution was entirely silent on the matter, leaving it up to the states to make that determination. Yet Dredd Scott stole this power away from the states by proclaiming blacks could not be citizens. It was just one many rulings and laws by the federal government that crushed states rights on behalf of the South. The 1850 fugitive slave act went way beyond what the constitution required in the fugitive slave clause. History is clear, the South was not in favor of small government or states rights. They wanted a big federal government who would work on their behalf to preserve slavery.
@@TheStapleGunKid What I was trying to say, is that SCOTUS looked at Article II and determined that Scott did not have the legal standing to sue for freedom because he did not meet the requirement(s) laid out in the article itself. SCOTUS could intervene and hear the case, because it involved a conflict between two states. People at the time believed the Dred Scott decision would solve the issue of slavery once and for all. Instead it did the exact opposite. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and Dred Scott verdict also affected slavery in the border states: MD, KY, MO and DE. Missouri joined the Confederacy, but Maryland and Delaware did not. Nor did these two states secede.
Dr. Guelzo's argument against secession is circuitous as well as flawed. Since he is a scholar on Lincoln I am not surprised. First, the Declaration asserts our natural right to dissolve our ties with a tyrannical government. Since the tariffs were being paid almost solely by the South to the benefit of the North the South had every reason to view themselves as under the boot of the Federal Government. Dr. Guelzo finds it strange that Constitution does not mention Secession, and therefore it must be illegal. I argue the opposite. The Articles of Confederation explicitly denied the right of secession. That supports the argument that right of secession is implicit in the Constitution. I believe the Constitution would never have been ratified had it (the Constitution) precluded secession since many feared it concentrated too much power in the hands of the Federal Government. When Thomas Jefferson told Massachusetts that they were free to secede if they wished it implies that right of secession was taken for granted. Dr. Guelzo also tries to separate the questions of secession and citizenship. They cannot be separated. They are the same question. If secession is legal, and your state secedes you are no longer a citizen of the US. It is interesting that Dr. Guelzo claims that the 13 colonies overthrew a monarchy. Really? You mean King George was no longer in power after the Revolutionary War? That is beyond ridiculous. The 13 colonies seceded and formed their own government. The government in England itself remained intact. What is really amusing is the good Dr.'s condescending tone as he tries convince us of this and the rest of his rubbish. It is also funny that Dr. Guelzo tells us that Lincoln acknowledged to Grant that the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. What he doesn't tell us is that "honest" Abe was giving heavy subsidies to the railroads which got him elected all through the war. It would be nice if this man were a dispassionate historian with no axe to grind, but that is virtually impossible to find.
@@billhere5Maybe you're right. It would be nice if you supported that with a little evidence or an explanation of your logic though. I think holding the Maryland legislature under guard so they couldn't vote on secession, jailing journalists, and suspending habeas corpus are a few examples of tyranny though.
@@xylophonix2376 This is some interesting reading for you. You may investigate further and form your own opinions. www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/
VA when ratifying the Constitution, reserved the right to resume powers so delegated. Virginians believed in this reserved right, and why wouldnt they? The Constitution is a document that establishes a government and also LIMITS that government. Powers not delegated are not considered, thusly, federal powers.
Play right my friend we could use more f****** traitors who turned on their country you took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic how about that man you like to honor a man that betrayed his country you know back in them days to call somebody a traitor was fighting words and I mean quick in a heartbeat so you want to honor a traitor wow 😲 a man that resign his military commissioned as an officer in the Union army to go fight in Virginia for the Virginians Confederacy unfuk and believable. Did you know that he was stripped of his citizenship by Congress and he wouldn't get it again until another seventy eighty years later in 1960 when Congress restored his citizenship posthumously spiritual Great patriotic American so when I hear people say that wow Robin Lee was a patriot yeah a patriot at going to war against his own country now let that sink in dude
Bob was a model school boy in Alexandria, honest and forthright. The PBS one part bio on Lee is great! Yes, most leaders the good ones, and those less so are typically a strong personality and intelligent I look around in the 21st century and wonder "who are these people"! Cheers! P.S. Bob loved to tell tales at the punchbowl. A Grant film is in the works in Hollywood, they all might be in it.
Note: The oath taken at West Point, prior to the war, as to "these United States". Once the States were not "united", what weight did this oath still possess? Some may scoff at this, but the reality of the situation quickly prompted a rewriting of the oath after the War began....they obviously saw the flaw. Lee and Davis were not tried for the fear the case would be lost.
www.amazon.com/View-Constitution-Secession-Taught-Point/dp/0935545182 Rawles, the West Point instructor noted, was very good friends with Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. He was appointed by Washington to be the US Attorney for Pennsylvania. He was the Prosecutor in the trial those caught in Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. He was a Northern Abolitionist who believed in States Rights. Appendix I discusses the subject of Treason. This was inserted as a new chapter (XI) in new versions. Newer versions (not edited by Kennedy) have Kindle format. I prefer eformat over paper any day. Rawle's original book was used as the textbook on US Government as taught at West Point Military Academy only during the year of 1825, long before the Civil War (aka War for Southern Independence). "sure"
B Johnson rawles book being taught one year is far from it being curriculum as was asserted. The question over the legality of secession ultimately brings about the same conclusion as brought up by the speaker in the video. I don't understand defending it on the premise of a president being fairly elected and the minority being unhappy about the results, much less over the fear that slave property would be taken away. It would be as if California and New York seceding because they didn't get their way when Trump got elected. Except in the case of South Carolina and others it's even worse. But hey if you want to defend a people's right to secede because they are unhappy with election results and want to set up a slave holding republic then have at it my friend.
My position is based more upon the secessions of VA NC TN and AR. Specifically, VA ratified the Constitution with the proviso that if felt harmed by the arrangement, they could resume powers so delegated by the federal experiment. When war was to be conducted on the Deep South to coerce them back into the Union, requiring VA and the others to provide troops and engage in a blockade of southern ports,VA exercised that provision. It is curious that VA's ratification did NOT meet with consternation or even debate. It was accepted straight up. This leads to Rawles and the acceptance that secession was a viable course of action for a state. Rawles held this view, taught this view, was friends with Washington and other framers. How could such a view, if so radical, be held by a AG of PA or a teacher at West Point? I contend that both the uncontested acceptance of the VA ratification and the acceptance of Rawles teachings proves that in that era, the right of a state to terminate the federal experiment existed. As the years passed, certainly minds changed...but did the law?
Elephant in the room, here: He never identifies where national sovereignty lies: i.e. whether it's with the Union, or the states; rather, he just argues from ignorance, saying he doesn't see any proof that secession is LEGAL in the Constitution. But the USA made NO valid legal argument of national union, with Lincoln claiming instead that the states were NEVER sovereign-- which is an outright falsehood. So there was no national union, just international-- and secession was just "Brexit."
I stand with General Lee! And on this matter, he was extremely clear, as Dr. Guelzo notes: "Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. *_It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution_* or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr. Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga. statesmen. What can it be now?" --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861 (emphasis added)
The provisions of Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution made unilateral secession legal in 1860- 61. See the text below: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Secession was not a power delegated to the United States government by the Constitution, nor was it prohibited to the states by either the Constitution of any then- existing law. On this basis, the right of secession was reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, they then committed an act of war by Confederate President Davis' order to reduce Fort Sumter- and at a time when the Confederacy was completely unprepared for a conflict. This rendered the legality of secession irrelevant.
Secession did happen and White v. Texas was a post war decision that has no bearing on the Secession of States of the Confederate States that seceded. Secession is legal if sustainable.
@@mcl1169 nope. While "secession is never mentioned in the Constittion", under Article 1, Section 10 it is clearly stated: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..." and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." However, I do agree that doing literally anything illegal is "sustainable" so long as you get away with it.
@@mcl1169 White v. Texas related to bonds sold by the state of Texas. In the decision the court decided that Texas had never stopped being a state. "Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred." The transactions referred to included the Ordinance of Secession. Something being "sustainable" doesn't make it legal. During prohibition many speakeasys were sustainable but not legal. Clearly succession could be made a reality though force of arms but that still wouldn't make it legal according to Chase and company.
Texas v. White wasn't decided any sooner because none of the states asked the Congress to grant secession, or asked the courts to do so. They just up, and decided that they would leave. And then they attacked members of the US military on US property. There is zero excuse for it. Luckily they didn't spend years in prison.
All rights not given to the Federal Govt. are retained by the states which would include succession. Not one of the states would have joined the original Confederacy or the following United States if they had any idea that they could never leave the Union.
Research the States / Common Wealths archived Plat Maps and Property Tax records? How many Slaves do the Majority of Southerners need to Farm a 40 acre to 160 acre Farm? You need to put your remarks in the context to what the Farm s were in 1861.
Dr. Guelzo is an unforgiving and blind reconstructionist and revisionist historian who promotes and embellishes on the Yankee and radical Republican agenda unapologetically and is brought into Southern universities by liberal (often Yankee) academics to undermine the history and values of Dixie. His arguments when confronted by historians of the true history of the Southland fall like autumn leaves. When he has the pulpit to himself and speaks to the ignorant he sounds convincing if his listeners have particularly been brought up on and groomed in revisionist history since the cradle and taught the mantra of nationalistic socialism and historical revisionism that the South has been subjected to, particularly in the last fifty years in public schools and in the media. But when Dr. Guelzo shares the stage with any one of the numerous highly qualified Southern scholars of Southern history his words are nothing more than the thumping on a hollow log standing in the Dismal Swamp, in which no matter how loud he bellows, civilization can not hear him. When he is confronted with true intelligence and history to oppose his lame arguments he gets his hide stripped.
Certainly did. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
If Lee was guilty of treason, then what laws did Abe break? Many, but Lee was never brought to court, never tried, Old Abe got what was coming to him.It is strange how justice is served,aint it? No, Abe was the criminal, Lee a hero. I do respect your opinion,but disagree.
Is seceding, is the resumption of powers delegated to a federal experiment as noted in the ratification (which was accepted without debate) making war? Or is it invoking a power noted in an agreement (ratification)?
Lincoln asked Lee to lead the Union Army against his neighbors in Virginia. Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address called for "malice toward none" to "bind the nation's wounds", and after Lincoln's assassination, Lincoln's own party disregarded Lincoln's call and punished the south, even a few states that were not part of the confederacy. Lee served the U.S. well before and after the Civil War. Lincoln's generals destroyed the courthouses of the South, and the family and property records stored within. The North wanted the South because their economy depended upon the South. Lee did not want to dissolve the Union, but he could not lead an army against Virginia.
tgamful You're correct, but Lee should have convinced the confederates to stand down, or he should have left stayed at home and out of the war. There was no reason he had to take up arms because he didn't want to fight against Virginia. Heck, he could have moved to another country and become an expat and sat out the whole thing. No need to commit treason and no need to fight against Virginia.
"[T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them." --Virginia-born Union General George Henry Thomas.
@@tomcockburn653 If Lee was trying to save Virginia, he did not think it through too well; warfare is not a saving action. He drew the fight to Virginia and destroyed it. Today there are markers for battlefields everywhere there--proof of the lives lost and devastation of the area. Staying in the Union wasn't a bad fate for non slaveholders, (95% of the population) and it only meant loss of face and power for the slavemaster group, same as was happening throughout Europe as industrialization superseded agrarian economies. Lee knew winning the war was not possible, yet he doggedly kept the killing, maiming and destruction going until total exhaustion. Although he did more harm to the South and Virginia than anyone, he is celebrated for fighting. George Thomas was right; the plantations should have been carved into Homestead Act plots and the perpetrators, the former confederates, should have been hanged.
@@tomcockburn653 Is THAT what the confederate sympathizers told you? They lied. Note that when the confederates did lose, the Union didn't kill everyone. They didn't even hang the traitors that led the rebellion, so you're hating fo no reason at all. The South is not and never was a separate country. Pretending it was and hating your own country based on that concept simply creates poverty and ignorance.
There was only one federal court district in Virginia in 1865 so the place of trial is not a problem constitutionally. It is the state Lee reasoned that pulled him out with it even if he thought 💭 personally secession was not power states had it was accepted widely enough that it was ambiguous. He felt he was following the laws of a sovereign entity. People needed to hate on someone for the suffering the war had caused.
The place of trial wasn't a problem constitutionally, but it was a problem because it was considered impossible to find an impartial jury. That seems like a pretty good assumptioin, considering how many people in the comments still think secession is legal.
@@andystitt3887 Apparently they didn't think so. I'm certainly no expert on potential jury pools in Virginia in 1865. I would have thought that trying him in Maryland or even better Pennsylvania would have been a better option, but the fact is that Grant considered the terms of Lee's surrender to give him immunity from prosecution, and Johnson wanted to give a big middle finger to the radical Republicans, so the issue died for lack of political will, not for strictly legal reasons. Personally I'm inclined to agree with Grant's legal position.
@@andystitt3887 Maybe the law is more clear than I imagine (I'm not a lawyer, that's for sure) but it seems to me like it'd be a pretty foggy situation. I assume that generals or other officers have or had the authority the offer terms to enemy combatants. This is intended, I think, to give generals the option to prevent further bloodshed and destruction; honoring those terms is necessary to assure any future adversaries of the advantage of surrender instead of fighting to the bitter end, to say nothing of ensuring that our enemies honor the terms if we're forced to surrender to them on some occasion. But what if those enemies are rebels and surrender in the jurisdiction in which they committed treason? I don't know. Maybe I need to go to law school.
A quick compliment to the editor. SOOOO many college lectures on RUclips fail to show the slides and only show the speaker. Thank you for doing both.
Also his shadow
“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in he Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.”
- Robert E. Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861
_"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861.
Certainly that is an eloquent statement...and if he hadn't been directly responsible for the deaths of large numbers of U.S. troops, I might have thought him wrong, but nonetheless supported him and his right to be wrong. However eloquently one justifies one's position, however "right" one believes it is, you cannot go off and shoot dead U.S. troops on U.S. soil and expect to get away with it scot-free. Certainly that seems obvious in the modern age, and I am not sure I believe the outcome really "deserves" to have been different then.
The real difference is pure realpolitik, there were so many ex-confederates who shared moral culpability for the treason and the deaths that it was more pragmatic in healing the nation to let it go than to seek to punish anyone, even among those whose blame was the most egregious. The will of the the hundreds of thousands of ex-confederate soldiers to fight was, at that moment in history, broken and seeking justice would have: (a) felt to them like retribution and (b) possibly reignited the will to fight in too many of them (regionally, at least, being more likely than "all across the South"). Otherwise, as so often happens, the price of justice for the dead was just too high to pay.
Plus, to be fair, those fired up due to the assassination of Lincoln probably were just looking for retribution for that death and not true justice.
@@Pandaemoni I think you forgot who the invaders were.
@@TheStapleGunKid do people have a right to "vote with their feet?" Leave an oppressive place and take with them their private property and assets?
@@drew7155 Of course they do. But they don't have the right to try and carve out a portion of a nation to create their own slave empire. Anyone who felt America in 1860 was oppressive (it wasn't) was free to leave at any time. The problem wasn't that the Southerners wanted to leave, it's that they wanted to declare a portion of the nation their own for the sole purpose of preserving and expanding slavery.
At every history lecture, there's always at least one person in the audience who takes six minutes to give a mini-lecture instead of asking a question.
It is required by law it seems! There is also the "ask a simple question using needlessly fancy language to look smart" guy and "asks a painfully obvious question if you paid attention to the lecture" guy and many many more. But the guy who "asks" the 10 minute question is definitely the worst since they take forever while also being cringey.
