Special to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante
Some realizations are slow to come, it seems, no matter how wide awake one might feel they are, and such it was for me, when only recently, I came to the realization that the white people in this country who live in the former Confederate states are a vanquished people, not really American citizens like the rest of us white people who don’t live in the former Confederate states, and thus, are full American citizens with the same rights and privileges, supposedly, anyway, that other Americans who aren’t white have, and I say supposedly, because the self-professed “Latina” Sonia Sotomayor, now a Supreme Court justice, God help the Republic, made it incandescently clear to me personally, while she was a circuit judge on the federal 2d circuit court of appeals in New York City, that as a white person, I didn’t mean **** to her, and as a result, I have no due process of equal protection guarantees such as I would have if I were a person of color.
Such it is and so it goes, she has the power, and I clearly don’t.
But that the white people of the south are even farther down that ladder than I am was made clear to me a bit ago by an e-mail from a person we shall call a “Northern Liberal,” for such is this person’s self-identification, that read as follows:
“I’ve been searching my memory for an instance where the losers of a war, here the one on our United States to protect and advance slavery, go about putting up monuments and waving their flag.”
“They lost.”
end quotes
Talk about having your consciousness raised, people, there it is right before us in black and white in those two words “They lost,” which means that today, the white people of the south who happen to live in the Confederate states are a permanently vanquished people who are to be looked down on by the rest of the people in America who aren’t in the Confederate states.
But is any of what this “Northern Liberal” is saying in any way true, or more to the point, factual?
For another more contemporaneous viewpoint, let’s drop back to 1866, when the Civil War, or War Between the States, had just ended, and our guide to those times will be a person named Oreste Brownson who did an extensive analysis of those times in a series of essays entitled “The American Republic,” which should be required reading for Northern Liberals like this one, but won’t be, because it is too long and therefore for them, too hard to read and assimilate, and besides, they already have their minds made up, so why try to change them?
So what does Brownson have to say on the subject?
Let’s go see:
The (federal) government started with the theory that no State had seceded or could secede, and held that, throughout, the States in rebellion continued to be States in the Union.
That is, it held secession to be a purely personal and not a territorial insurrection.
Yet it proclaimed eleven States to be in insurrection against the United States, blockaded their ports, and interdicted all trade and intercourse of any kind with them.
The Supreme Court, in order to sustain the blockade and interdict as legal, decided the war to be not a war against simply individual or personal insurgents, but “a territorial civil war.”
This negatived the assumption that the States that took up arms against the United States remained all the while peaceable and loyal States, with all their political rights and powers in the Union.
end quotes
So, there is some American history from someone who was actually alive back then, as opposed to this Northern Liberal above here, for us to consider, and perhaps this does lend some credence to his position that the white people alive today in the southern states that seceded aren’t really American citizens like the rest of us.
As to how America was viewed back then, Brownson continues as follows:
The States in the Union are integral elements of the political sovereignty, for the sovereignty of the American nation vests in the States united; and it is absurd to pretend that the eleven States that made the rebellion and were carrying on a formidable war against the United States, were in the Union, an integral element of that sovereign authority which was carrying on a yet more formidable war against them.
Nevertheless, the government still held to its first assumption, that the States in rebellion continued to be States in the Union — loyal States, with all their rights and franchises unimpaired!
end quotes
Confused, anyone?
To un-confuse you, let us read on:
That the government should at first have favored or acquiesced in the doctrine that no State had ceased to be a State in the Union, is not to be wondered at.
The extent and determination of the secession movement were imperfectly understood, and the belief among the supporters of the government, and, perhaps, of the government itself was, that it was a spasmodic movement for a temporary purpose, rather than a fixed determination to found an independent separate nationality; that it was and would be sustained by the real majority of the people of none of the States, with perhaps the exception of South Carolina; that the true policy of the government would be to treat the seceders with great forbearance, to avoid all measures likely to exasperate them or to embarrass their loyal fellow-citizens, to act simply on the defensive, and to leave the Union men in the several seceding States to gain a political victory at the polls over the secessionists, and to return their States to their normal position in the Union.
