Top military officer labels Confederacy as treasonous as Pentagon takes ‘hard look’ at rebel ties

[Bigun]

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "

Abel Upshur, The Federal government: Its true nature and character

(Abel Upshur served as Secretary of the Navy 1841-43)

[txradioguy]

Soooo glad I can see the retirement light at the end of the tunnel. 

[roamer_1]

Soooo glad I can see the retirement light at the end of the tunnel.

So what are you gonna do? TN was it, or stay in CO, or finally back to Texas? have you bought a clue yet?

[txradioguy]

So what are you gonna do? TN was it, or stay in CO, or finally back to Texas? have you bought a clue yet?

Gonna settle down in my Old Kentucky Home.  Bought a house outside Ft. Knox right before I come to Colorado.

Get back into the radio biz and enjoy my retirement and the grandkids.

[roamer_1]

Gonna settle down in my Old Kentucky Home.  Bought a house outside Ft. Knox right before I come to Colorado.

Get back into the radio biz and enjoy my retirement and the grandkids.

Kentucky, that's right.... Well I wish you all the best forthcoming, and thank you for your service.
 

[txradioguy]

Kentucky, that's right.... Well I wish you all the best forthcoming, and thank you for your service.
 

Thanks for your support. 

[Bigun]

Kentucky, that's right.... Well I wish you all the best forthcoming, and thank you for your service.
 

Ditto @txradioguy

[Mesaclone]

Wholly untrue. Secession means withdrawn... No longer united, and under different authority. There ain't a damn thing traitorous in that.

The 1862 Act to Suppress Insurrection; to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other purposes...says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Lincoln and successors eventually pardoned southern leaders, but they were pardoned FOR their acts of treason.

I'm aware that the South THOUGHT they had a right to secede...the North disagreed. We fought a war over that definition...you lost. As such, the North's moral, military and judicial definition of secession prevails...even up to the current day and hour. As Lincoln made clear throughout, it is treason to secede in such a manner. So you're incorrect in every legal, moral and sheer power definition of secession being treason. So, as I said, there's everything traitorous in "that".

[roamer_1]

The 1862 Act to Suppress Insurrection; to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other purposes...says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Lincoln and successors eventually pardoned southern leaders, but they were pardoned FOR their acts of treason.

I'm aware that the South THOUGHT they had a right to secede...the North disagreed. We fought a war over that definition...you lost. As such, the North's moral, military and judicial definition of secession prevails...even up to the current day and hour. As Lincoln made clear throughout, it is treason to secede in such a manner. So you're incorrect in every legal, moral and sheer power definition of secession being treason. So, as I said, there's everything traitorous in "that".

I didn't lose. I am western not southern, though I have relatives down that way.
And no, the North had no right. Not in any contract ever made.

[EdinVA]

The 1862 Act to Suppress Insurrection; to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other purposes...says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Lincoln and successors eventually pardoned southern leaders, but they were pardoned FOR their acts of treason.

I'm aware that the South THOUGHT they had a right to secede...the North disagreed. We fought a war over that definition...you lost. As such, the North's moral, military and judicial definition of secession prevails...even up to the current day and hour. As Lincoln made clear throughout, it is treason to secede in such a manner. So you're incorrect in every legal, moral and sheer power definition of secession being treason. So, as I said, there's everything traitorous in "that".

The only 1862 Act I can find refers to the Militia and allowing "colored troops...

An Act to amend the Act calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions, approved February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five (1795), and the Acts amendatory thereof, and for other Purposes.
https://www.civil-war-journeys.org/Militia_Act_of_1862.pdf/quote]


Would be interested in a link...

[Mesaclone]

Geez, not this shit again.

So in your convoluted SJW like opinion, all our founding fathers who rebeled 1775-1783 are the same as traitors?  How many times to I have to say here, many including my ancestors did not own slaves.  So Mr. M....  what is a citizen to do, when an invading force attacks destroying his land, crops, livestock, and  livelyhoods etc.  Those traitors in your eyes? Were they not supposed to defend themselves?   Because if you want to PM me, I will give you countless accounts of where Union forces indiscrimantly scorched earth everyone in their path, no matter their zeal for the cause.  So give it a rest.  Being a traitor, is all a matter of perspective.  And in fact, if the Socialist tsumani takes effect as bad a we think we it might.  YOU...  will be one in their eyes as a conservative.