At least in this case the questioner asked a rather astute question that I think gets to heart of whether Lee was a traitor. So I am a bit more forgiving this time.
@@Jon.A.Scholt In this case, the lecturer makes a fool of himself by ignoring the fact that the States are the sovereign entities in our Union, and this sovereignty and the power of the States are derived from the sovereign People.
When the majority of the People of a State elect to withdraw from a Union, they are exercising an unalienable right of man that is clearly and plainly stated in the Declaration of Independence.
@@Jon.A.Scholt Guelzo gives a masterclass here in how to own a heckler without being rude.....lay down facts with a pleasant smile.
@Dennis Sullivan Texas v. White was a politically motivated opinion issued for the sole purpose of justifying an illegal war of invasion and conquest against a free, independent, and sovereign State.
The States have always been sovereign and independent entities. All 13 of the original colonies were recognized as free, independent, and sovereign States by England via the Treaty of Paris dtd 3rd September 1783. The Articles of Confederation, which is the only document to mention a perpetual union, also expressly defines the States as sovereign.
There was no rebellion. The States which seceded from the Union simply exercised the unalienable right of the people to reform their own government in their pursuit of happiness.
Given: the Constitution of the United States forms a NEW union.
Given: all 13 of the member nations of the original United States did implicitly secede.
Given: a sovereign power has the right to withdraw any cessions made by treaty or compact (and the Constitution is nothing else).
If the 13 original member nations of the United States did not have the power to secede, then the Articles of Confederation are still in effect and the federal government is virtually powerless.
Otherwise, the States which seceded in 1860 and 1861 had the lawful right to exercise the will of their people to withdraw from the union and to resume their full sovereign powers.
You treasonous Lincolnites have never been known for your ability to reason.
This was very interesting. A great presentation with a legal level-headed approach. Thank you
Lee's resignation from the US Army was to his mind immediate. That the bureaucratic red tape took 5 days is a technicality.At that point in time there was a certain level of honor, dignity, and decency among men. This technicality would have been ignored by any reasonable jury or judge.
The only thing Robert Ely did was become a traitor to his country he was given an order by the president of the United States is CNC commander-in-chief of all the so you're great Patriot with a goddamn traitor and that statement stands on his own . This is only a movie but it probably exactly the meeting went exactly like
ruclips.net/video/aeGBpTFZhh4/видео.html
@@charlesneely 1. Lincoln never issued any order to Union Colonel Robert E. Lee. 2. Lee was OFFERED full command of all Union forces after the surrender of Ft. Sumter by Preston Blair at Lincoln's direction. Lee said to Blair at the Blair House across the street from the White House, " "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves at the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?" 3. Every officer in all branches of the Armed Forces of the United States receive a commission from the President, as approved by Congress. 4. All officers can resign their commission and exit service. This is what Lee did and it is completely legal per the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. Lee was not a traitor. Lee was against secession and said so. However, once Virginia seceded Lee defended his home, and country, Virginia. 6. Even before 1776, and after 1787 all Americans considered themselves Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, Etc. They considered their state as their country first, and the United States as their nation, second. That's why each and every unit, North, and South was designated with a number, and the state from which they came. The 54th Massachusetts, The 20th Maine, 2nd Virginia Infantry, et. al. 5. Grant, in following Lincoln's desire to "Bind up the Nation's Wounds" was magnanimous with the terms of surrender and parole at Appomattox Courthouse when Lee surrendered. 6. After Lee had left a Union Army Band began to play in celebration. Grant sent out the order, “The war is over; the rebels are our countrymen again; and the best sign of rejoicing after the victory will be to abstain from all demonstrations in the field.” Meaning there would be no songs or tunes sung or played in celebration of the defeat of the rebels. These men had honor, dignity, and respect for one another even though they were adversaries. Something you could never understand.
@dennissullivan1651 You left out some things as well. Grant and Longstreet met during the Mexican-American War. Grant then dated Longstreet's fourth cousin Julia Dent who he married. Longstreet attended the wedding. Also, after the war Longstreet joined the Republican Party during Reconstruction in the South, and supported Grant for President. Longstreet attended Grant's inauguration and six days later was made the Surveyor of Customs for New Orleans. Because of these choices Longstreet drew the contempt and disdain of a great many Southerners. Lee had no such connection to Grant, and only wanted to live out the remainder of his life in peace and not be involved in politics of any kind. However, Judge John C. Underwood, the US District judge for Norfolk handed down indictments against Lee and others. Lee wrote to Grant and Grant went to Johnson. Grant told Johnson that Lee and the others couldn't be tried as long as they observed the terms of their parole. Johnson asked when could they be tried and Grant said "Never.". Johnson wasn't about to go against the Hero of the Union, and he was in the beginnings of an investigation that would lead to impeachment proceedings in the House. The charges were dropped and Lee never knew that Grant had interceded on his behalf.
Treason requires knowing and willfully making war against the United States. If he intended resign immediately then he cannot be guilty for something out of his control.
@@warlord8954 In general your points are well taken and accurate, but under # 5 and 6 I beg to make a few corrections.
5. Lee, by the letter mentioned in the video (which was to his son Rooney, I believe, not his wife) Lee recognized that 'secession' was actually 'revolution', and was illegal. He noted that Virginia opposed the short-lived New England secessionists in the early 1800's and Virginia's position in 1861 was hypocritical and legally wrong, though he was willing to stand by her come what may. Honest people can disagree about whether or not that was honorable on his part, but it's nearly impossible to argue that he didn't know what he was doing. You can find the letter in the Lee Family Online Archives if you wish to read it in full.
6. "all Americans" did not consider their home state to be their primary citizenship. Obviously such Virginians as George Thomas and Winfield Scott disagreed; and some northerners, notably Pennsylvanian John Pemberton, also disagreed and fought for the rebels. By your definition, Pemberton and his ilk *would* have been a traitor and liable to hanging.
It is likewise incorrect that to say that "each and every unit" had a state designation. That was of course the majority, but from the very beginning of the war, the U.S. Army had both infantry and artillery designated as national units, and of course the U.S. Navy was a national force as well.
It is worth adding that men could and frequently did cross state lines to enlist in states in which they did not have residency, to say nothing of their state of nativity. How could this be under your concept?
Thank you for your kind consideration of my comment.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~Thomas Jefferson
About New York joining union.
To Alexander Hamilton from James Madison, [20 July 1788]
From James Madison1
N. York Sunday Evening [July 20, 1788]2My dear Sir
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that3 she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the new Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such a case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more. Know my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
Js: Madison
This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection:
At that time there were only 18 states. Mexico, Spain and France all owned parts of what would become The United States. Even Jefferson would have changed him mind about all of the fights he always seemed to support.
Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was a supporter of the original Confederation and was afraid that the States would be sold out to a nationalistic government. He co-authored the Kentucky resolution to allow for its session from Virginia and encourage the same for what became Ohio and Illinois. Jefferson believed that a governable people was 30,000 and felt that when a polity exceeded that number it was the natural state of matter in the human sphere to divide and form new polities. Jefferson believed in small government where democratic principles work best and where republican values and accountability function. These were the principles of the Confederacy and today are best described in the Republican Party, the Libertarians and in the Tea Party, and by Constituionalist.
@@cliffpage7677 Jefferson became a worthless slaveowner. He created financial instruments at banks and insurance companies to leverage slaves, and promoted breeding slaves to make more money. He refused Lafayette's estate to buy out his slaves, too. He does not rest in peace.
_"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an 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"_ --James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster
What an enjoyable and illuminating lecture from Dr Guelzo.
And very thought provoking as well.
Robert Lee had a cousin, Samuel Phillips Lee, who stayed loyal to the Union and served in the navy as an Admiral. When asked why he stayed in the Union, Samuel Lee said _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy."_
For a thorough biography of Admiral S. P. Lee, see "Lincoln's Lee: The Life of Samuel Phillips Lee, United States Navy, 1812-1897" by my friend Dudley Taylor Cornish and Virginia Laas.
Which isn't relevant since lee was no longer part of the army.
@@drewdurbin4968 Only because he resigned to go fight for the slave empire.
@@TheStapleGunKid Considering only 20% of Southerners owned slaves. That's including black and Indian slave owners. To say it was a Slave empire is a stretch.
@@Wadzillia You are missing the point. The issue isn't percentage of slave owners, it's the reason why the CSA was formed, which was to preserve and expand slavery: _"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."_ --CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens.
That's what makes the CSA a slave empire.
Amazing how a non lawyer making subtle legal arguments, which franky he has no abilty to make, is being praised.
It comes down to a single, simple issue:
If people agree to participate in a democracy, do they then have the right to back out when it doesn't go their way? Do they have the right to say "We'll participate in this government. We'll abide by the Rule of Law as determined by our elected representatives. But _only if WE always win!_ If we don't get our way then we'll take our ball and go home! We'll tolerate you 'others' voting for your people, but at the end of the day, we're only going to abide if we get our way!"
No! That ain't how a democracy works!
The correct, _constitutional_ response of the southern states to Lincoln's election should have been, in so many words "He won. We lost. We don't like it, but that's how it is. We'll try again in 1864."
You have no understanding of the founders and the foundation of this country.
@@Seenya59 James Madison said an unilateral secession isn't permitted by the US constitution without an explicit consent from other members. By the way, the founders were victors and the Confederates were losers. I believe that's the major difference.
Defensor Rationis
- Wow! Oversimplify much? It was a hell of a lot more than just Lincoln winning the election. From the viewpoint of the Confederacy, succession was justified. Lincoln's reaction to succession was that of a tyrant. A megalomaniacal, depressive, closeted gay tyrant who suspended habeas corpus and threw journalists in jail. A USA and CSA would have lived side by side in peace; much like the USA and Canada do today. Not worth the cost in lives and those maimed to "preserve the Union". Gag.
it comes down to a single issue MONEY. Every European country in 19th Century experienced conflict when Industry created more wealth than agriculture. 13 independent states became 3 interdependent regions with textiles industry producing the most wealth for the nation. How that economic development was regulated changed drastically, thus it is called "Industrial Revolution," the governmental responsibilities in ways not anticipated by the Founders. North was correct in needing greater central authority, but overbearing arrogance of wealthy industrialists of Samuel Barlow, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Edmond Dwight, Kirk Boot, in appropriating inappropriate amount of the Federal Budget for Canals for water powering Textile Mills and RRs to transport cotton to their Mills, was an abuse called Crony Capitalism. But the utter hypocrisy of justifying Lincoln's threat of War, in first inaugural, as some righteous crusade is inexcusable.
@@Greenfield-li3bg Virginia was the richest and most important State in 1987 in the Constitutional Convention that created the United States out of the original Confederacy. Virginia agreed to accepted this ratification under a proviso that was in writing. (1) that 12 issues would be amended to the Constitution (2) that the Constitution would include a long list of terms which were adopted into the Constitution (3) that Virginia had a right to secede (that term was not used, but expressed) and the grounds for such secession. The Constitution was written by a Virginian James Madison and the Virginia Delegation was led by George Mason who was the leader in the Amendments stand, particularly the first clause of the First Amendment - the separation of church and state. Virginia was not the only state to write into its acceptance of a constitution its right to secede. The Constitution does not say that States have a right to secede, but it dos provide equall protection and rights to all states and if one state is treated one way, all the others must be treated equally. Because Virginia had a right to secede in its terms of ratification, all other States also must be accorded those same rights. South Carolina was another state that had a written agreement. In 1828 South Carolina threatened to secede over the Tariff of Abomination and that almost created a war then, except for the Compromise of Henry Clay. Those same onerous tariffs were reimposed in 1860 under Buchanan and Lincoln and that to the cotton states was an onerous and tyrannical act of abuse, which gave them the right to secede. This tariff was supporting 85% of of the Federal Treasurer, and they saw their wealth going to pay for Northern and Western railroad expansion and industrialization. This was not fair or equitable and the South resented it. Cotton was the driving force behind the British Industrial Revolution and Northern financiers greed and the profits were being siphoned off for the benefit of the North, unfairly. Seven states did secede, and Lincoln tried to invade and blockade Charleston to collect the tariff, and refused to meet with President Davis's delegation who brought an offer of compensation for Federal lands, fortifications and property. Lincoln invaded Virginia, which was not part of the Confederacy at the time, after burning the Gosport Navy Yard in Portsmouth and part of the City. Virginia Militia defended themselves against Federal invasion at Manassas, twice and the rest of the Southern states joined the Confederacy.
This is the true history of what transpired and not the boilerplate Federalist historical revisionism that has bee poured down the throats of American school children for 150 years. Secession was legal. The South accepted within its rights and responded with honor to its invasion and abuse.
If they actually considered Lee a member of the US army since his resignation wasn't accepted until later, then they surely would have charged and pursued him for abandoning his post long before the end of the war.
If the colonies had to choose to opt in to the United States, then they certainly had the choice to not be a part of it. Does the constitution say that it is an everlasting contract?
Also, West Virgina was allowed to "secede" from Virginia even though creating new states by taking from an existing state, without the consent of all parties involved, is illegal. Is West Virginia therefore illegitimate?
That 'option ' to not join in the United States as you term it, was not entertained or allowed in the times of the American Revolution. Don't kid yourself there.
In light of today's political calisthenics it's interesting that nothing seems to have changed in the course of human events. Interesting lecture and Q and A.
I would argue that until secession was declared by the courts as null and void, that secession legally wasn't treason. Holding Lee legally responsible for violating a legal transgression that has not been defined would be akin to an ex post facto law.
No.
Secession wasn't treason, due to the fact that each state is a separate sovereign nation, and there was never a national union; and courts have NO POWER over sovereign nations.
This professor is wholly ignorant of the law, so he just WAFFLES over it.
Every state that joined the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787 agreed to Article VI, in which they agreed to subordinate themselves to the Federal government including the Congress, the President, and the Federal courts. To reject the authority of the government under the Constitution is not legal under Article VI. The provisions of the Constitution are self executing and legally effective, and do not require an adjudication by Federal courts before they take effect. Robert Lee violated his oath to support and defend the United States and the Constitution as a US Army officer.
Dr. Allen Guelzo gave a talk on "Did Robert E. Lee commit treason?" at Gettyburg College. The talk is on RUclips and I recommend you watch it. In short, Lee was not charged with treason because
1) Grant (and Sherman) would likely have resigned in protest and made a fuss over Lee or any other Confederate who had surrendered under their terms being charged with treason, as this would be a betrayal of the terms of surrender and they considered this a betrayal of a promise made by them personally and the US government;
2) Legally, while Lee was indeed a soldier of the US Army, he was also a citizen of Virginia, and there was no legal interpretation where a citizen's duty lay after secession (which also was a legally untested concept). Lee had been against secession, but once Virginia seceded Lee's (if one assumes the legality of secession) first loyalty would be to the state of Virginia, and that's the way he saw it. Ergo, he resigned from the US army to fulfill his loyalty to his native state.
Ergo, punishing Lee and any other Confederate soldier for treason would be akin to applying an ex post facto legal construction, as these things had not been interpreted by any court at that time. Even with Jefferson Davis and the non-military members of the Confederate government was not done as the Chase and others did not want the case of the legality of secession going to the Supreme Court (moreover, the trial would have been held in Richmond, in front of a likely sympathetic jury, and any acquittal would have been seen as a vindication of the legality of secession). Moreover, Davis's imprisonment drew him the sympathy of many prominent Northerners, including staunch pro-Union abolitionists , so any prosecution of Davis would likely have been politically unpopular. SCOTUS did not make any ruling on secession until 1869, by which time Davis had been released.
