Violence in Charlottesville

[Montmorency]

You are quite correct that our 'founders' were traitors. Removing the taint of treason can be accomplished in one of two ways (pardons do not removed the taint, only the penalty): victory or death. Say what you will of them, they all knew the stakes for which they were playing.

Nor do I decry Robert E. Lee and other confederates simply for their treason against the USA. I simply note that they were traitors. Some of them died trying to win their independence from the USA....the remainder failed in their attempt. Such a fate could have befallen our 'founders' as well -- it was a near run thing until Saratoga, and not certain even after that for some time.

While I find slavery abhorrent, it has been part of the human condition since at least the development of societies larger than a village. According to some of the more ardent feminists, it has been de facto condition of women for virtually all of human history. I don't think Lee's view on slavery was either atypical or motivated by any sense of harshness. He did not view blacks as his cultural equals -- and there were many among the abolitionists of the time who did NOT believe in equality. Lincoln himself was inclined toward resettling blacks back in Africa: free but far away.

Starting with the infamous 'Triangle Trade' and moving forward from there, it is impossible to separate the use of plantation slavery from the success of the US economy prior to the ACW. Nevertheless, England's abolition and the movement away from plantation slavery throughout the world during the 19th put increasing moral pressure on the use of slavery in the USA. There were some, like N.B. Forrest, who were very clearly ardent proponents and believed in its rightness. Yet, for all of that, the moral pressure at the time was such that many referred to "states rights" rather than squarely naming the precipitate cause.

Nevertheless, persiflage aside, the Articles of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession make it clear that THE state right which was prompting secession was slavery. To claim slavery immaterial is to deny a surprising volume of evidence.

That said, I think the Unionists were not on solid ground either. The effective position they took was that, once having joined the union, a state was irrevocably bound to the United States and could not under any circumstances [save violent rebellion] withdraw from that association. The Constitution then extant was, effectively, mute on the issue. However, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution suggest to me that Lincoln's interpretation was incorrect. He was, however, able to enforce it by push of bayonet.

I like your comment on the lionization and demonization of Lee at different points in our history. You touch on the key point -- BOTH attitudes are political theatre and not fully connected with fact as was.

One thing that I will grant about Union legalism is that the formalization of West Virginia statehood prior to the conclusion of hostilities and re-establishment of authority was probably procedurally improper without the entire (territorially whole) state of Virginia being represented.

But the Constitution was deliberately broader and more resilient than the Articles of Confederation, so consider that there is something of a normative chasm between the two documents.