The government may not have had much faith in this policy, and Mr. Lincoln’s personal authority might be cited to the effect that it had not, but it was urged strongly by the Union men of the Border States.
The administration was hardly seated in office, and its members were new men, without administrative experience; the President, who had been legally elected indeed, but without a majority of the popular votes, was far from having the full confidence even of the party that elected him; opinions were divided; party spirit ran high; the excitement was great, the crisis was imminent, the government found itself left by its predecessor without an army or a navy, and almost without arms or ordnance; it knew not how far it could count on popular support, and was hardly aware whom it could trust or should distrust; all was hurry and confusion; and what could the government do but to gain time, keep off active war as long as possible, conciliate all it could, and take ground which at the time seemed likely to rally the largest number of the people to its support?
end quote
Ah, so it is not quite as simple as this Northern Liberal would have us believe, is it.
Brownson continues thusly:
There were men then, warm friends of the administration, and still warmer friends of their country, who believed that a bolder, a less timid, a less cautious policy would have been wiser; that in revolutionary times boldness, what in other times would be rashness, is the highest prudence, on the side of the government as well as on the side of the revolution; that when once it has shown itself, the rebellion that hesitates, deliberates, consults, is defeated — and so is the government.
The seceders owed from the first their successes not to their superior organization, to their better preparation, or to the better discipline and appointment of their armies, but to their very rashness, to their audacity even, and the hesitancy, caution, and deliberation of the government.
But the government believed it wisest to adopt a conciliatory, and, in many respects, a temporizing policy, and to rely more on weakening the secessionists in their respective States than on strengthening the hands and hearts of its own stanch and uncompromising supporters.
end quotes
That paints quite a different picture of the situation back then, doesn’t it, than that painted by the Northern Liberal above here.
Back to Brownson, then:
It must strengthen the Union party in the insurrectionary States, and as this party hoped to succeed by political manipulation rather than by military force, the government must rely rather on a show of military power than on gaming any decisive battle.
As it hoped, or affected to hope, to suppress the rebellion in the States that seceded through their loyal citizens, it was obliged to assume that secession was the work of a faction, of a few ambitious and disappointed politicians, and that the States were all in the Union, and continued in the loyal portion of their inhabitants.
Hence its aid to the loyal Virginians to organize as the State of Virginia, and its subsequent efforts to organize the Union men in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and its disposition to recognize their organization in each of those States as the State itself, though including only a small minority of the territorial people.
end quotes
So, contrary to what this Northern Liberal is stating or implying when he says the Confederate states made war on the United States to “protect and advance slavery,” not every person in the south was disloyal to the United States, nor did every person in the south want to protect and advance slavery.
Brownson then continues as follows:
Had the facts been as assumed, the government might have treated the loyal people of each State as the State itself, without any gross usurpation of power; but, unhappily, the facts assumed were not facts, and it was soon found that the Union party in all the States that seceded, except the western part of Virginia and the eastern section of Tennessee, after secession had been carried by the popular vote, went almost unanimously with the secessionists; for they as well as the secessionists held the doctrine of State sovereignty; and to treat the handful of citizens that remained loyal in each State as the State itself, became ridiculous, and the government should have seen and acknowledged it.
end quotes
Now, there, I submit, is a key and telling statement that I would not expect this Northern Liberal to grasp or understand – it was soon found that the Union party in all the States that seceded, except the western part of Virginia and the eastern section of Tennessee, after secession had been carried by the popular vote, went almost unanimously with the secessionists; for they as well as the secessionists held the doctrine of State sovereignty!
That would seem to blow this Northern Liberal’s argument that the Confederacy made war on the United States to “protect and advance slavery,” but being close-minded as I know him to be, I am quite sure that to preserve his argument that the people of the south are a vanquished people who should not have the right to erect any statues or memorials to their war dead, he would simply disregard Brownson as being uninformed, and therefore wrong.
But how about you, people of the south?
Did Brownson get it wrong?
Does the Northern Liberal have it right?
The candid world, which watches this on-going political drama involving these Confederate memorials, would truly like to know.
About the Author
So, why would the people of the south at the time of the Civil War, or War between the States, or War of Northern Aggression who formed the Union party in all the States that seceded, except the western part of Virginia and the eastern section of Tennessee, after secession had been carried by the popular vote, almost unanimously go with the secessionists, and why would they, as well as the secessionists, hold to the doctrine of State sovereignty?