Lee would not have been charged with treason for seceding, because the argument from the other side was that secession *_could not take place._* And acts called "secession" were the acts of state governments, not individuals. The charge against Lee would not have been for secession, but for *_making war_* on the United States.
@@raymondswenson1268 Stewart, you're very wrong. The constitution specifically forbade succession. Period. Lee was a traitor to his country. Period.
A little confused by the very end of this video. Can somebody please explain because it seems to run in contrast with the rest of what he is saying?
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln, First inaugural Address, March 4th, 1861
Try looking up the "Black Codes" that existed in the North prior to, during, and after the Civil War. Indiana had a complete prohibition on any blacks, free of slave from even entering the state. The Illinois Constitution of 1948 prohibited blacks, free or slave from entering. If a slave was brought into the state, the owner had 6 months to sell the slave to a slave owner in a slave state. And of course there was almost a complete prohibition on free blacks from voting in almost all northern states. So, tell me again about how noble the north was.
Robert DuBois The North was not "noble" in anyone's opinion here. The North was in control and decided that slavery was no longer desirable in the United States. Period. The precarious dependence of the South on slavery was actually a very good reason to abolish it, actually. The North was ingenious at finding ways to use taxes and tariffs to siphon off the excess profits from the free labor of slavery.
Southerners were hubristic largely because of their superiority complex in owning slaves, considering themselves somehow more important than slaves, then better than Yankees, and so on. Neither Jefferson Davis nor any of his ministers or generals thought it necessary to placate the North or even to negotiate with them during the war; to them, their desires should just be acceded to, not questioned because they were the mighty slaveowners, rich because they didn't pay for labor and life-and-death powerful over enslaved humans.
The North didn't like the laziness and immaturity of people who lived in slaveowner society, the threat to free men in the territories or the international humiliation of being behind the curve on abolishing slavery. I don't think that they were morally repulsed or wanted to help the slaves. The terrible lives of the freed blacks after the war proves that.
The South repeatedly attempted to negotiate a peace with the North. Lincoln was having none of it. And historically there were more Southerners in Ivy League schools in the US and abroad. Southerners weren't hubristic from owning slaves. They were because they were making the most money in the US. The Bank of New Orleans had almost as much money as all of NY City banks. There were more millionaires in the South than there were in the North.
Also, see my replies to Aaron Fleming right here on other historical facts. I've been studying the Civil War for a good part of my life.
Look up the Corwin Amendment. If you do that, and are intellectually honest, we can talk and have an actual discussion. If you want a discussion.
This man's vocal and narrative style is impeccable! His diction and expression are as good as, if not better than, the great Alexander Scourby.
Too bad his FACTS are wrong.
The American Revolution won the war as thirteen separate sovereign nations;
meanwhile the USA claimed that this never happened, but that 1) they were non-sovereign states, and that
therefore 2) the Constitution united them as a single nation. This was a LIE, and this professor is ignorant of it.
Actually, I found it an odd and mildly distracting oral delivery. It was certainly well written.
i procrastinated so much on watching this video because i was afraid of a boring lengthy speech but i heard his introduction and i was like: i am ready to be educated by this man
Outstanding talker.
You weren't educated, because he's WRONG.
The American Revolution won the war as thirteen separate sovereign nations;
meanwhile the USA claimed that this never happened, but that 1) they were non-sovereign states, and that
therefore 2) the Constitution united them as a single nation. This was a LIE, and this professor is ignorant of it.
This is a very interesting talk, which provides considerable insight into the issue of "Was Robert E. Lee a traitor". Professor Guelzon takes the theoretical position of Abraham Lincoln and lays the groundwork for positions taken by various parties including Gen U. S. Grant, President Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Samuel Chase, and other lesser but very important figures surrounding this issue. He explains well the important distinction of rebellion vs. secession. I very much agree with his logic in this distinction. In one specific, I take objection. I will presume that he is trying to speak for Lincoln historically, but he gives no reason to believe that it is not his position also. I believe that Lincoln was quite wrong in his logic and arguments that the Southern states were in rebellion. Professor Guelzo is certainly aware of the dangerous waters that Lincoln was treading in making such assertions, but fails to fully explain to his audience why this was so. That needs to be understood by all the Sons of Dixie.
The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified in 1787 without the agreement and support of Virginia. Virginia ratified the Constitution with provisos and recommendations for both a Bill of Rights and for Amendments which is laid out at length. Particularly it stated in its ratifying agreement that "in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that 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..." This statement was an assertion that spoke to the right of Virginia to secede from the union. The Virginia Article of Secession was a peaceful exit from the Union. Furthermore, the Article also absolved its ratification of the Constitution. The break with the Union was clear and incisive and inclusive. At the time the standing army of the United States was very small and insufficient to carry out any war against anyone. The states all had militias who came under the authority and command of their Governors. The other States also had ratifying statements of rights of secession like Virginia. Texas had been an independent republic, which gained its freedom from Mexico, not Great Britain, and voluntarily joined the Union with a written agreement of secession also. (In the case of Texas v. White, this issue is not addressed and the fact that various states had ratified the Constitution with written provisos of their rights to secession is hardly mentioned by many historians today.) The Constitution requires that all States coming into the Union must do so as republican forms of government. It also guarantees a republican form of national government. Furthermore, all States are guaranteed equal rights, therefore, the rights of secession as expressed in the ratification agreements of the various States are equally guaranteed and protected for all the other States. This is an unwritten guarantee of secession that is not directly addressed in the body of the Constitution itself. Virginia had a right to secede and therefore every other State had an equal right.
Virginia twice voted in the referendum regarding secession. First, it voted not to secede and then it changed its mind after the Gosport Naval Shipyard was burned, Federal troops abandoned it and part of Portsmouth was burned in the conflagration. Then-President Lincoln demanded of the Governor's, troops (he wanted to raise a 75,000 man force to march on Charleston) to cross their borders, which Virginia refused. United States troops marched into Virginia and invaded the State without the Governor's permission and were defeated twice at Manassas. Virginia was protecting its own State sovereignty from invasion. The US Constitution prohibited bringing Federal troops into a state without the express permission of the State Legislature or the Governor if the Legislature was not in session. Virginia joined the Confederacy for its own defense. Maryland had been invaded and half of her Legislators arrested by Mr. Lincoln, habeas corpus suspended unconstitutionally by him, and newspapers shut down and editors and publishers arrested.
The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia was first flown at the Second Battle of Manassas by Gen Thomas Jackson. It would later become universally recognized as the standard of the Confederacy and this Battle Flag and was adopted as the Confederate Naval ensign, in its elongated form. The Southern States were not in rebellion, nor were they military rebels. The Southern States that removed themselves from the Union did so peacefully. These states formed a new collective confederation of equal standing to their old alliance the United States.
The first victim of Mr. Lincoln's War was a Florida Militiaman shot and killed by Federal troops in Pensacola. President Lincoln attempted to land Marines in Charleston after South Carolina seceded, but their Commander refused to land and carry out his orders, knowing that to do so was a violation of the Constitution and that this would have been an act of war against a sovereign state. This action took place while Virginia and other middle-Southern States were in Peace Conference with Congress in Washington, Lincoln and Sen. Corwin were proposing to the South the acceptance of slavery in exchange for no secession. Then Lincoln sent an armed flotilla to South Carolina and the Star of the West exhibited that she was armed (after giving its word that it was only reprovisioning Fort Sumpter with food) by mistakingly firing on a USN vessel. These actions by Lincoln were aggressive acts of war, which precipitated the firing on Fort Sumpter which Lincoln intended to use as a provocation to impose the Morell Tariff upon South Carolina, even after she had seceded. South Carolina seceded as she had threatened to do in 1824 over the Tariff of Abomination. That secession was only avoided by the Great Compromiser Henry Clay. At the same time that South Carolina seceded the Mayor of New York and his Council voted to secede, but reversed themselves when the NY Governor threatened to use the State Militia to invade the City if they did from the State and the Union. Town Line above Buffalo, NY did secede at the same time and was the last community to officially return to the Union during the Truman Administration in 1946. They flew the flag of the Confederacy and its Firemen wore a patch of that flag on their uniforms until that time. They seceded, like Virginia when Lincoln tried to call up his 75,000-man army to invade Dixie. Before the War, most states and citizens understood and believed in the rights of their sovereign states to secede. That right was not specifically noted in the Constitution, but in the ratifying words of various States and in the words of equal protection that indeed were in the Constitution as a guarantee!
One additional last caveat. President Buchanan and his Attorney General concluded and stated that the Federal Executive could do nothing to prohibit a state from seceding and to reflect that belief he entered into a military armistice with the Confederate States before Lincoln took office. Lincoln broke this armistice by ordering a blockade and sending a naval force to Charleston and Pensacola to seize the military forts there. Likewise following the capitulation of the Confederacy the advice from the US Attorney General regarding a trial for President Jefferson Davis for treason was strongly opposed and such a trial would undermine the US revolution and the trumped-up reasons for the United States invading and causing war against the Southern States. Davis never asked for pardon or to have his citizenship restored. Instead, he insisted that the United States try him for treason to throw him in the briar patch. Davis has resigned from his position of Senator representing Mississippi when his State withdrew from the Union. The only Senator who did not take such action was Senator Johnson of Tennesee who was a firm Unionist. He was later impeached by the Radical Republican Congress, but acquitted by a single vote.
Thank you for history lesson, and I thought that I was sort of on top of this topic.
I do not really understand why this is still an issue.
Was there a trial, was there a conviction? No, therefore he is innocent!
@@GorinRedspear His citizenship was revoked. Lee died a man without a country. He should have been hanged but Grant saved him.
"....were defeated twice at Manassas. In both instances, these battles took place before Virginia had joined the Confederacy."
Not even close to being true. Check your facts.
@@nora22000Lee spent his post war life promoting Union and reconciliation. You really should do some reading.
Lee's citizenship argument is hollow because Virginia did not forcebly conscript him into it's army, he was essentially a volunteer. Their is no compelling force exerted by Virginia on him to take the moral decision out of his hands. If Lee is a dual citizen of both Virginia and the US his only choice is to be a non-combatant as then he will not be committing treason on either of his citizenship statusus. As a legal argument only the removal of his US citizenship would free him the crime of treason, but this implies that Virginia's sucession can unilaterally strip a person of their US citizenship, which is clearly impossible.
The central government was already corrupted beyond mending when Lincoln was elected. The War of Northern Invasion" was 100% Lincoln's war. He wanted it, he promoted it, he manipulated the South to get it, and he deserved a much more painful death than he got.
Guelzo makes the astute point in his book that Lee was raised in Alexandria before it was actually part of Virginia- since the Lost Cause folks like to split so many hairs....
@@gordonsheaffer1863 And the intellectuals love to sit around, those self righteous characters, those who would be sailing around on their million dollar yachts shadowed by New York's skyline, demanding that Lee and Davis be hanged for treason. Lee and Davis being judged by those who in their own pompous, arrogant ways deserve the gallows much more than Lee and Davis who were just pawns in a much bigger game. There wasn't a single New York banker that didn't deserve to be hanged. Even Lincoln said that the Southern army wasn't his biggest enemy. His biggest enemy were the New York bankers. The longer the war lasted, the richer the bankers get. Today, as in the past centuries, the world banks have been financing both sides of the wars being fought. Don't matter who wins or loses, the world banks always walk away with the gold. This world is owned and controlled by Satan but for a good reason. God is allowing Satan to hold this Earth captive to drive mankind into aversion therapy to force mankind to become sick and tired of being sick and tired of man's form of government in which man has taken on satanic nature in order to govern. God is proving to puny, pompous, arrogant man that apart from God and His Ten Commandments, man is incapable of ruling over man. As long as Satan sits on the throne of Earth, man and woman will continue to be submissive to Satan's way of me, me, me, get, get, get, self pleasure, hedonistic lifestyle and instant gratification. Only when Jesus Christ returns the second time in power and glory and casts Satan and his demons from Earth into outer darkness will man and woman be free to submit to God's way of life. Only then will their judgment and salvation begin. Only then will the wickedness and evil be removed from this Earth and from the minds of humanity.
@41:19 This is the short answer for this 40 minute lecture. Yes, he did commit treason. End of story.
Thanks for saving my time!
False
Ah yes, and Lincoln killing hundreds of thousands of people that wanted to leave the Union is so sane and good. Lmao.
If an officer of the United States Army can resign and the men take up arms against the country to whom he had pledged allegiance cannot be found guilty of treason than who can?
@Bob Simpletown A country (the United States) cannot invade a state (such as Virginia) because the word "invade" presupposes that it is a sovereign and independent power that is violently moving its armed forces into another sovereign and independent power. The United States is a sovereign and independent power. The individual states are not and have never been so. Thus, the Union never invaded any state.
@Bob Simpletown Please cite in the U. S. Constitution where it says that each individual state is its own sovereign and independent nation.
@Bob Simpletown 1. Re: "There were sovereign states, not nations." - That is a contradiction in terms because sovereign states are by definition nations and vice versa
2. Re: "Where in the US Constitution does it say that the states can not secede from the Union?" - The question that needs to be asked is, Where in the US Constitution does it say that the states can secede from the Union? Surely if the Founding Fathers and the agreeing states thought that if there should be a constitutional way for the states to exit from the Union then they would have specifically stated so in it. Additionally they would have included in the US Constitution a specifically laid out, detailed procedure for doing so. The US Constitution is, in its essence, a contract. For years I owned a construction industry business and signed many contracts. If the parties involved thought that there should be some legal way to withdraw from the agreement then in that contract and before they signed it they outlined a specific, detailed, step by step process by which that could be accomplished. Finally, in Texas v. White (1869) the U. S. Supreme Court ruled flatly that secession was unconstitutional. see www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White.
3. Re: "When the Constitution is silent on anything, the issue is left to be decided by the states. That would be the 10th amendment." - The 10th Amendment says verbatim, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - see www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992. On the basis of the 10th Amendment itself the votes to secede were unconstitutional because they only represented the southern white, male, landed gentry. In other words, they did not include black people, women, and most poor white folks. The vote of only a segment of a state's population cannot be constitutionally representative of that entire state and, thus, cannot express that state's will. In short, the 10th Amendment itself invalidates the secessionist vote.
@Bob Simpletown false. That state is part of the country. So the country can go where it pleases
@@raymondjelich185 you really can't understand the declaration you just wrote because you can't understand basic facts that you didn't list
If you were offered an army for the purpose of invading your own state, killing your own people, what would you do? All the people passing judgement are ignorant and arrogant. Most of them aren’t even worthy of touching the ground Lee walked on. He was an amazing person and soldier. What he did, he did out of honor and a sense of duty.
Sure he fought for his freedom to take away the freedom of others. He still fought against the US which makes him a traitor. No man on earth has the right to put others into slavery or even discriminate against another people. If they are so superior, why are they so dumb!
Once I would have agreed with you. Not so much now. The more I learned the less I agreed with your statement. 1/3 of all the West Point officers from Virginia stayed I. The US Army during the Civil War. That’s 33%. The other 2/3’s got it wrong. I would have stayed loyal to my country not my state. Lee was a rebel just like the rest of them. And if I had been in charge back then I would have put Lee, Jeff Davis, all the higest ranking members of the Confederate millitary and every single state legislator who voted for succession, on trial for treason and everyone else would have been spared. But those individuals would have went on trial and I think we all know what happened to people who were found guilty of treason.