I oppose the SJW agenda at every turn, so silly assertion from point one. Had the Founding Father's been defeated in their rebellion, rest assured they would all have been tried as traitors and hung...nor would their statues be scattered across the land honoring their service. The rightness of a cause and its ultimate victory are intrinsically linked...a wicked cause such as that of the South in the Civil war...fails under the weight of its own moral failing. The FF's bore no such moral opprobrium, and the justness of their cause empowered their moral and military success. As for the "razing" tactics of the Civil war, that was par for the course in mid 19th century internicine warfare...and it was a tactic that led to the defeat of the South in pursuit of the liberation of millions of enslaved souls and the preservation of the Union (itself a most worthy cause). And I heartily agree...being a traitor certainly IS in the eyes of the beholder...nowhere would I dispute that. I'm not arguing that treason is always morally wrong, just that treason IS...actually...treason. So yes, our Founding Fathers DID commit treason against England.


Quadruple Bullshit.  BLM is nothing but race baiting leftist organization whose goal is 100% to change this country into a socialist state.  If you think BLM has any redeeming value or qualities,  I sadly feel sorry for you, as you have been seriously duped.

Yes, BLM is a disgusting and Marxist organization that seeks to destroy the nation AND...ironically...to make the lives of black Americans worse rather then better. BLM has no redeeming qualities, but when WE allow genuine injustices such as honoring men like Nathan Bedford Forrest...we grant substance to an element of their complaints against America. Two things can be true. BLM can be a horrific and even terroristic threat to the country....AND....we can be wrong in honor men like Forrest with statues and honorifics. Also, in being wrong on our part, we empower horrific groups like BLM in their war to destroy America.


Here is where I normally quote Ron White.....   but. I won't.  You have basically given quarter to those "w(h)acko". groups.  You have given them an inch, thinking at some magic point and time they will be satisfied, only to wake up in wonder how they enacted   their SJW scorched earth agenda on American values.  I really hoped you were smarter than that.

For my part, I give no quarter to ANY SJW group....BLM included. Nor do I choose to empower them by condoning something that is a genuine wrong...as I said...such as a Nathan Bedford Forrest statue. I hold MY side of this fight to a high standard of moral equity...WE must be good and right, and as no nation is perfect, we must quickly act to right the wrongs that are valid. Honoring civil war traitors with statues...not a good thing in the "moral" department. Honor their place in history, and respectfully move such things to museums where they can be given genuine historical context.


Your contemplation is my hertiage and ancestors who spilled blood bravely and valiantly on the fields of Shiloh and Wilson's Creek.  I just hope I live long enough to snicker when the shoe is on your foot.  Because believe me....  The revisionism is a runway train, and not stopping just becuase you want it to.

My own Great-great-grandfather walked home, with mule and rifle, from Appomatox courthouse...minus a few fingers. I honor his sacrifices and understand what he fought for...though I also have the advantage of a broader historical knowledge to understand that the South's cause was unjust. Hell, I'm a HUGE fan of Robert E. Lee...a man of real honor and integrity...though he was wrong to side against the nation he was born into for a cause that would have extended slavery and injustice. Knowing history and respecting those who fought on both sides in the Civil war is just and fair...honoring men who rose in rebellion with honorific statues on American streets is not. Good though many of these men were, they fought for a cause that sought to perpetuate the great evil of slavery (and yes, I know its only one of the many causes of the war).


If we are to fight against an unjust cause, BLM and SJW, we must ourselves be conscious of our own "just and good" behavior. We can condemn their evil with much greater moral weight if we are quick to correct our own shortcomings...in fact...we can only do by correcting our own shortcomings.

[Mesaclone]

The only 1862 Act I can find refers to the Militia and allowing "colored troops...

An Act to amend the Act calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions, approved February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five (1795), and the Acts amendatory thereof, and for other Purposes.
https://www.civil-war-journeys.org/Militia_Act_of_1862.pdf/quote]


Would be interested in a link...

http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/conact2.htm#:~:text=Other%20Documents-,The%20Second%20Confiscation%20Act,Rebels%2C%20and%20for%20other%20Purposes.
The Second Confiscation Act
CHAP. CXCV.–An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

[Absalom]

YOU are so FOS your eyes are brown!