For that answer, we need go no further than the Federalist Papers, written chiefly by Virginia’s own James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” and Alexander Hamilton.
In FEDERALIST No. 9, titled “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” for the Independent Journal, Alexander Hamilton writes to the People of the State of New York thusly:
The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.
end quotes
In FEDERALIST No. 14, titled “Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered” from the New York Packet on Friday, November 30, 1787, Virginia’s James Madison spoke thusly to the People of the State of New York:
Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.
end quotes
FEDERALIST No. 28, titled “The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered” for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton actually is quite illuminating on the subject of the relations between the states and federal government, and gives us a good glimpse into the minds of the people of America at the time of the Civil War, to wit:
Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.
The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate.
If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.
It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.
And it would have precisely the same effect against the enterprises of ambitious rulers in the national councils.
If the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one State, the distant States would have it in their power to make head with fresh forces.
The advantages obtained in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which had been reduced to submission was left to itself, its efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.
When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations?
end quotes
From that, we can almost see the war between the secessionist states, who in 1787, Alexander Hamilton called “independent nations,” brewing, where Hamilton states “it may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”
Should the people of America at that time, including those in the south, have taken Hamilton at his word?
Should we today, as we see state after state declaring themselves “sanctuary states,” where federal laws no longer apply, as young Andy Cuomo has done in New York state and Jerry Brown has done in California?
In FEDERALIST No. 31, “Concerning the General Power of Taxation” from the New York Packet on Tuesday, January 1, 1788, to the People of the State of New York, Alexander made this following statement concerning state sovereignty:
The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.
end quote
In there, Hamilton also wrote as follows:
It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments.
What side would be likely to prevail in such a conflict, must depend on the means which the contending parties could employ toward insuring success.
As in republics strength is always on the side of the people, and as there are weighty reasons to induce a belief that the State governments will commonly possess most influence over them, the natural conclusion is that such contests will be most apt to end to the disadvantage of the Union; and that there is greater probability of encroachments by the members upon the federal head, than by the federal head upon the members.
Every thing beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands, it is to be hoped, will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.
end quote
While we today with our lack of knowledge of our own history may disagree with the people of the south who did secede from the Union, it cannot be denied that they were acting in accord with what had been set forth by the so-called “Founding Fathers” of this nation at its very beginning.
And that brings us to FEDERALIST No. 39, “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York by James Madison, as follows:
THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican.
It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.
If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form?
THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican.
It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.
If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form?
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.
It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.
end quotes
There, people, right before us in the words of “Father of the Constitution” James Madison, is the basis of the belief of the people in the secessionist states at the time of the War of the Rebellion, as it is known in the north, that as individuals, they were in fact citizens of their distinct and independent States to which they respectively belonged.
Madison then continued as follows:
The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States.
It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves.
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States.
Neither of these rules have been adopted.
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
end quotes
There it is again: Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
And if each state was only to be bound by its own VOLUNTARY act of joining the Union, what was to prevent them by a similar voluntary act from leaving the Union as the southern states did when they seceded and formed the Confederate States of America?
So, who are we today to condemn people like Virginia’s Robert E. “Bobby” Lee and Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson for standing up to what they in their time thought it was their bound duty to do, which was to fight to defend the state of which they were a member?
This Northern Liberal up here where I am in continually haranguing me to “walk a mile” in the shoes of those who were slaves in the south, as if every southerner alive back then were a slave owner fighting to keep their slaves, which is a ridiculous and historically untenable argument, although that makes no difference whatsoever to this Northern Liberal, who denies history and goes with his feelings and passions instead, but in reality, it is he who should walk a mile in the shoes of people like Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson, although that is something in his self-righteous indignation at people in the south daring to have memorials to their war dead that he will never do.
And to finally put this matter to rest, ALL of us in this country should perhaps do what I have done above, and actually study our history as a nation so we can understand the roots of that conflict, instead of constantly emoting about the indignity of a people who lost a war having the temerity to raise statues and monuments to their war dead.