@@NathanDean79 I’m not sure you understand what treason is. Treason is a breach of allegiance and of the faithful support a citizen owes to the sovereignty within which he lives. Lee lived in Virginia. The sovereign state of Virginia seceded from the United States. Lee was no more committing treason than any of our founders were against the crown of England. Another aspect of treason is the attempted overthrow of your government. None of the confederates tried to overthrow the government of the United States. They simply tried to separate themselves. By definition that’s a revolution, not a civil war. Nothing they did fits the definition of treason. Quite frankly if you’re the type of person who would fight against your own family, your own community and kill your own people then you have no honor and no real sense of duty. If you think your allegiance to your country supersedes your allegiance to your family and your community I have to question your integrity.
@@davidkomyate8014 He swore a sacred oath to the United States of America, and to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution. He broke that oath. Instead of fulfilling that oath, he joined the secessionist who had already aggressively attacked the United States. That sounds like a treacherous traitor to me. This “state loyalty” whitewashing is bullshit.
I agree with you 100% Sir! God bless. And thank you for the defense of Lee.
Thank you for posting this very entertaining and informative lecture.
By international law the original 13 states were Recognized as independent states or nations by the world in the treaty of Paris 1783. This was reinforced in the articles of confederation where it stated “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Later the states would ratify the current constitution with the premise that the states maintain their sovereignty remained in place. The idea of succession is seen throughout early history.
The treaty of Paris provides no aid to modern Neo-Confederates. It calls for peace between "two countries", not 14. It's opening line lists all the countries involved, the last one being "The United States of America", not the individual states.
Of particular note was the American representatives who signed the treaty. Who were they? Were they representatives from each state? No, only three Americans signed the treaty: Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams. Why? Because they selected as representatives by the continental congress, not the states.
As for the articles of the Confederation, they state the Union shall be perpetual, and this status could only be changed with the consent of congress and the legislatures of every state.
Of course the idea of secession was seen throughout history, but not seen as legal. It was, as James Madison said, even under the most justified circumstances, _"Another name only for revolution."_
@@TheStapleGunKid Dang, nice work with the treaty of Paris. I did not know that. I'll be keeping that in mind for use in these forums :)
International law is not law
41:14 If Lee believed that the 10th Amendment granted a state the right to secede, then his state left the United States through a power defined in the Constitution, and therefore he based his exit on the Constitution, not in defiance of it. Lee never sought to end the United States. States that wanted to stay, could. Today we all agree that states cannot secede, because of the Civil War.
Clem Cornpone
Ahhhhh...sounds like Clem's a lawyer!
Gee whiz.... its not like half of the lawyers aren't wrong in every courthouse, all day long, everyday!
So $200 for more of your time? What If i pay you $300 dollars, would you write a response on why Lee was not a traitor....?
(and to answer your question about rape, even if you are a lawyer...you probably shouldn't do it.....)
And the
Clem Cornpone
Hey Clem,
Your education has exceeded your intelligence!
You took the first attacks by calling those who do not agree with you as "Bubbas..."
So while you get all geeked up in your self indulgent, grandiose opinion of your interpretation of the constitution...remembet that if it was so black and white we could dispense with the supreme court.
(Why America could just ask you!)
Not being a lawyet I seem to remembet, while wallowing in ignorance, that the law of the land also states a man is innocent until found guilty.
You can hold your mental court cases all you want but technically and by the law you are so expert at...Robert E. Lee is not guilty of treason.
And you and me and evety other person in America can glad he did not participate in treasonist activities!
Because if Lee wanted to commit treason, in doing so he could have certainly caused the North to lose the war.
For Petes sake, he was offered to lead the union in the war!
Get it?
Do you not think a guy who graduated numbet 2 in his class at West Point (with no demerits!) would not have known that his best use to the South would have been to accept leadership of the Union Army!?
Do you not think he would not have had the discipline and smarts to lead the Union to failure!
Give me a break!
But he didnt...why...because he was not a "traitor".
He was loyal to his State, for reasons you definitely will never know.
He gave his resignation to the Union and defended what he believed was his first order of citizenship.
He was a stand up guy, straight in his dealings, and the exact opposite of subversive.
And every American today can be glad that he was not interested in treason or the war would more than likely would have had a different ending!
He let his loyalty to his state lead him to a war that he knew was a long shot.
Slavery is a beyond description evil. The way the South did it was the worst form of slavery: racially driven. The South
deserved everything it got.
Still there were other factors for the division.
For instance, as a Southern person I was taught to have empathy for black people, not to dislike or hate people of color.
However, i was raised to distrust know it all, bubba smirking, self- aggrandizing Yankee Scrotum Heads....you know...people like you..
Anyway, Robert E.Lee personally suffered to avoid treason (even though he had great opportunity to commit treason) and he was never convicted of treason.
So he is not guilty of treason.
Neither in spirit nor the technicality of the law.
So why dont you have another mental court case and convict yourself of slander!
.
Oh it most certainly was determined by overwhelming brute force. And you just proved the fallacy of your analogy. The North was stealing the wealth of the South via tariffs. Tariffs that were paid by the South and exclusively used for the benefit of the North. With your analogy the South was being economically raped by the North. Therefore, the South, the woman being raped, was justified in fighting back against the rapist North. Veteran, US Army, Bachelors of History
Morill Tariff.
Corwin amendment.
We need to educate the modern historians on what actually happened during the Civil War.
Blacks who deprecate Lincoln’s views of emancipation seem ignorant of his letter to the Illinois State Convention. in 1864. The tribute he paid to Black Troopers anticipates his remarks in Dc in April, 1865, about black suffrage.
@@JRobbySh Lincoln was pandering to the blacks in 1864. His true sentiments about them and his position on their enslavement is well documented.
@@JRobbySh Lincoln was a tyrant, with no interest in freeing any slaves. The emancipation proclamation only applied to slaves in confederate states, NOT norther states. Funny that, and it only came later in the war. Blacks weren't given rights for a hundred years after. It was all a political stunt to justify the continuing war, to turn it into a moral crusade. Lincoln as ONLY interested in crushing the rebellion and restoring the union. Like an abusive partner that won't let a spouse leave. That is the reality. Slavery had very little to do with it.
@@TasmanautThe CSA was founded to protect and encourage slavery. Lincoln would have let the existing Southern states keep their slaves, but the newly formed states and territories in The West were to be off limits to slavery. This was unacceptable to the South. They were afraid that, sooner or later, the free states would outnumber the slave states, and the slave states would lose their influence over the federal government. While it's true that the average CSA soldier was fighting for many reasons other than the preservation of slavery, the CSA itself was for the protection of slavery. All of the CSA state constitutions mention slavery. The war wasn't about states' rights. The war was fought to defeat the CSA and bring those states in rebellion back into the US. The CSA was all about slavery. Therefore, the American Civil War was fought over slavery. I hope this helps you. Watch other historians' take on this. Most say the same thing.
@@bsb1975 I've read your argument, and I've heard it before. I understand it is the mainstream view. I do not agree, however. As you said, ' The war was fought to defeat the CSA and bring those states in rebellion back into the US' - that is exactly my point. Technically the war was to crush the rebellion, not to end slavery. You can argue that it was by extension, I'm saying, technically, I disagree.
And yet they executed John Brown for treason.
Misiulo,
Yes they executed John Brown, because he was found guilty
in a court of law of TREASON.
I tried to start a war by trying to instigate Slave Uprisings.
The slave uprising in Haiti was fresh on the minds of the Southerners.
The black Haitians did not leave a white person alive.
And they killed all the French soldiers sent in to quell the uprising.
And yet the state of Virginia later did the same thing they executed John Brown for doing: Taking over the arsenal at Harper's Ferry to wage war against the government. Funny how Virginia no longer considered it treason when they did it, just like it's funny how they wouldn't let West Virginia secede without a fight. "Secession for me, but not thee"
TheStapleGunKid West Virginia seceded from Virginia after they succeeded from the union because they were loyal to the United States of America!
@@RightToSelfDefense John Brown was a hero.
But it was alright for the slave owners to beat, whip, and murder slaves?
At least freeing slaves served a good purpose. Nothing the south did served a good purpose.
Outstanding presentation. The only disagreement I have is in the questioning whether or not the Founding Fathers had a revolution. Professor Guelzo stated it was a revolution because of discontinuity, and that we were abolishing the monarchy. I disagree here because our intent was never to overthrow the monarchy, but instead, to break away (or secede) from the Crown. I acknowledge our system of government was revolutionary, and I agree with Dr. Guelzo on this, but I contend that our so-called Revolutionary War was in fact a War of Independence, not a revolution. We had no intent to overthrow the monarchy in London, hang King George III and the Parliament, and rule by decree.
And yes, had we lost, George Washington and the Founding Fathers would have all lined up for the High Jump (the gibbet) for treason. I think Lee was correct in that assertion to Lord Acton. We can't simply say the Founding Fathers were right in their actions simply because they prevailed. They were all British subjects at the time.
Professor Guelzo is grossly in error. There was no discontinuity of the governments of the colonies which were recognized by England as free, independent, and sovereign States.
These States did form multiple limited unions but they retained all of their sovereign powers during the first three versions (i.e., First Continental Congress, Second Continental Congress, and Articles of Confederation). The States ceded only limited powers to the federal government under the fourth version of the United States via the modern Constitution.
So, where is the discontinuity? I find none.
Just FYI - a strong argument could be made that the current United States is the fifth version bearing this name, for it is a tyrannical empire in which the Constitution and the rule of law has not been honored since Lincoln illegally invaded Charleston Harbor while in negotiations with representatives of South Carolina's Peace Commission.
exactly......@@gaiustacitus4242
a war of secession in both cases.....Lincoln was treasonous, if anyone was
"Secession is a Constitutional and legal impossibility". Nonsense, by his own admission, secession is not addressed in the Constitution. During the ratification of the Constitution, the states did not grant, nor delegate, the authority nor power to the United States to prohibit state secession. In 1860-1861, the secession of the southern states was a right of the state in accordance with the 10th Amendment, which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Secession was neither a Constitutional nor legal impossibility. It was, in fact, a right granted to the states by the 10th amendment.
Spot on. That power of secession no longer exists today- but it most definitely did in 1860- 61.
So excited to begin a class with him in February!
A) King George III recognized the independence of the 13 colonies individually as sovereign states.
B) As sovereign states they united under the Articles of Confederation.
C) As sovereign states they seceded from the Union as it existed under the Articles to join a new Union under the current Constitution.
D) No one involved in the Hartford Convention was prosecuted for conspiracy to commit treason.
E) When the Republic of Texas, recognized by the USA as a sovereign state, joined the Union by popular vote there was no constitutional provision that they could not withdraw by popular vote as they later did. By this professor’s argument, a law cannot be made retroactive to change the terms of a treaty (and the Republic of Texas joined the Union by treaty) already agreed to.
F) Lee didn’t commit treason if for no other reason than that he was never convicted of such and thus the presumption of innocence applies. Simple.
King George recognized the colonies right to self determination after they whooped his army, and he did not dictate that they were 13 separate states and would of had no right to. That's ridiculous. See: the Treaty of Paris.
There was no secession when adopting the U.S. Constitution. "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" is the first contract, and the "U.S. Constitution" is a second contract expanding on federal powers. sorta like if you contracted a house, then decided to add an attached garage before the house was finished. A second contract does not automatically void a first contract without explicitly saying so and agreed too by all parties in writing. The Articles clearly state how to secede from the first contract with a petition of congress and a vote of all states legislators agreeing. no such vote was ever taken. And there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about voiding the Articles of Confederation. The United States of America has had a continuous government from 1777. So unless you can cite me the vote, you are incorrect.
The law of the U.S. Constitution supersedes the Articles of Confederation on those issues they share in common. Those parts of the Articles of Confederation that are not superseded by the U.S. Constitution are still in full affect. This is basic contract law in the United States. Most of the Articles were superseded as to taxation, representation, powers of the legislator, eccetera, but at least one part of the Articles relevant to this conversation is still in full force and that is Article 13. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution changes that. It is the agreement of the colonies as to what type of union the United States of America was to be. And the answer is Perpetual, with the law only able to be changed in congress with all legislators agreeing. highly unlikely then, and more so now with 50 states.
While states do have some degree of sovereignty, they have never had the right to unilateral secession. What's more, all states are equal, meaning Texas is under the same rules as all other states. Texas did put forth an attempt to join retaining the ability to secede if they chose to, but it was rejected by congress, then Texas agreed to the rules set forth by congress, the same rules as every state. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the law and the intent of the founders in the case Texas vs. White, and found that no unilateral secession is allowed. This was all settled over 150 years ago, but modern Neo-Confederates, and Anti-Federalist just keep crying and crying and crying. Lying and lying and lying.
Ok, the original 13 states, Vermont, and Texas were sovereign before forming/joining the Union, but there were 33 states in 1860. Can Louisiana, for example, was a Federal territory, bought with Federal money, claim the same rights of sovereignty as Virginia?
@@occamtherazor3201 All states that join the union are equal as well as equally bound. There is no unilateral succession. Federal law supersedes any state law and they knew what they were signing when they joined.
@@storbokki371 Agreed. Just tossing the ball around.
@@occamtherazor3201 sorry if I sounded short tempered. I've been trouncing neo-confederates on youtube. It's like shooting fish in a barrel when you know the material. haha
I love how this "professor" of history glosses over a key exchange between Grant and Johnson. Johnson asked Grant, "If we cannot try them now, when can we?" To which Grant replied, "Never". Making a case for treason and leaving out key details means this man has an agenda and an axe to grind.
I love how YOU cut off Grant's response to Johnson after the first word. Grant's reply was "Never, unless they violate their paroles." Grant never said that Gen. Lee did not commit Treason. Grant clearly believed that Lee did commit treason, as did Lincoln. But they wanted the killing to end. So they made a bargain with Lee. Grant believed that bargain should not be reneged on.
@@drsbhs Neither Grant nor Lincoln ever expressed in words, written, or spoken that I've ever found that Lee committed treason. If either did and you have an original source I would be most interested in seeing it.
@@warlord8954 They never expressed in words that Lee DID NOT commit treason. By your logic that would prove my point. But your logic is silly. We have no statements from either of them either way so we are left with our impressions of what they believed. I stated my opinion that Grant and Lincoln clearly believed that Lee did commit treason based on the fact that they granted him a parole to protect him from charges of treason, the fact that they did not recognize the CSA as a nation which negates the "not a citizen" defense, the fact that Grant supported their trial if they violated the parole, and the fact that they never stated that Lee or any of the Americans who were waging war on America had not committed treason. On what do you base your opinion that they did not believe Lee committed treason?
@@drsbhs "Parole" with regard to warring parties dates back to the late 15th, and early 17th centuries. Stemming from "parole d'honneur". Meaning, "word of honor". A prisoner of war could be granted parole upon taking an oath of honor that they wouldn't take up arms in said conflict. The parole given to Lee, and the Army of Northern Virginia wasn't the same as parolling someone convicted of a crime and imprisoned. Although that form of parole has its origins in the wartime practice. Even so, you're making an assumption about what Lincoln and Grant MIGHT have thought without any foundational proof such as in the written word or public statement. You're engaging in rank speculation. Or, possibly projection.