-----------------------
Bigun, indeed; just another sanctimonious lefty tearing
down the reputation of those far better than him.

[catfish1957]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.  I think we are closer in our philosphies than different based on what you covered, in your earlier post.

Where we may differ is that, yes the institution of slavery is abhoration.  OTOH, why should we captiualate to tiny minority who in their wrath, decides who can or can't honor their ancestors.  That's where I think you are missing the boat.  I have been watching this issue for 20 years, and his slowly bu surely degraded to this point.  This is not new.  There are already factions who in the past have dug up old confederate soldiers for relocation.  Many cases where stones of people like our ancestors have been vandalized with spray paint, and in some cases kicked over and destroyed.  To me this is more than a simple disagreement, this is an affront and a war. 

That is why I was so animated in comments toward your earlier post.  I am pissed,  and its gets worse by the day,  To give a little different perspective, here is one of my heros H.K. Edgerton


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Mesaclone]

-----------------------
Bigun, indeed; just another sanctimonious lefty tearing
down the reputation of those far better than him.

Sanctimony...wow...do you have ANY sense of self awareness?

[Hoodat]

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”

Complete unadulterated horse shit.

There was absolutely nothing in secession that violated the US Constitution, nor did it betray the US.  Officers serving the Confederacy honorably resigned their military commissions first, lest they be accused of treason  And these officers later rose to the call to defend their homeland from a hostile invasion from their aggressive neighbor - The United States.

At no time did these Confederate officers commit treason.  At no time did they work against the US while working in the capacity of US officers.  This ass hat doesn't have a clue.

Here is Lee's letter of resignation to Gen. Winfield Scott:

Arlington, Washington City, P.O
20 Apr 1861

Lt. Genl Winfield Scott
Commd U.S. Army

Genl,
Since my interview with you on the 18th Inst: I have felt that I ought not longer to retain any Commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation which I request you will recommend for acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle it has Cost me to separate myself from a Service to which I have divoted all the best years of my life, & all the ability I possessed. During the whole of that time, more than a quarter of a century, I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors & the most Cordial friendships from any Comrades. To no one Genl have I been as much indebted as to yourself for kindness & Consideration & it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I shall carry with me, to the grave the most grateful recollections
of your kind Consideration, & your name & fame will always be dear to me. Save in the defense of my native state shall I ever again draw my sword. Be pleased to accept any more [illegible] wishes for “the Continuance of your happiness & prosperity & believe me

Most truly yours
R E Lee

Paper. L 32.7, W 29.3 cm
Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial, ARHO 5623

Less than 3 weeks later, invading Union troops violated the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

[catfish1957]

Complete unadulterated horse shit.

In an earlier thread we had established a pretty accuate timeline of succession, Lincoln's call for volunteers, and Lee's resignation of Commission.  He was absolutly not kidding, that if he had stayed with the Union, he would have led armies firing upon his own people.

How anyone call anyone like that a traitor, is beyond belief. 

[Mesaclone]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.  I think we are closer in our philosphies than different based on what you covered, in your earlier post.

Where we may differ is that, yes the institution of slavery is abhoration.  I concur. OTOH, why should we captiualate to tiny minority who in their wrath, decides who can or can't honor their ancestors.We should never capitulate. But we should look at the issue and decide what WE...in democratic sense...think is the right thing to do.   That's where I think you are missing the boat.  I have been watching this issue for 20 years, and his slowly bu surely degraded to this point.  This is not new.  Again, I agree in principle...my greatest fear for this country is that of mob rule via cancel culture...be it mobs in the streets or online.There are already factions who in the past have dug up old confederate soldiers for relocation.  Many cases where stones of people like our ancestors have been vandalized with spray paint, and in some cases kicked over and destroyed.  To me this is more than a simple disagreement, this is an affront and a war.  Those things are horrific and I condemn them with you. But there are also things that should not be that we SHOULD fix...statues of Quantrill's raiders or Bedford Forrest are atrocities and I can see why a black American would be offended by them.

That is why I was so animated in comments toward your earlier post.  I am pissed,  and its gets worse by the day,  To give a little different perspective, here is one of my heros H.K. Edgerton


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

My argument is that many of these statues are wrong and anachronistic...they belong in museums as relics of histories, not as monuments on street corners to honor in our civic arena as icons of who we are as a nation. When we fight to keep a statue in the public square of Nathan Forrest, we are associating ourselves with his racism and with the cause he for which he fought...our doing this HELPS groups like BLM to seem like they are morally in the right (which they are not).

