James Longstreet and the Lost Cause Movement

**Riverknight** · March 14, 2014, 08:28 AM

James Longstreet and the Lost Cause Movement, Written by Riverknight

In 1865 the civil war ended. The Southern Confederacy was crushed and the Northern Victory ushered in a new age of Industrialism, expansion of the government and the end of slavery. Southern morale and spirit plummeted, some southerners asked, “How did the great Southern Military, the Military that had the North on the brink of catastrophe numerous times been beaten?" Some Southerners thought that the war and its defeat came from god as punishment for their sins, others blamed the Confederate morale; but the overall majority of people singled out Confederate Generals who for whatever reason, usually poor or questionable military record such as J.E.B Stuart at Gettysburg, were blamed for the loss of the war. The most singled out of these generals though, was James Longstreet. To truly find out why James Longstreet was blamed for the Confederate loss, we must delve into the numerous things the lost cause movement blames him/dislike him for.

A reason why James Longstreet is one of the main commanders attacked by the “lost cause” movement is due to his relationship with Ulysses S Grant. In 1842 both men graduated from the United States Military Academy and both were assigned to the 4th US Infantry(1). Longstreet soon befriended Grant and they began a very close friendship that would endure all the way to Grant's death in 1885. Not only were they just friends, they were also slight relatives as Grant married Longstreets fourth cousin. When the war ended and Longstreet and the rest of the Confederates surrendered to Grant, one could guess Grant and anyone associated with him were not held in high regard by many Southerners. Longstreet did little to settle the flames of Southern resentment of his relationship with Grant as in his memoir “ From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America” Longstreets states that when Robert E Lee and the army of Northern Virginia surrendered at Appomattox Court House and Grant extended his hand in a sign of respect and friendship Longstreet thought, “Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?”(1) After the war Longstreet’s and Grant’s friendship endured, Grant did many things for Longstreet, he helped pardon him after the war and during his presidency he appointed Longstreet as the surveyor of customs in New Orleans. Grant and Longstreet’s friendship was beneficial for the United States, it represented the union between the North and South and it was a very healthy relationship. The only reason people labeled Longstreet a traitor and “scalawag” is because Grant became the face of the Union forces during the Civil War and Southern hatred for Grant extended to any of those Grant even knew. Longstreets other Political blunder for Southern support happened shortly after the war when he openly joined the Republican party. Longstreet thought that Southern and Northern unity would be beneficial for the South during the reconstruction period; but most Southerners saw the Republicans as the men who stole away the “Southern way of life” and caused the civil war. Longstreet was vilified for joining the Republicans and he was actively disrespected throughout the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. Longstreet was not the only other Confederate general to join the Republican party though, John Mosby also joined the Republican party and was also vilified in the South. Both were some of the leading Confederate leaders during the civil war, but were both spat on once they joined the Republicans. Longstreet cared little about his political or personal controversies as he thought it would benefit the South.

The single biggest reason James Longstreet was vilified in the South and blamed for the Confederate defeat was due to the fact that he questioned and battled with Robert E Lee’s battle plan at Gettysburg. But not only do Southerners think he questioned Lee, some think he purposely helped the Union army at Gettysburg and really gave up on the Confederate cause after Gettysburg. Robert E Lee attained a god like respect in the South both during and after the Civil War. Lee had invaded the North twice and had won spectacular victories at Second Manassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. So when the war ended and Lee surrendered, many Southerners found it impossible to blame Lee for anything but not having enough resources to win the war. Blame was placed on Longstreet; as any other leaders in the Army of Northern Virginia had either died (Jackson, Stuart) or simply did not “do” enough to warrant a place in the lost causes blacklist. To understand Longstreet's vilification and his role in the Confederate military we have to dive into his actions as the battle of Gettysburg.

The battle of Gettysburg was not supposed to be the reason for southern collapse, well at least not at Gettysburg. The South was on the brink of victory, Lee had invaded the North, the army of the Potomac was in a state of shock and one more victory would guarantee a Southern peace treaty with the Union. Lee -aware of the Southern position- sought to find a win as quick as possible; this meant on offensive attack and Lee -thinking his army almost invincible- beamed with confidence. He sent J.E.B Stuart to scout Southern Pennsylvania and marched his army North in search of the army of the Potomac -which he had beaten twice- so he could crush it. When the two armies met on accident near Gettysburg, Longstreet advised Lee to march south and put Lee’s army in between Washington and the Army of the Potomac, Longstreet thought this would allow the smaller army of Northern Virginia to gain supremacy due to having the option to chose the field of battle and forcing Meade (Commander of the Army of the Potomac) to attack Lee in a defensive position. Lee disregarded the idea as he thought his army stronger than the Union army. Meade later said of Longstreet's idea, "Longstreet's advice was sound military sense; it was the step I most feared Lee would take." (2)