@@warlord8954 I know what parole with regard to prisoners of war means. The agreement that Grant made with Lee went beyond parole for enemy combatants that require a pledge to not take up arms in the present conflict. "each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles AND the laws in force where they may reside." Grant revealed what that last part meant when he told Johnson that if they violated that part they would no longer be immune from charges for treason. And yes, I am making an assumption. And I am providing the reasoning for my assumption. Something you have failed to do to support your opposing assumption that Grant and Lincoln believed that Lee did not commit treason. I was merely making the point that the previous post that trashed the presenter for not mentioning Grant's response to Johnson mischaracterized Grant's response in a way to make it appear Grant believed Lee did not commit treason. It just seems logical to me to conclude that Grant believed Lee committed treason. If he did, I couldn't say whether he was correct. I do not believe the clause he added about being protected as long as they broke no laws had any legal force as it went beyond parole for a prisoner of war. I ask again, on what foundational proof such as in the written word or public statement do you base your own rank speculation to the contrary? I'll give you the final word as it is really not all that important to me if someone holds a differing opinion to my own.
Unapologetically American.
This is very interesting. I've never explored the details of this subject before.
It would be interesting to hear what Professor Guelzo has to say about the Hartford Convention 1814. Northern secession against the assertion of the slave power is seldom discussed by historians, but it was obviously a right that many Federalists seemed to endorse or consider....
It's also interesting to hear what Robert E. Lee said about the Hartford Convention...he called it treason. You can read the full letter he wrote to his son Rooney in the Lee Family Online Archive, but here's the salient passage:
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
He took an oath to defend the Union, quit, then took up arms against the Union including invading what he would have claimed was foreign territory (Maryland and PA). If that is not a traitor then there is no such thing as a traitor.
Then George Washington was a traitor.
However Lee was no traitor, because Virginia was a sovereign nation: the USA never was.
He was just a FOOL, who was ignorant of this fact; and so he lost the war, by agreeing with Lincoln's claim of national union.
So he is praised by both sides, since the Union couldn't have won the war without his ignorant fumble.
It's not that complicated. Yes.
According to a History channel video on West Point Classmates and Civil War enemies cadets at West Point took an oath of loyalty to their home state. Apparently that changed to an oath of loyalty to the Union after secession. Since Lee graduated well before the Mexican-American War his loyalty should have been to the state of Virginia.
Unlike the Articles of Confederation the Constitution had no provision precluding secession. The Southern states were well within their rights to secede. For example, Massachusetts had previously threatened to secede, and Jefferson told them to go ahead. Even today some Californians threaten secession. As Lincoln invaded the South he was clearly the aggressor prosecuting an illegal war. While Abolitionists saw the war as their opportunity to end slavery Lincoln would come to use slavery as a "moral" excuse for his immoral war.
When Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter the Union was reinforcing the fort with munitions and men. Since this was technically Confederate soil they were within their rights to seize Fort Sumter.
I have not watched this video. Maybe I will.
I took a Oath as a police officer 1st to my state 2nd to The United States and sister states
The "History" Channel is for idiots.
It should be noted that all 13 of the original States implicitly seceded from the third version of the United States (which existed under the Articles of Confederation) in order "to form a NEW union".
One could argue that Rhode Island (which earned itself the nickname "Rogue Island" for refusing to join the new union) did not secede, for the "perpetual union" could no longer exist with only one member nation remaining.
Why do historians ignore the fact that all member nations (or States) of the previous "perpetual union" seceded by act of ratifying the new Constitution and achieving the required nine member States?
Note: A legal argument can be conclusively proven that the required nine States of the original 13 never lawfully ratified the Constitution and the new Union of the United States does not legally exist.
A major point of contention from this dr. guelzo, is that the trial for treason must be held in Virginia, and that it was exceedingly unlikely that Virginians would find Lee guilty of treason.
That argument falls apart by simply bringing the lawsuit from Pennsylvania, where Lee most assuredly waged war against, and aided & abetted enemies of, the United States.
There were many many jurisdictions in that state that had standing.
They couldn't simply drag Lee to a court in Pennsylvania at the time. The trial for treason must be held in the state where the accused is native of. Nevertheless, Lee conceded his defeat and acknowledged he had committed treason by signing so-called Amnesty Oath. Therefore he was not tried.
@@Greenfield-li3bg On my....you have a basic lack of knowledge about jurisprudence. Trials occur within the jurisdiction in which the crime ocurres. He could have been tried therefore in Pennsylvania.
It doesn't matter. When one looks at the history of how that Constitution was ratified, in secret, by men not authorized to represent their soveriegn states nor the united states as defined under the Articles of Confederation, it is then you realize that the Constitution as it was in Lee's day and today, is an act of treason.
@@LarryNathanielPhoto You ARE WRONG when you speak of 'sovereign' states. The States are from from sovereign regardless of what some think. Almost every last power a sovereign state has is denied to the States by the Constitution.
Treason, being a Federal crime, the entire country had jurisdiction. Lee could have been tried anywhere convenient. But the games go on.
That’s a vagueness in citizenship that George Thomas didn’t seem to be confused by
Nor Winfield Scott, nor William Terrill, nor Robert's own cousin Sam Lee. Some of the Union's best officers were Southerners, including a considerable number of Virginians.
I think Guelzo was telling us -- and the now published biography spells it out -- that Lee was reaching for a plausible justification for a decision that he had already made on other grounds. The decision has plausibility in the contemporary context. And that was all people could demand of him. Guelzo wasn't giving him a pass, I don't think. I repeat, the biography is very good in spelling out the motivating factors. They are not entirely in Lee's favor.@@TheStapleGunKid
For me, what muddies the waters is the use, at that time, of the term 'my country'. It could have many meanings.
yes. next question
Treason is basically defined as “The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.”
The Civil War itself was in the mind of Lincoln anyway , initially about secession based on him saying ,” if keeping slavery held the union together he’d do that and if abolishing slavery would keep it together he’d do that . Therefore Lincoln’s goal was to keep the US together
Secession although not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution either prohibiting or permitting it unless of course you consider the 10th Amendment, was dealt with by Thomas Jefferson , an actual Founding Father who wrote concerning secession of new western territories in a letter to John C
Breckinridge.
“That should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede from the Union at some point in the future, he was perfectly fine with that…”
I don’t agree with the underlying cause for this secession which was cattle slavery but secession is something we as individuals do in our daily lives. Such as going to a party and not liking it so you leave or in other words secede, to simply walk away from .
Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis or any other Confederate did not commit treason by following the decision of their respective States Legislatures deciding to secede and form a new Country. Furthermore We didn’t consider ourselves Americans at this point in our history but rather identified by our respective States.
What happened after Robert E.Lee resigned his commission as did Jefferson Davis from his Mississippi Senate Seat and returned to their respective States, they basically gave up their US Citizenship ( The Union)and become citizens of a new Country .
Simply leaving the party is not treason !
That Country we know as the Confederacy then went to war with the United States and lost . However how does fighting for their new country, now the Confederacy , make Robert E. Lee and Davis a traitor / guilty of treason against a country they initially and peacefully left ?
Jefferson Davis was actually charged with treason and there’s a variety of circumstances surrounding litigation. However the biggest problem in trying Davis would be the chance the SC ruling secession is Constitutional, a chance the prosecution wasn't willing to take .
Smart move actuality, they let it rest and 157 years later, maybe we should ?
The idea that "we didn't consider ourselves Americans at this point" is ridiculous. Of course we did. George Washington's Presidential farewell address was all about how we should consider ourselves Americans first and not let state loyalty divide us. Sure some people put state loyalty above country, but certainly not all. Ove 100,000 Southerners fought for the Union during the war.
_"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an 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."_ --James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster.
_"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861.
Also secession was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1869. The rebels lost the legal war for their cause just as badly as they lost the military one. If Davis had gone on trial, there's every reason to believe he would have been convicted.
Simply because George Washington addressed the people of the US as Americans doesn’t change the loyalty of our ancestors had to their respective States over the that of national interests .
Furthermore neither Davis or Robert E. Lee were secessionists. In fact they were opposed to it .
However both chose their loyalties of their home states legislatures over that of the national government. A view widely reflected by the population in that era .
After all it was the individual States Legislatures who decided their respective States decision of secession and not Davis or Lee.
The case of United States v. Jefferson Davis never went to trial, and yes that decision was finalized in 1869 as United States Supreme Court, as the US Government chose to prosecute a less sensational case
, two months after dropping the charges against Davis. In doing so the trial of Texas v. White, in April 1869, gave the US Government exactly what they wanted , a ruling that stated succinctly that the Confederacy’s secession had been “absolutely null.”
So the US Government got what it wanted in what turned out to be weaker case supporting secession, as opposed to what they knew would be a stronger defense of trying Davis !
Again the federal government reached its decision in part because it feared that Davis would either prove to a jury that secession was legally permitted under the U.S. Constitution or he would be transformed into a martyr if convicted and executed. That’s why federal prosecutors entered a “nolle prosequi,” or statement of decision not to prosecute.
Davis was imprisoned in Virginia’s Fort Monroe for two years after his capture during which time he was indicted for treason. In May 1867, he was released on $100,000 bail, most of which was posted by a surprising group of Northerners including Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, business magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt and Gerrit Smith, who was among the “Secret Six” who funded John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. The Northerners advocated for a speedy trial or release of Davis in order to heal the country.
I don’t think General Lee was a traitor or at least I wouldn’t charge him with it because I served 5 years in the military and was ALWAYS very proud to be New Yorker first. And I think most ppl felt that way about their home state (especially Texans) if my New York had tried to break away from America, I believe I would have followed my home state. I would have found it very impossible to take up arms against my home state especially since a lot of that war was fought in his home state (Virginia). The only way I might have turned on my home state is if my state was fighting for a horrible institution like slavery. But in those days the southerners were taught black ppl were inferior to white ppl. I don’t understand that belief, I would have to be raised that way and I wasn’t. But if I was I would like to think I would take the moral stand and stand by my country over my home state. But again I wasn’t raised that way, but I do understand how it might be almost impossible to take up arms against my home state. I wouldn’t call him a traitor just a man in a really shitty position. If I was on that jury I wouldn’t find him guilty of being a traitor.
Exactly... It is too bad he based his decision to go with the Confederacy on his loyalty to his state, rather than thinking about things philosophically. It doesn't make much sense to defend one's freedom to take away someone else's freedom. If he had accepted Lincoln's offer to lead the Union forces, the war probably would have been a lot shorter.
@@billscannell93 no doubt but I don’t think he would have EVER approved of “Sherman’s March” he just never would have signed on for that. And I personally think it was wrong on so many levels.
Fighting for my city! do you belong to the Greeks of the 1st Century? You are a moral coward if you can not stand up for what is right. If you think every Virginian was a moral coward like Lee was, then you are wrong. Some of his families fought for the union and did not speak to him after the war. I am telling you right now If my city which I love so dearly decided to enslave and rape people, I would be the first to go against it.
Bob did go to the US Capitol to try to get his citizenship back. Also, Bob loved church since his boyhood in Alexandria and was a deacon near W & L. Prayful even the day he died. Cheers.
Mrs. Grant wrote in, The Personal Memoirs of Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant: “We rented our pretty little home (in St. Louis) and hired out our four servants to persons whom we knew and who promised to be kind to them. Eliza, Dan, Julia and John belonged to me. When I visited the General during the war, I nearly always had Julia with me as nurse.” (Pages 82-83)
So if the Abraham Lincoln War was all about slavery, I guess General Grant was fighting the war to free his own slaves.
When Prof. Guelzo talks, I hear Kelsey Grammer.
I hear a pompous ass.
That's all you got?
He does a facial resemblance.
Listen to his command of English. Phenomenally clear and precise.
Michael Smith you must be talking about yourself when you speak then. How many doctorates do you have sir
45:00 Robert E Lee himself showing up to defend himself
Well, yeah. His ass was kind of on the line.
Very good presentation. Unfortunately it shows why so many people have little respect for our legal system which consists of lawyers parsing language with their unique theories decided by other lawyers and force the rest of us to have to live with their theories.
I think Lees defense strategy was actually brilliant, arguing that a a citizen of the State of Virginia, he had no choice and had a divided loyalty.
Lee was an IDIOT who lost the war, by claiming in January 1861 that "secession is nothing but revolution," and so he fought it as a revolution rather than a national defense.
In reality, Virginia was a SOVEREIGN NATION, and the USA never was; so he GAVE Lincoln the victory by agreeing with his FALSE legal argument. Lee was the Jubilation T. Cornpone of the war: Lincoln couldn't have win without him.
@@SovereignStatesman that isn't a fair characterisation. He became a folk hero to both side, and by all accounts was a gentlemen. He fought bravely and was gracious in defeat.
I had several ancestors in the Rockbridge County Artillery
Cool story, bro.
No, he didn't. They decided not to try him bc the question of "Was succession illegal?" was feared that it would be found that it was not. Many law historians have had lectures on this.
You apparently didn't watch the video.
Dr. Barton Myers is a friend and excellent historian, Your lucky to have him on your staff! this gentlemen that teachers at W&L politics seems very smart too!
Short answer: yes
Will mention this. If secession is not defined in the Constitution then it goes by the individuals of the state that vote for it. Because it’s not defined in the constitution or Bill of Rights. So forth is a state issue. And was dealt as a state issue. Which makes secession legal in that retrospect.
The Preamble states 'We the people...' It does not say 'We the States...' A phrasing some of the founders considered but never pushed. Hence when a State agreed to this contract it surrendered the right to act as a separate sovereignty.
@@louismilum8663 Yes states do have sovereignty. However while criminal law is mostly in the hands of the states while jurisdictional is over seen by the federal. Further if one examines the motives and intent of Gouverneur Morris he knew exactly what he was implying and although some begrudgingly all signed it and then all thirteen colonies adopted it.
It is a federalized union, unlike the UK. The 50 states would maintain most civil and criminal laws on their own, and only give over sovereignty *specifically handed over* in the short articles of a very short constitution. The preamble is just a mission statement, not a specific enumeration. The raw Constitution is primarily just an outline of how a federal government will be elected or appointed BY THE STATES and how these officials shall perform their duties. Most citizens misunderstand their own Constitution. An essay only nine pages long in modern plain English.
Secession is not clear, Buchanan and Lincoln did not allow it to be reviewed by the courts, especially the Supreme Court as they were as likely to say it was not prohibited. However the various activities of the leaving states prior to (and before) their reviewed departure and recognition as independent states did violate several enumerated rules in Article I:
1) making a regional confederation. Virginia and several states attended the confederate conference BEFORE they declared separation.
2) raising independent navies and armies.
3) minting and printing currency in opposition to the federal treasury
4) properties ceded to or purchased by the central government shall not be returned to the states without the approval of the central government.
5) making war upon the Union
The Confederacy knew exactly what they were doing. President Davis and his government were mostly constitutional attorneys and had held federal offices. The Union was not really making any true plans for war until Lincoln took office. The Confederacy needed to draw the Union into a war of insurrection to obtain foreign recognition and fight the war quickly as they knew they had two years of strong stands to be able to negotiate the independence from a point of strength. Therefore the new government particularly chose to besiege federal installations. They took dozens without a conflict between Dec 1860 and April 1861. Firing on The Star of the West and then Sumpter was to get a declared war that could be sold overseas as self preservation, not attack on the US. Placing the US in the hypocritical position of enforcing government against the will of the states and their people involved.
They knew this because they were the descendants of the 1776 Revolutionaries. That war was won by breaking the UK Tory Parliament and obtaining a Whig peace. Davis expected a midterm election slaughter of the Union Republicans in Nov 1962. That, however did not happen.