Evil causes rise BECAUSE they are championing against genuine moral wrong in a society...for example, the Nazis gained vast support by condemning the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles (and were morally right to do so). By advocating for one just cause, they gained support...and however unwittingly...that support empowered them to convey a 100 horrific abuses and policies right up to the genocide of European Jews.  We MUST NOT give BLM a moral cause in which they are right and we are in the wrong...they are ALREADY using this, just as the moral predecessors the Brownshirts did in the early 1930's....that is the traction evil men use to sway the ill-informed, the ignorant, the "Karen's" of the white suburban middle class.

[LegalAmerican]

These "officers" chose not to support the President when requested to help quell the riots, so who's definition of treason are we going to use.
As far as I know, the Pentagon was at least aware of the coup de ta undertaken by the obama administration and chose not to intervene, so who's definition of treason are we going to use?

   Waste of time, money and energy.  IDIOT reason to change things now. 100 years ago?  Now, they want to fight that civil war,  AGAIN?  NOT VALID IN MY BOOK. 

[Mesaclone]

In an earlier thread we had established a pretty accuate timeline of succession, Lincoln's call for volunteers, and Lee's resignation of Commission.  He was absolutly not kidding, that if he had stayed with the Union, he would have led armies firing upon his own people.

How anyone call anyone like that a traitor, is beyond belief.

Its not bad company...George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were traitors to the crown. They waged war on a nation of which they were, at least from the perspective of the sovereign, citizens. Lee was also a traitor, in that the right of his state to secede...again, from the perspective of the sovereign government of the United States...was not accepted.

So, being a traitor in this sense is a legal declaration...not a moral one. Legal arguments can, and have, been made on both sides of the secession issue. In moral terms, it is often "just" to be a traitor when acting against an unjust sovereign and/or in favor of a just cause. The opposite is also true, of course. As I concur that the South's secession was immoral, in that it furthered the cause of human bondage, I must concur that Lee was, by any moral measure, a traitor.

[LegalAmerican]

It all needs to stay the way it was.  It changes nothing.  'BUSY WORK'.  SUCH A WASTE.   Most of us and those wanting to 'change things'..will be dead.  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.   None of us get out of this alive and most don't know their history,  ANYWAY. 
Silly, reason to change anything.  PENTAGON needs to take a hard look at all the traitors in OFFICE....TODAY.  AGAINST AMERICA AND MY POTUS.   

[Hoodat]

Had the Founding Father's been defeated in their rebellion, rest assured they would all have been tried as traitors and hung...nor would their statues be scattered across the land honoring their service.

Had the Founding Fathers succeeded in their rebellion, they would have simply asked to be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit, with zero malice towards the UK.

The rightness of a cause and its ultimate victory are intrinsically linked...a wicked cause such as that of the South in the Civil war...fails under the weight of its own moral failing.

The cause of the South was that the Northern members were derelict in their duty to uphold their Constitution and protect Virginia and the other Southern States against injury and oppression.  In fact, the only ones in this conflict upholding the Constitution here were the Southern States.  Not sure why you consider that a "moral failing" on their part.  As for the North, their own moral failing is quite apparent, beginning with Lincoln's promise to Virginia to enact a national law upholding slavery in any state if Virginia chose to remain in the Union.

Virginia's decision to secede came only after Lincoln ordered Virginia troops for the illegal invasion of the independently neutral CSA without a Declaration of War.

[EdinVA]

http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/conact2.htm#:~:text=Other%20Documents-,The%20Second%20Confiscation%20Act,Rebels%2C%20and%20for%20other%20Purposes.
The Second Confiscation Act
CHAP. CXCV.–An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

I would re-read it... every Act has "hereafter clause" as the condition so since this was passed nearly 2 years after the start of the civil war, it did not apply to the civil war combatants...

[Bigun]

I would re-read it... every Act has "hereafter clause" as the condition so since this was passed nearly 2 years after the start of the civil war, it did not apply to the civil war combatants...

It's a waste of time confusing people with facts when their minds are made up.

[EdinVA]

It's a waste of time confusing people with facts when their minds are made up.