Soon the battle began and almost everything Lee ordered went wrong, the most infamous order Lee made was the charge of Nine Infantry Divisions against the Union center. Although now known as “Pickett's charge” this charge was led by a very unconvinced Longstreet who thought this straight-on attack on the Union center would be disastrous. After learning of the order Longstreet openly professed to Lee his total lack of confidence in this order, later on in Longstreet's life he was said to have said “Never was I so depressed” (2) when asked about the charge. Not only was Longstreet accused of combating Lee’s orders, he was also accused of being one of the largest factors in the Confederate defeat. Longstreet delayed Pickett's charge so his fatigued men could rest, this allowed Meade to predict the attack and strengthen his center. (2). When Lee ordered Longstreet to attack, Longstreet simply nodded his head and the artillery assault that preceded the charge commenced. Picketts charge failed and the Confederate army was denied the victory they so desperately needed. After the battle some say that Longstreet gave up on the Confederate cause, but that is not only wrong it is just plain stupid. Longstreet was one of the biggest reasons for Confederate success’ at both the battle of Chickamauga and the Wilderness. He even was shot at the battle of the Wilderness and lost control of his right arm for the majority of his life. Abraham Lincoln also said on multiple occasions things like, "Bring me Longstreet's head on a platter and the war will be over."(1) or when asked what the best thing that could happen in the Battle of the Wilderness he said the best thing that could happen was for union troops, "To Kill Longstreet.". Even Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnston said to Longstreet, "There are three persons of the South who can never receive amnesty: Mr. Davis, General Lee, and yourself. You have given the Union cause too much trouble.". These quotes are just pointing out how effective and important Longstreet was to the Confederate cause.

The Lost Causes’ blaming of James Longstreet for defeat (or at least a major part in it) in the Civil War was simply a method for the Southerners to stomach defeat. The Lost Cause has, in recent years, simmered down their blame on Longstreet and have instead blamed lack of Governmental leadership and the death of Thomas Jackson as the reason the Confederates could not gain the final blow to defeat the Union. James Longstreet is in the opinions of many people one of the premier leaders of the Civil War, only time will increase respect for him.

References

(1)
Longstreet, J. (1896). From manassas to appomattox. (1 ed., Vol. 3, p. 800). Atlanta: J. B. Lippincott company.

(2)
Mcpherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom. 2. 4. New York: Oxford History of the United States, 1988. 952. Print.

**GarretJax** · April 17, 2014, 03:59 PM

Just happened to see this, it is a succinct essay on Longstreet's contributions during the war and reasons he was chastised afterwords. Just two small points though, I think it was just a typing error, but during "Pickett's Charge" he commanded 9 brigades, not divisions. Also, I'm not sure that he intentionally stalled the attack to give his men rest. Pickett's division was on the field the night of July 2nd and would have had time to rest during the night. There is some debate on why the order wasn't given for Pickett's division to move into battle formation earlier in the day, some ascribe it to Longstreet intentionally delaying (though not to let his men rest), or to him not clearly understanding Lee's orders . . . which are both parts of The Lost Cause argument against him.

**Riverknight** · April 21, 2014, 12:58 PM

Thanks for the Comment!

**hellheaven1987** · April 25, 2014, 10:41 AM

I always thought it was because Confederates secretly know they are the one who was wrong at first (by firing first shot).

**Cyclops** · May 21, 2014, 08:43 PM

Absurd conspiracy therory from an absurd lost-cause brigade. The South lost because they were an agrarian society that refused to modernise.

Slavery was evil and it rotted the South from the inside. The pasty faced mechanics of the Yankee states proved more manly and steadfast than the plantation equites of the South. These disorganised fairweather degenerates then celebrated their defeat with a campaign against black people that seemingly continues in the USA today.

I have always felt the CSA was a lost cause at birth and lingered amazingly long given the incompetent political leadership and laughable war-making capability. They were only saved from sudden extinction because the people of the USA are basically peace-loving and slow to embrace the anger of war.

**Aawulf** · May 31, 2014, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Absurd conspiracy therory from an absurd lost-cause brigade. The South lost because they were an agrarian society that refused to modernise.

Slavery was evil and it rotted the South from the inside. The pasty faced mechanics of the Yankee states proved more manly and steadfast than the plantation equites of the South. These disorganised fairweather degenerates then celebrated their defeat with a campaign against black people that seemingly continues in the USA today.

I have always felt the CSA was a lost cause at birth and lingered amazingly long given the incompetent political leadership and laughable war-making capability. They were only saved from sudden extinction because the people of the USA are basically peace-loving and slow to embrace the anger of war.

Most Southerners neither owned slaves nor lived on plantations. In fact, less than 24% of Southern families were involved with slavery at all. Letters and memoirs from Confederate soldiers bear the reality that most of them weren't fighting for slavery per se, but were fighting for the defense of their sovereign state. Our states joined the union as sovereign and it wasn't until the Civil War settled the matter that many states believed that they were states at will and could leave when they so chose. We were these United States of America and now everyone knows we are now THE United States of America. It was seen altogether from a different light then.