Louis Milum. The Confederacy of Montgomery had arranged to fund their new nation on selling Cotton Bonds abroad and expecting a war which would horribly inflate the cost of cotton, and bankrupt the US whose primary wealth in 1860 was southern agricultural export. Davis had been Sec of War under Franklin Pierce until 1857, a senator thereafter, and his treasurer was an international banking genius.
Thus they needed the war. They needed to hold back cotton in Natchez, Vicksburg, Mobile and the New Orleans for 18-24 months and sell it by 1863 to continue the cash flow that would have been exhausted by the Spring of 63. By losing New Orleans in the spring of 1862, that whole plan dissolved. Thus the urgency in 1862 and 1863 to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania to besiege Washington City and get a negotiated peace or so embarrass and frighten the people of the North that they would vote in Copperheads in the next elections. Admiral Farragut actually won the war for the Union. The Union was able to sell the banked cotton they captured at the inflated prices. The CSA could not get theirs out.
It was a two year, then two year overall plan. They knew the government they were fighting. They knew her weaknesses. However the Union government also knew the CSAs weaknesses, as they had constructed her defenses and economy in those four score and several years.
Louis Milum. Also firing on USN The Star of the West was clearly an act of war as much as if Cuba fired on a ship supporting GitMo. Lincoln did not ask for a war declaration, as Washington City was completely undefended. No state militia or major regular army units were in the city. He requested assistance from the governors of Virginia and Maryland (still in the Union) and had been ignored. Yet he could watch the Virginia militias drilling in Alexandra. Not until the Old Greybacks from SNY marched in did Lincoln feel confident enough to declare an insurrection and ask Congress for war. Fort Sumpter became the next opportunity. If not that it would have been Fort Pickens, the Arsenal at Harpers Ferry or Norfolk Navy Yards.
Jeff Davis knew exactly how unprepared for war the US and her loyal states were, as he had been the War Secretary until 1857 and had served on the War Committee of the Senate until Mississippi left the Union. Lincoln was CLUELESS to those facts after his election. He got such bad news when he snuck into DC on the secret train that March.
John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry had mobilized the pro slave state militias prior to 1861. They were ready. That's why Lincoln threw the government of Maryland in prison as one of his first acts. The US Regular Army was tiny and in disarray in early 1861, with all the resignations. The bulk of enlisted men were from the South (just as today) and a third of the commissioned officers were too.
Louis Milum. Lincoln was no mastermind. He has been recreated as Pericles, mounted in marble on Pericles throne chair and even plagiarized Pericles for his Gettysburg Address. Lincoln has become the reimagining of The United States as a strong central government Federation (thus his digest of Pericles Funeral Oration). He was no slouch for a self made man, but he was no genius either.
He did, however hold the line and stick the course. He did put his ego aside and assemble a cabinet of more than just his friends and cronies. The Republican party was almost brand new. They had only run one person for president prior to Lincoln, John C Freemont.
In one sense (the legal sense) Lee was not a traitor, because he was neither convicted of treason nor probably ever could have been convicted of that crime. As Dr. Guelzo says, the definition of treason in the Constitution was very narrow, a trial of Lee would have had to be held in Richmond, the document agreed on at Appomattox protected CSA soldiers from prosecution, and Salmon P Chase (Supreme Court) would likely have been against the conviction of it had been appealed. That may be the legal status. But in the more popular sense, he committed treason against the US in order to not be a traitor to Virginia and the southern states.
Lee most certainly did NOT commit treason. Lincoln trampled all over the constitution and therefore it was he who was the traitor. Lincoln was a racist a tyrant and the most unconstitutional president in history.
Lee may have been lot of things, but he was no traitor to his country.
Lincoln and his followers were the real traitors to the Constitution of the United States.
The whole lecture did mean that the Confederates (Davis, Lee, Longstreeet, etc.) did commit treason and that it wasn't punished fit as such because of Grant's surrender terms at Appomattox and reluctance by Grant himself, Salmon P. Chase and others to indict the confederates fearing it might hamper the reconstruction.
And it took 100 years to turn a stone age race into modern basketball playing.men. and of course the British introduced slavery to the 13 colonies as the catholic Spaniards did not protect slavery.
It is all a snafu of history still being excused today
"Reconstruction" was cover for "unrestricted exploitation" by Carpetbaggers looting under Union army protection.
A lot of that "carpetbager" postwar propaganda was false. Much of it was assisting the freed slaves. It's a pity that the south didn't treat their country as well as they criticized it. All of the bad situations of the south was of their own actions. And don't forget the next 100 plus years of continued mistreatment of the former slaves.
@@tlee51ftw The vast majority of slaves remained in the South where there was no work for them which caused profitable trade. Their former work deemed unprofitable without a slave work force. Thre North took no responsinility for the slaves assumimg freedom would cure their ills.
A great speaker in terms of knowledge and delivery.
Except knowledge of the facts and relevant law, since he doesn't know the first thing about national sovereignty; he just argues the Constitution like it's a matter of opinion.
REALITY: Each state ratified the Constitution as a separate sovereign nation, which VOIDS any claim of national union.
Strange that the Trail would not be in Washington, DC; capital of the United States; having it in the States and Districts actually supports Lee argument. Did not States entering the Union agree they could not leave with sanction for the other States? Why do things have to be mentioned directly, and not simply implied by the circumstance and meaning of an agreement; especially at such high levels of governance?
So many comparisons here of Lee to George Washington. But their circumstances are not the same. The colonists left Britain because the British government had largely stripped away their autonomy and ability to self-govern themselves. The colonists had no representation in the British government, yet they had to submit to laws passed by British parliment.
Not so for the Confederates. The South had full self-governance and autonomy at the state and local level. Furthermore, the idea that they were suffering under the federal government is absurd. The South held a massively disproportionate influence over the federal government for the nation's entire existence leading up to the war. Look at how many Southerners were presidents. Look at how many Southerners were supreme court justices.
In summary, the South was fully represented at the local, state, and federal level. In fact, for most of the nation's history the South dominated federal politics. They left the Union because they lost one election and were upset they would have to give up some of their disproportionate federal power for a span of 4 to possibly 8 years. That is not a valid cause for secession at all.
Well said!
Tell that to an informed Southerner. And it was NOT just losing one election. Please.
You forgot about excessive taxes the British imposed on the colonist. The very reason for throwing British tea in the harbor. Self governing was already established and the British were in charge. Governing wasn't the reason for the revolution, taxes were.
This was the same reason South Carolina seceded from the union. Read South Carolina,s history not the federal version that was driven into our heads in school.The federal,s reason for the war between the states if you believe it was slavery? Ironically only four southern states even mentioned slavery for their reason for seceding? The reason slavery was even mentioned was to be on the moral high ground.Lincoln didn't even free one slave! What he did was free them in states he had no control of while in the north slavery was alive and well. Lincoln was a racist by our present standards.Lincoln did some bad things prior and during the war by walking on the constitution.
Robbing a bank isn't more justified because you are going use the money to pay off your mortgage or send your kids to college than if you're going to use the money to buy a Ferrari. Either way it's robbing a bank for your own self-interest.
Treason is treason. And both the 13 colonies and the southern states committed it for self-interested political reasons. George Washington doesn't get a pass just because people like his excuses better.
@@Nitroaereus ,I respect your right to express your beliefs but in this case you are so wrong! The south and the north had the right to leave the union. If one digs deep into the history of the states they will find that S.C. wasn't the first to try to secede only the first state to do it.The first states that were going to secede were in the north. I could go deeper but My time is limited due to obligation to my business.
I disagree with the speaker on the legality of secession. It would have been spelled out clearly in the Constitution if the people of the State who ratified the Constitution could not later choose to unratify it. Those people would not be any less authoritative to speak for their state after ratifying the Constitution.
eflint1 it shouldn’t of had to specifically spell it out. Nobody joins anything they can never get out of or leave...unless it’s the mafia
@@JohnnyRebKy Most of the Constitution is not specifically/explicitly spelled out, hence 'THE FEDERALIST PAPERS." That's why you people who still argue over an issue that a Civil War was fought over are not Constitutional scholars because you're making the same arguments that were deemed wrong in 1865 for perpetuity.
They were no longer a separate entity. Madison said that joining the union was “en Toto and fore ever”.
@@NewarkBay357 who "deemed" those arguments to be wrong? Might does not make right. It was the "supreme authority" of each state (the people) who deemed authoritative inherently to override their states' obligations to the Articles of Confederation and t replace it with the Constitution. That same "supreme authority" in each state still gets to decide regarding any association their state has with other states. That is their inherent right.
@@tlee51ftw Not exactly. He said that regarding New York's request to have conditional ratification with an expiration/renewal. "Prenups" were not permitted. A State could only ratify with the intention never to depart. However, New York's ratification included a clause retaining the right to recall the powers they had delegated to the Federal Government...."That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Congress approved this ratification. As New York's ratification also states, " That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.." Again, all power in each state is inherently of the people. Lee acted by the authority of the people o his country, Virginia, and defended their will.
“The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly 2000 years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! I can only say that I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation.”
-General Robert E. Lee
I thought Washington and Lee Univ. was named after Richard Henry Lee?
No. Robert E. Lee. He became president of Washington college at the end of the war, and died there in 1870. One of Lee's sons served as president a number of years following.
@@hesavedawretchlikeme6902 you are correct, but Richard Henry Lee was an ancestor of Bob.
If your property, possessions, friends and family live in one area, what would you pick? Let's not get too sentimental here.
There were 8 US Army colonels from Virginia at the start of the war. Out of all them, Lee was literally the only one to join the rebellion. In fact, out of the 15 pre-war US Army Colonels from all Confederate states, Lee was just one out of three to join the rebellion.
So no, joining the rebels wasn't the default choice for men in his situation. The vast majority who were in his situation made the opposite choice.
You can hear the animosity.
As he started his mission is to bring Lincoln to Washington and Lee U.
Yeah Lee sucked
@@IAMACollectivist Yeah he "sucked" so badly that Lincoln wanted him to lead the union army and Lee said no because he didn't want Washington telling states what to do. He was right then. He is right now.
@@SimpleManGuitars1973 yeah he was overrated. That wasn't so clear until after the war. Apparently you're bad at hindsight. Amazing
Lee, in his letter to General Windfield Scott, last sentence, said, "Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.”
It was his greater love for his state, than his country.
@@tlee51ftw With his loyalties divided the disgusting nature of slavery should have tilted his allegiance to the Union over his state, but instead he chose to take life in the defense of the indefensible. He wasn't a good man.
The funny thing is, Robert Lee himself openly admitted secession was treason in a letter to his son on January 29, 1861: _"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_
Maybe he felt that way on January 29, 1861. And he certainly was against secession even in April of 61. But did his justifications for VA seceding change when VA was asked to make war on the Deep South, to blockade the Deep South, to allow federal troops to traverse VA to make war on the Deep South...all actions not expressed as powers to the Federal government....an experiment 70 years old...when VA had existed for 150.
Regarding your comment on the Militia Act of 1792...
only applied to States in the Union.
VA reserved the right to resume the powers it delegated to the federal govt.
B Johnson. No it didn't. The constitution does not permit secession from any state. As Lee said, secession is nothing but revolution.
@@TheStapleGunKid
Article I, Sect 8 lists what the federal govt CAN do..
Article 1,Sect 10 lists what the states can NOT do..
Neither place mentions secession.
VA upon ratification, warned that they might be leaving if the federal govt ends up harming VA...there was no debate and the ratification was gladly accepted.
Jeremiah Black, Buchanan's AG said the federal government can not coerce a State to stay in the Union. I guess you know more than he did....or are you victim of history rewrites?
It makes no difference whatsoever what Lee believed that secession was. In 1860, secession was not illegal because no law existed which prohibited it. Furthermore, legal precedent for secession did exist.
To answer the question: if you traded your Blue Uniform for a Chestnut or Gray one, YOU WERE/ARE/WILL ALWAYS BE A TRAITOR.
It wasn't treason as the law was ill-defined and Northerners had also argued they had the right to secede in earlier disagreements....such as the issue of paying state debts from the Revolution. The North liked the idea of secession when it suited them, then it became treason, yet both treason to the union and the right of secession could both be interpreted by a court either way. Guelzo's logic concerning secession is in direct conflict with the Constitution itself which states the Federal Government only has the powers outlined in the Constitution and all other powers fall to the states. Basic contract law: Since it is not stated that the Constitution gives the Federal government powers to prohibit secession, then it has no such powers over the states as much as we like to pretend it does. That is why the Chase court later reached back to the Articles of Confederation "perpetual union clause" to fabricate an argument knowing full well that the Articles perpetual union language also made the Constitution illegal since by strict interpretation the new Constitution was to "form a more perfect union" ....which in itself violated the Articles of Confederation since it is not the same union. There was also nothing in the Articles of Confederation that allowed the Constitution to replace it....so effectively the Constitutional Convention was a mass treason against the existing Union.
"The North liked the idea of secession when it suited them"
A handful of secessionists in New England during the early 1800s is not "The North". The North, as with the rest of the country, was overwhelmingly against secession at the time.
The real irony is that Virginians at the time called the New England secession movement treason, something Robert Lee himself pointed out
_"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861.
@@TheStapleGunKid You need to hit the books, kid. You are skipping over a hell of a lot. I'm no southerner, so I know your type well. You are too indoctrinated and personally invested because you associate the north with yourself having grown up there. To you, it is "us the good guys" and that clouds your reasoning as you are not impartial. Clearly you've also never read Lee's defense strategy against claims of treason post war or that his views evolved and instead you promote a rhetorical question based on Lee's flawed understanding of the "perpetual union" that you hold up as a conviction. You did not read my statement closely and fail to realize that his belief was based upon the erroneous belief that the "perpetual union" language was in the Constitution. It was not. Funny too how you believe the Hartford Convention only represented a few people's views. Try reading up on Northern politics in the war of 1812. New England by the way, held a much larger percentage of the US population. I'll bet you'll contort anything to to suit your biases, so go peddle it to someone else.
@@lmyrski8385 Nice try, but after all that rambling my point still stands: The New England secession movement was not "the North". Secessionists didn't even represent the majority of New Englanders, much less the entire North.
And regardless of what Lee did after the war to defend his conduct, the fact still remains that he pointed out the reaction to secession was a display of Southern hypocrisy, not Northern hypocrisy. As he said _"In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_
@@TheStapleGunKid Delude yourself as much as you like. People like you are a waste of time, perfect fodder for indoctrination.
@@lmyrski8385 So yeah, you've got nothing. Glad we cleared that up.
ok, so a revolution is different than a secession --- but he sill does not explain why a 'revolution' - à la the American revolution - would be more ''legal'' than a 'secession.'
Splitting entities makes it easy every time a single one gets their feelings hurt. This country would have been totally destroyed before1860. Washington, himself, went out to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, where a tax on whisky perturbed them and they refused to pay it. Even Lincoln acknowledged that the entire union could change, in his 1st Inaugural. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it. "
Read Lincoln’s Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861, wherein he very concisely explains the difference between revolution and secession.
Sophistry. He is the greatest single killer of U.S. troops in the 19th century and, while he had many noble and admirable qualities, that doesn't absolve him of moral responsibility for the deaths...certainly mere legalisms and loopholes do not change the ethical or moral calculus.
You can of course find technicalities to suggest he wouldn't be *convicted* of treason by a jury in the proper jurisdiction (the killers of Medger Evers were not convicted of murder due to jury bias and that doesn't make them "not murderers," and similarly OJ Simpson...not a murderer by this argument since he was acquitted in the criminal trial).
In my mind, that doesn't fundamentally get to the underlying question.
The pardon by President Johnson is better evidence (in fact, conclusive evidence) that he couldn't have been convicted in a hypothetical court, far better than the venue of the hypothetical trial and the beliefs of a hypothetical and partial jury itself likely filled with his fellow potential "traitors." (Even if the hypothetical Virginian jurors despised him, as likely Confederate supporters themselves they were likely equally guilty of the same offense as Lee under the law, and that probably would bias their decisions. In fact, that kind of bias is usually grounds to dismiss a juror, at least in modern times.)
More practically, from a moral standpoint, Lee is a fascinating individual who seems to have never expressed any remorse for the mass deaths he caused. So arguably he's more sociopath than hero, and a sociopath who definitely helped to aid and abet an open and violent rebellion against the U.S. government, killing "many thousands" (to be generous) of U.S. troops in the process. The moniker "traitor" is perfectly good to describe that aspect of the man.
Brainwashed. Not a single like or comment for a whole month. So much effort, for not.
@@drew7155 Truth and quality are not measured in likes. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Popularity."
I noticed your comment doesn't have any likes either.
@@TheStapleGunKid Not taking your loss well?... fledgling and grasping for a win wherever may find one. The effort is the point. I'm sure when Kurt wrote his ten page righteous diatribe he was optimistic that he would get the righteous validation he so desperately was seeking... to no avail. Poor Kurt.
@@Pandaemoni here's a like buddy. I feel bad
The loyalty question was simple: Lee upheld his oath to defend the Constitution while Lincoln and every Union soldier did not. We were a federal republic and a voluntary union of free and independent States. Lincoln got it all wrong. The founders would be appalled that any State would be coerced to stay in the Union. The founders' writings, the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federal Papers, James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc., etc., made this crystal clear!
Thank God an unintended consequence of the War was that the slaves were set free. It was an egregious evil. However, Lincoln and Congress emphatically and repeatedly made the point the War wasn't about slavery, but suppressing secession. In doing so, Lincoln destroyed the founders' voluntary Union and the Constitution. Lee fought to preserve the Constitution's principles. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the federal republic that was created.
If you find any of what I've written objectionable, I encourage you to learn about our "wonderful" 16th president in The Real Lincoln, by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo. It will certainly leave you wondering why you weren't told the truth about him, our history, and the Constitution. To the victors shamefully went the writing of the history.
you are 100% correct, very good summary
You are right
James Madison disagreed with you though.
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an 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"
--James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster
And again when New York wanted to join the Union but reserve the right to secede if constitutional amendments were not adopted James Madison wrote to Alexander Hamilton, 20 July 1788:
"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. *_The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever._* It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification."
@@Pandaemoni James Madison reversed himself on multiple issues, most importantly on nationalist issues, and he is on the record, as you clearly show, for doing so. His quote here clearly contradicts points he made in Federalist No. 39. It was the Federalist Papers, and James Wilson's State House Yard Speech, that sold people on ratifying the Constitution. It was the ratifying understanding of the Constitution that counts, not how Madison changed his mind. And, much more significant than cherry-picking a couple quotes, Dr. McClanahan is very thorough in a clear, concise, and conclusive justification for secession in the following video, "Secession: The American Tradition." The founders and the people of the States would have never ratified the Constitution without the understanding they could opt out. New Jersey's and Virginia's ratification documents had the same language as New York's. ruclips.net/video/j_7WISmYxAg/видео.htmlsi=vDaZP5KI-QwjsNYW
@@Pandaemoni Also, Madison said there was no coercive principle to the Constitution. And, if, as the Constitution clearly says, the States delegated powers to the central government, greater entities always delegate to lesser entities, not the other way around. Delegation always implies the ability to rescind the delegation. The 10th Amendment, that Jefferson called the most important amendment and the very cornerstone of the Constitution, makes it clear: any powers not delegated are reserved to the States. The key word used is ANY. Secession would be a power reserved to the States because it was was not denied by the Constitution. Jefferson said if any State in the Union preferred separation to union that he had no reservation in saying, "let us separate." In his first inaugural address, Jefferson also referred to New England States wanting to secede as "unwise" at the time but nothing about secession being prohibited. He called for tolerance of their position. The very concept of secession being "prohibited" is wholly antithetical to the founding principles.
Dr Guelzo is very interesting but makes great logical leaps.
Totally agree.
He ignores facts which are inconvenient to his highly political narrative.
Where do we find The Story of the established agreement between those who held the land that United States of America uses? I've heard that this land IS THE AFRICAN EMPIRE.
Yes he did. The end
Yes Lee was a traitor who fought to defend a treasonous slave empire. However, it must to be noted the condition of his surrender was that his army (including himself) would be free so long as they returned home and promised never to take up arms against the Union again. So based on that, they really couldn't prosecute him because that would be going back on the treaty they signed. Also prosecuting Lee probably would have been bad for reconciliation. So yes Lee deserved to be prosecuted for treason, but in retrospect, not prosecuting him was probably a smart choice based on the conditions of the day.
Virginia ( as well as RI and NY) reserved the right to "resume powers" delegated to the federal government when they submitted their ratifications. These ratifications were accepted, fully, and without debate.
It may be debated, but Virginians considered that reserved right in play, and who could blame them for believing in such?
An interesting detail I hadn't known. Thank you for pointing it out.
However, some quick reading makes it clear that these states reserved the right to resume powers to "the People of the United States" (VA) and "the People," i.e., the people of the Unites States generally (NY & RI) and not to individual states. Rhode Island even separately distinguishes powers it does reserve to the several states or people thereof. Secession or a general overthrow of federal government are not among them.
@@mikelake1306 That is an ridiculous, though popular historical twist.
First, if you read the notes on the VA secession convention, they believed just what the ratification declared, that they could decide to resume the powers.
They are the determiners of what THEY meant. Not post bellum historians.
Secondly, the People at that point in time ONLY operated via their State governments. The Constitution was ratified by the States, and any decoupling would follow the same path.
And finally, how could VA, if the reference was to the People of the nation, speak in behalf of the citizens of MA, PA, etc.?
Another point, if VA RI and NY all included that language, and it was accepted by the Convention, because the Union was an equal bargain amongst states, those rights to resume powers thus emanated to the other 10 original States.
Virginians in their secession convention didn't see it that way. And they were the authors of the ratification.
Also, the Constitution was ratified by the People through their States, and any undoing would require the same path in reverse. Thus the States did the ratifying, not the People en masse, and the States would initiate the resuming of powers delegated. There is no mention of a required agreement with any other states for the resumption to occur.
And finally, how could VA NY and RI speak for other States or the people of other states? They had no authority. Your notion is a popular one, but doesn't hold up when studied in detail....and facts.@@mikelake1306
read federalist 39
read the VA NY and RI ratifications
understand that ALL were accepted without debate or concerns
@@mikelake1306 The Constitution is about the people of the United States, not the States.
“Why did Lee choose to fight against his country?” is a loaded question. His country was Virginia.
No it was America. The states are simply subdivisions of the federal government, not countries. A state can no more claim to be a country then a county or a city can.
No they can't.
@@TheStapleGunKid , brother, do you ever need to study the history of that pre - war period, to wit, the matter of how a large majority of Americans of both regions viewed the matter. They certainly did not have your view.
@@bobtaylor170 And what evidence do you have that the majority of Americans felt that states were countries?
Virginia was never a "country," no matter how hard the Lost Cause crowd wishes it so. Such a notion is absurd, even ridiculous, on its face. I'm a native-born Montanan. It would never occur to me to say that "I am a citizen of the country of Montana." People would laugh at such a statement, and rightly so!
Excellent presentation.
lol, Dr Guelzo always reminds me a little bit of Frasier Crane.
I really did appreciate Dr. Guelzo shutting down the 10th amendment argument
He didn't shut down the 10th Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is fully applicable in this case. The Tenth Amendment states that:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Secession was not a power delegated by the U.S. Constitution to the United States government in 1861. It was likewise not a power prohibited by the U.S. Constitution to the states in 1861. It was therefore reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Great talk! The answer is complicated. It comes down to the question, can you convict? If not, then don't. In 2021 the board voted 22 to 6 to not change the University name. W&L is a private liberal arts university in Lexington, Virginia. I suspect a name change will take place by 2030.
The wind blows in all directions. Don't hold your breath. Virginians have awakened and made it crystal clear, they do not wake. Retribution will soon be upon the mountains, the piedmont, and the tidewater of the Old Dominion! Already whetstones are turning all across the Commonwealth.
@@cliffpage7677 I don't understand. Are you saying you think renaming the college will happen or will never happen? I'm sure how you're defining "awakened".
The Red counties of Virginia have been awakened and they are not "woke". Retribution will come to those in power now who have damaged and defiled the Commonwealth and the symbols of its heritage.
@@cliffpage7677 Oh. Gotcha. Time will tell.
Something tells me, you may not be wrong, in your assumption.
On July 22, 1975 the House restored U.S. citizenship to Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate Army during the Civil War and became an enduring icon of the South’s “lost cause.” The 407-10 vote came after a campaign spearheaded by Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr. (D-Va.).
Though President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation of amnesty and pardon to the Southern rebels in 1865, it required Lee to apply separately. On Oct. 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Va., he signed the required amnesty oath and filed an application through Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.
Nonetheless, neither was Lee pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. After receiving it, Secretary of State William Seward gave Lee’s application to a friend as a souvenir. Meanwhile, State Department officials, apparently with Seward’s approval, pigeonholed the oath.
In 1970, an archivist, examining State Department records at the National Archives, found Lee’s lost oath. That discovery helped set in motion a five-year congressional effort to restore citizenship to the general, who had died stateless in 1870.
President Gerald Ford signed the congressional resolution on July 24, 1975, correcting what he said was a 110-year oversight. The signing ceremony took place at Arlington House in Virginia, the former Lee family home. Several Lee descendants, including Robert E. Lee V, his great-great-grandson, attended.
“As a soldier, Gen. Lee left his mark on military strategy,” Ford said. “As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox
Whoopdeedoodoo”
@@tlee51ftw that teaches us zero. Try writing what you really think.
I think it was insulting, and ridiculous, to grant a traitor that caused the death of many Americans citizenship, that he lost by his actions.
@@tlee51ftw valid concerns but Lincoln did not want that and many feel he knew best.
Our country was originally founded by treasonous traitors and they had slaves too. Very sad US history...
The Colonies were not allowed rights in parliament, or rights on their taxes. They had argued the issues for years, with no success. They chose to fight for their rights, as a whole, not partially.
The south wanted to to secede that part of the union willing to do so in order to protect, and expand, slavery.
Not hardly anything at all equal.
Yes Lee was a traitor.
This man, as a Lincoln admirer, gives a surprisingly balanced and fair summation of Lee's actions and the circumstances of the era. For this, he deserves credit. I find one logical flaw with his argument, asserting that by definition, Lee committed treason. Though the speaker understands the fact that state vs. national citizenship obligations were far from settled at the beginning of the Civil War. Despite this, he accuses Lee, by definition of treason. How can such a verdict be reached when the term's definition was unsettled? Perhaps he felt compelled to give a definite yes or no answer, so he had to come down somewhere. But which definition of treason is he using? The unsettled, debated, and ill-defined definition of 1861? Or the settled-by-military-force understanding of 1865? But, once again to his credit, he finishes the speech by saying no historian is qualified to settle the issue. To the speaker, well done, sir.
Is it true that soldiers before the civil war took an oath of allegiance to their state?
Yes, it is true. The armies were fielded by the States.
No it isn't. They took an oath to the federal government. Robert Lee's cousin Samuel Lee, a navy admiral, made a point of this when explaining why he stayed in the Union: _"When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy."_
@@TheStapleGunKid They did not take an oath to the Union. As for Samuel Lee, he served in the US Navy -- the only element of the US military forces authorized to exist on a permanent basis.
Other members of the armed forces served in the armies of the various member nations of these United States. The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent the federal government from maintaining a standing army, for the Founding Fathers knew that such an army would be used by tyrants to oppress the people of the States.
@@gaiustacitus4242 Prior to the civil war, soldiers took an oath stating _"I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies.”_
The united states, not any individual state.
@@TheStapleGunKid They actually took TWO oaths:
"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."
"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
There are three important points:
1. Citizenship in the United States is contingent upon the State remaining a member nation of the Union. Upon withdrawal from this Union, citizenship reverts to the State along with all allegiance. [Note: The last formal opinion by the SCOTUS on citizenship of people native to the territories is that they are not U.S. citizens but merely subject to the laws of these United States.]
2. When Virginia exercised the unalienable right of its people to withdraw from the Union -- a right also reserved in its articles of ratification -- its citizens were no longer citizens of the United States.
3. If, as Lincoln and his supporters have often claimed, that Virginia did not lawfully secede from the Union, then, when Lincoln raised an army without the approval of Congress and marched that army into Virginia, he and every man involved in the campaign did violate their oaths and did commit treason against these United States.
It was the lawlessness of the Yankee nations which lead to peaceful secession by the South. It was the invasion of their free, independent, and sovereign nations (or States, the terms being synonymous under the Constitution of the United States) that prompted Southerners to take up arms against the remaining member nations of the Union.
Lee was not a traitor. He was fighting for his home: Virginia. Before 1861, Americans believed in the Jeffersonian ideal. That the role of the federal government should be limited. The states sovereign and independent from a central authority. This how the Constitution was sold to the states originally. What the founders created was not a nation, but rather a confederation of states. Thus the Articles of Confederation. Which was structured to preserve the rights they had been guaranteed under the "ancient constitutions" of Parliament. Southerners saw Lincoln and the federal government's actions (i.e. excessive tariffs, restrictions on commerce) as a violation of those rights. And what Guelzo doesn't want to admit in this lecture, is that no state has ever been under any obligation to stay as a member of the United States. You see, folks, secession is the ultimate American principle. And it is through secession that true independence is achieved. If Lee is in fact a traitor, then so are Washington, Jefferson and Paine for leaving Great Britain.
Poppycock. Washington et al WERE traitors to England. Victory in the Revolutionary War saved them from the consequences.
_"Before 1861, Americans believed in the Jeffersonian ideal. That the role of the federal government should be limited."_
The South clearly didn't believe that. From 1850-1860, almost every federal law and federal court ruling went in favor of the South, usually at the expense of states rights. The 1850 fugitive slave act was the single largest expansion of federal power over the states in US history up to that point. The Dredd Scott ruling in 1857, another ruling to appease the South, was another blow against state autonomy, since it ruled that states had no power to make blacks citizens of the country, despite the constitution leaving the matter of citizens entirely up to the states, and never saying anything about who could or couldn't be a citizen.
Quite frankly, the idea that the South was for small government was pure hogwash. They didn't want a small federal government, they wanted a big strong federal government to protect slavery, and punish the Northern states that passed anti-slavery laws.
Your claims about "excessive tariffs and restrictions on commerce" are equal nonsense. What restrictions on commerce? You can't name any from the federal government in 1861, let alone any excessive ones. As for tariffs, the last federal law passed on tariffs before secession was the 1857 tariff act, which reduced tariffs to historic lows. In all 11 Confederate state declarations of secession, the word "tariff" doesn't appear even once. The Confederate states made it perfectly clear they seceded entirely to preserve slavery.
@@TheStapleGunKid Yes, it's true the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act worked in the favor of the slave holding states. However, the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision in the Dred Scott case was based primarily on the text of the Constitution's drafting of 1787. Specifically Article II's definition of diversity of citizenship. As well as the state laws in Missouri. But the Fugitive Slave Clause first appeared in the U.S. Constitution in 1789. And even though Missouri joined the Confederacy, it was actually a border state. New Jersey btw, did not abolish slavery until between December 1865 and January 1866. Delaware would be the last state to end the practice in 1901.
@@culturalconfederacy782 Nowhere in article 2 or anywhere else in the constitution does it say who can or can't be a citizen. The constitution was entirely silent on the matter, leaving it up to the states to make that determination. Yet Dredd Scott stole this power away from the states by proclaiming blacks could not be citizens. It was just one many rulings and laws by the federal government that crushed states rights on behalf of the South.
The 1850 fugitive slave act went way beyond what the constitution required in the fugitive slave clause.
History is clear, the South was not in favor of small government or states rights. They wanted a big federal government who would work on their behalf to preserve slavery.
@@TheStapleGunKid What I was trying to say, is that SCOTUS looked at Article II and determined that Scott did not have the legal standing to sue for freedom because he did not meet the requirement(s) laid out in the article itself. SCOTUS could intervene and hear the case, because it involved a conflict between two states. People at the time believed the Dred Scott decision would solve the issue of slavery once and for all. Instead it did the exact opposite. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and Dred Scott verdict also affected slavery in the border states: MD, KY, MO and DE. Missouri joined the Confederacy, but Maryland and Delaware did not. Nor did these two states secede.
Dr. Guelzo's argument against secession is circuitous as well as flawed. Since he is a scholar on Lincoln I am not surprised. First, the Declaration asserts our natural right to dissolve our ties with a tyrannical government. Since the tariffs were being paid almost solely by the South to the benefit of the North the South had every reason to view themselves as under the boot of the Federal Government.
Dr. Guelzo finds it strange that Constitution does not mention Secession, and therefore it must be illegal. I argue the opposite. The Articles of Confederation explicitly denied the right of secession. That supports the argument that right of secession is implicit in the Constitution. I believe the Constitution would never have been ratified had it (the Constitution) precluded secession since many feared it concentrated too much power in the hands of the Federal Government. When Thomas Jefferson told Massachusetts that they were free to secede if they wished it implies that right of secession was taken for granted.
Dr. Guelzo also tries to separate the questions of secession and citizenship. They cannot be separated. They are the same question. If secession is legal, and your state secedes you are no longer a citizen of the US.
It is interesting that Dr. Guelzo claims that the 13 colonies overthrew a monarchy. Really? You mean King George was no longer in power after the Revolutionary War? That is beyond ridiculous. The 13 colonies seceded and formed their own government. The government in England itself remained intact. What is really amusing is the good Dr.'s condescending tone as he tries convince us of this and the rest of his rubbish.
It is also funny that Dr. Guelzo tells us that Lincoln acknowledged to Grant that the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. What he doesn't tell us is that "honest" Abe was giving heavy subsidies to the railroads which got him elected all through the war.
It would be nice if this man were a dispassionate historian with no axe to grind, but that is virtually impossible to find.
There was no "tyrannical government". That's just something lost causer came up. It's utter gibberish.
@@billhere5Maybe you're right. It would be nice if you supported that with a little evidence or an explanation of your logic though. I think holding the Maryland legislature under guard so they couldn't vote on secession, jailing journalists, and suspending habeas corpus are a few examples of tyranny though.
which tariffs are you referring to?
@@xylophonix2376 This is some interesting reading for you. You may investigate further and form your own opinions. www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/
VA when ratifying the Constitution, reserved the right to resume powers so delegated. Virginians believed in this reserved right, and why wouldnt they?
The Constitution is a document that establishes a government and also LIMITS that government. Powers not delegated are not considered, thusly, federal powers.
Mr. we could use a man like Robert E. Lee today.
Play right my friend we could use more f****** traitors who turned on their country you took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic how about that man you like to honor a man that betrayed his country you know back in them days to call somebody a traitor was fighting words and I mean quick in a heartbeat so you want to honor a traitor wow 😲 a man that resign his military commissioned as an officer in the Union army to go fight in Virginia for the Virginians Confederacy unfuk and believable. Did you know that he was stripped of his citizenship by Congress and he wouldn't get it again until another seventy eighty years later in 1960 when Congress restored his citizenship posthumously spiritual Great patriotic American so when I hear people say that wow Robin Lee was a patriot yeah a patriot at going to war against his own country now let that sink in dude
@@charlesneely That might be true about Robin Lee, but l was referring to Robert E. Lee.
Bob was a model school boy in Alexandria, honest and forthright. The PBS one part bio on Lee is great! Yes, most leaders the good ones, and those less so are typically a strong personality and intelligent I look around in the 21st century and wonder "who are these people"! Cheers! P.S. Bob loved to tell tales at the punchbowl. A Grant film is in the works in Hollywood, they all might be in it.
Note: The oath taken at West Point, prior to the war, as to "these United States". Once the States were not "united", what weight did this oath still possess? Some may scoff at this, but the reality of the situation quickly prompted a rewriting of the oath after the War began....they obviously saw the flaw.
Lee and Davis were not tried for the fear the case would be lost.
The legal right of secession was taught at West Point.
Do some reading....
B Johnson 😂sure
www.amazon.com/View-Constitution-Secession-Taught-Point/dp/0935545182
Rawles, the West Point instructor noted, was very good friends with Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. He was appointed by Washington to be the US Attorney for Pennsylvania. He was the Prosecutor in the trial those caught in Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. He was a Northern Abolitionist who believed in States Rights.
Appendix I discusses the subject of Treason. This was inserted as a new chapter (XI) in new versions.
Newer versions (not edited by Kennedy) have Kindle format. I prefer eformat over paper any day.
Rawle's original book was used as the textbook on US Government as taught at West Point Military Academy only during the year of 1825, long before the Civil War (aka War for Southern Independence).
"sure"
B Johnson rawles book being taught one year is far from it being curriculum as was asserted. The question over the legality of secession ultimately brings about the same conclusion as brought up by the speaker in the video.
I don't understand defending it on the premise of a president being fairly elected and the minority being unhappy about the results, much less over the fear that slave property would be taken away. It would be as if California and New York seceding because they didn't get their way when Trump got elected. Except in the case of South Carolina and others it's even worse. But hey if you want to defend a people's right to secede because they are unhappy with election results and want to set up a slave holding republic then have at it my friend.
My position is based more upon the secessions of VA NC TN and AR.
Specifically, VA ratified the Constitution with the proviso that if felt harmed by the arrangement, they could resume powers so delegated by the federal experiment. When war was to be conducted on the Deep South to coerce them back into the Union, requiring VA and the others to provide troops and engage in a blockade of southern ports,VA exercised that provision. It is curious that VA's ratification did NOT meet with consternation or even debate. It was accepted straight up. This leads to Rawles and the acceptance that secession was a viable course of action for a state. Rawles held this view, taught this view, was friends with Washington and other framers. How could such a view, if so radical, be held by a AG of PA or a teacher at West Point? I contend that both the uncontested acceptance of the VA ratification and the acceptance of Rawles teachings proves that in that era, the right of a state to terminate the federal experiment existed. As the years passed, certainly minds changed...but did the law?
YES HE DID!
Elephant in the room, here: He never identifies where national sovereignty lies: i.e. whether it's with the Union, or the states; rather, he just argues from ignorance, saying he doesn't see any proof that secession is LEGAL in the Constitution.
But the USA made NO valid legal argument of national union, with Lincoln claiming instead that the states were NEVER sovereign-- which is an outright falsehood. So there was no national union, just international-- and secession was just "Brexit."
correct
I stand with General Lee! And on this matter, he was extremely clear, as Dr. Guelzo notes:
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. *_It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution_* or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr. Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga. statesmen. What can it be now?"
--Robert E. Lee, Jan 29, 1861 (emphasis added)
The provisions of Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution made unilateral secession legal in 1860- 61. See the text below:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Secession was not a power delegated to the United States government by the Constitution, nor was it prohibited to the states by either the Constitution of any then- existing law. On this basis, the right of secession was reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Unfortunately for the Confederacy, they then committed an act of war by Confederate President Davis' order to reduce Fort Sumter- and at a time when the Confederacy was completely unprepared for a conflict. This rendered the legality of secession irrelevant.
Yes. Next question
The Chase court in White v. Texas in 1869 held that secession couldn't happen and didn't happen.
Exactly. This is the ONLY argument. There is no such thing as "secession".
Secession did happen and White v. Texas was a post war decision that has no bearing on the Secession of States of the Confederate States that seceded. Secession is legal if sustainable.
@@mcl1169 nope. While "secession is never mentioned in the Constittion", under Article 1, Section 10 it is clearly stated: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..." and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
However, I do agree that doing literally anything illegal is "sustainable" so long as you get away with it.
@@mcl1169 White v. Texas related to bonds sold by the state of Texas. In the decision the court decided that Texas had never stopped being a state. "Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
The transactions referred to included the Ordinance of Secession.
Something being "sustainable" doesn't make it legal. During prohibition many speakeasys were sustainable but not legal.
Clearly succession could be made a reality though force of arms but that still wouldn't make it legal according to Chase and company.
Texas v. White wasn't decided any sooner because none of the states asked the Congress to grant secession, or asked the courts to do so. They just up, and decided that they would leave. And then they attacked members of the US military on US property. There is zero excuse for it. Luckily they didn't spend years in prison.
Brilliant lecture. Fascinating.
All rights not given to the Federal Govt. are retained by the states which would include succession. Not one of the states would have joined the original Confederacy or the following United States if they had any idea that they could never leave the Union.
Research the States / Common Wealths archived Plat Maps and Property Tax records? How many Slaves do the Majority of Southerners need to Farm a 40 acre to 160 acre Farm?
You need to put your remarks in the context to what the Farm s were in 1861.
Dr. Guelzo is a treasure of American Civil War history. My favorite historian; whereas, he always presents his lectures with facts and panache.
Check out Brion McClanohan. He's the best. Way better than this.
@@SimpleManGuitars1973 He is very good but I think he himself would accede to the words and wisdom of his master Dr. David Livingston.
Dr. Guelzo is an unforgiving and blind reconstructionist and revisionist historian who promotes and embellishes on the Yankee and radical Republican agenda unapologetically and is brought into Southern universities by liberal (often Yankee) academics to undermine the history and values of Dixie. His arguments when confronted by historians of the true history of the Southland fall like autumn leaves. When he has the pulpit to himself and speaks to the ignorant he sounds convincing if his listeners have particularly been brought up on and groomed in revisionist history since the cradle and taught the mantra of nationalistic socialism and historical revisionism that the South has been subjected to, particularly in the last fifty years in public schools and in the media. But when Dr. Guelzo shares the stage with any one of the numerous highly qualified Southern scholars of Southern history his words are nothing more than the thumping on a hollow log standing in the Dismal Swamp, in which no matter how loud he bellows, civilization can not hear him. When he is confronted with true intelligence and history to oppose his lame arguments he gets his hide stripped.
@@SimpleManGuitars1973 I follow McClanahan religiously.
@@cliffpage7677 no one could have said it better.
Certainly did. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
If Lee was guilty of treason, then what laws did Abe break? Many, but Lee was never brought to court, never tried, Old Abe got what was coming to him.It is strange how justice is served,aint it? No, Abe was the criminal, Lee a hero. I do respect your opinion,but disagree.
Is seceding, is the resumption of powers delegated to a federal experiment as noted in the ratification (which was accepted without debate) making war? Or is it invoking a power noted in an agreement (ratification)?
Except in Lee's time that is not how treason was defined.
@@marksizemore8413 Why are you so dumb? Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, that’s why Lee didn’t go to trail.
Any way you look at it, firing on the union, especially union property, which is what Ft Sumter was, is treason.
Lincoln asked Lee to lead the Union Army against his neighbors in Virginia. Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address called for "malice toward none" to "bind the nation's wounds", and after Lincoln's assassination, Lincoln's own party disregarded Lincoln's call and punished the south, even a few states that were not part of the confederacy. Lee served the U.S. well before and after the Civil War. Lincoln's generals destroyed the courthouses of the South, and the family and property records stored within. The North wanted the South because their economy depended upon the South. Lee did not want to dissolve the Union, but he could not lead an army against Virginia.
tgamful You're correct, but Lee should have convinced the confederates to stand down, or he should have left stayed at home and out of the war. There was no reason he had to take up arms because he didn't want to fight against Virginia. Heck, he could have moved to another country and become an expat and sat out the whole thing. No need to commit treason and no need to fight against Virginia.
"[T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them."
--Virginia-born Union General George Henry Thomas.
This speaker is an idiot.
@@tomcockburn653 If Lee was trying to save Virginia, he did not think it through too well; warfare is not a saving action. He drew the fight to Virginia and destroyed it. Today there are markers for battlefields everywhere there--proof of the lives lost and devastation of the area.
Staying in the Union wasn't a bad fate for non slaveholders, (95% of the population) and it only meant loss of face and power for the slavemaster group, same as was happening throughout Europe as industrialization superseded agrarian economies. Lee knew winning the war was not possible, yet he doggedly kept the killing, maiming and destruction going until total exhaustion. Although he did more harm to the South and Virginia than anyone, he is celebrated for fighting. George Thomas was right; the plantations should have been carved into Homestead Act plots and the perpetrators, the former confederates, should have been hanged.
@@tomcockburn653 Is THAT what the confederate sympathizers told you? They lied. Note that when the confederates did lose, the Union didn't kill everyone. They didn't even hang the traitors that led the rebellion, so you're hating fo no reason at all. The South is not and never was a separate country. Pretending it was and hating your own country based on that concept simply creates poverty and ignorance.
There was only one federal court district in Virginia in 1865 so the place of trial is not a problem constitutionally. It is the state Lee reasoned that pulled him out with it even if he thought 💭 personally secession was not power states had it was accepted widely enough that it was ambiguous. He felt he was following the laws of a sovereign entity. People needed to hate on someone for the suffering the war had caused.
The place of trial wasn't a problem constitutionally, but it was a problem because it was considered impossible to find an impartial jury. That seems like a pretty good assumptioin, considering how many people in the comments still think secession is legal.
@@aaronfleming9426 They could have found an impartial jury if they drew from the all the district which was the whole state in 1865.
@@andystitt3887 Apparently they didn't think so. I'm certainly no expert on potential jury pools in Virginia in 1865. I would have thought that trying him in Maryland or even better Pennsylvania would have been a better option, but the fact is that Grant considered the terms of Lee's surrender to give him immunity from prosecution, and Johnson wanted to give a big middle finger to the radical Republicans, so the issue died for lack of political will, not for strictly legal reasons. Personally I'm inclined to agree with Grant's legal position.
@@aaronfleming9426 Grant may have thought 💭 he could do that but it’s the United States Attorney in the district where the overt acts happened.
@@andystitt3887 Maybe the law is more clear than I imagine (I'm not a lawyer, that's for sure) but it seems to me like it'd be a pretty foggy situation. I assume that generals or other officers have or had the authority the offer terms to enemy combatants. This is intended, I think, to give generals the option to prevent further bloodshed and destruction; honoring those terms is necessary to assure any future adversaries of the advantage of surrender instead of fighting to the bitter end, to say nothing of ensuring that our enemies honor the terms if we're forced to surrender to them on some occasion. But what if those enemies are rebels and surrender in the jurisdiction in which they committed treason? I don't know. Maybe I need to go to law school.
Although I think of W&L as "the other school in town", when observing the statue of Lee's horse there, Traveller, that his ass faces North.