**hellheaven1987** · June 20, 2014, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Aawulf

but were fighting for the defense of their sovereign state.

Yes, but Federal government had no sovereignty? Lincoln, in reality, did not say South could not leave (mainly because federal law did not say they could not at that time); the issue that cause the war broke out was South attacked the sovereignty of Union government by purposely attacking its property - in today's standard, such move is considering as outright invasion (like purposely seize the foreign embassy without permission). South, due to impatient, committed such grave mistake and hence earned their deserved punishment

**Hanny** · August 18, 2014, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

Yes, but Federal government had no sovereignty?

Correct, its not even a party to the Constitution, its a creation of the parties, to act on their behalf.

Lincoln, in reality, did not say South could not leave (mainly because federal law did not say they could not at that time);

( First POTUS did exactly that.

the issue that cause the war broke out was South attacked the sovereignty of Union government by purposely attacking its property - in today's standard, such move is considering as outright invasion (like purposely seize the foreign embassy without permission).

Second all Federal property was jointly owned by the States, ownership of all the Federal Forts was held by the States, not the federal government. Your example is a cracking one, when the USA leaves a political body, like NATO or UN etc, its embassy reversts back to the prior owners who seceded ownership, under eminiant domain, just as Sumpter went back to SC ownership as she payed for its erection after the Federal Governemnt failled to fun its compeltion.

South, due to impatient, committed such grave mistake and hence earned their deserved punishment

Nonsense at every level.

**Turtler** · August 23, 2014, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hanny

Correct, its not even a party to the Constitution, its a creation of the parties, to act on their behalf.

Do you even realize how much nonsense that is?

The Federal Government is not merely party to the Constitution, the Constitution is largely about *terms the Federal Government accepts in order to be allowed existence, let alone power.* That's Social Contract 101 (IE: the idea of the contract between the governed and the governors, be it individually or as a body).

Originally Posted by Hanny

( First POTUS did exactly that.

The British Crown did not govern the colonies under the British Constitution; no North American British colony was allowed any say whatsoever in voting or policymaking beyond what it could take or make itself heard from. When the British Crown Government responded to protest by ordering a military occupation to dismantle the last peaceful abilities to resist, the Colonies exercised their right to rebel and fight to protect those liberties. Something the British Parliament had no right to ignore or not understand, because it owes its' existence and power from doing the same to King Charles I.

The Confederate states didn't do that. Their state governments signed on to a free, fair, and mostly binding agreement that in many ways privileged them and gave what they wanted (as they showed with Virginia's dominance and the South's hold on the Senate). They had every legal right to take part in free elections, policy making, lobbying, and others to petition for their interests in a free system, and they HAPPILY stood on it. Until of course, they started to not get their way. At which point they decided to hold national politics hostage with threats of armed rebellion if the rest of the country didn't do what they wanted.

And eventually decided to murder (yes, Murder) thousands upon thousands of their fellow Americans simply because after they had their Constitutionally-guarenteed say and pull, the rest of the country eventually told them to go

themselves in a legal, free, and constitutional manner. That's not protecting rights. That's a group of armed thugs trying to overturn an election they would've accepted if they won. And that is beyond justification.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Second all Federal property was jointly owned by the States, ownership of all the Federal Forts was held by the States, not the federal government.

Utter Bollocks. The Federal Government is jointly owned and operated by the States *AND PEOPLE* of the United States. And in case you don't see the difference, the Constitution itself spells out that The State Governments And The American People Are Two Different Kinds Of Entity. As shown by their separate listings on the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Article the eleventh

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Originally Posted by Article the twelfth

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.

The American people and large numbers of the states elected a Republican government under Lincoln during the election to run the Federal Government owned jointly by all the States and the American people. In response, the Rebels decided they had the "right" to secede from the Union without due cause and Steal (yes, Steal) the Federal Property on the territories they claim. This means that they are GUILTY commuting Murder And Armed Robbery against The People and the majority of states for the seizing of the Federal property alone.

Nevermind the fact that the Confederacy also had no qualms stealing the property of other states, state governments, and out-of-state people that they could get their hands on. Because apparently States' Rights only applied to one side, no?

They stole those forts, that property, and other peoples' lives from the common trust they had signed on to, and they had no right to do that any more than the North would have had right to march down in a time of peace and murder every law-abiding Southerner simply to end slavery.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Your example is a cracking one, when the USA leaves a political body, like NATO or UN etc, its embassy reversts back to the prior owners who seceded ownership, under eminiant domain, just as Sumpter went back to SC ownership as she payed for its erection after the Federal Governemnt failled to fun its compeltion.

The problem is that the US did not leave a political body, the Confederate States left the Union. And the Federal government- and property of other states and Northern citizens- did not vacate willingly. They were stolen by violence or threat of violence (even when no actual shots were fired) by Illegal Squatters. Which is exactly what the Rebel militias constituted, along with traitors. It was nothing but common theft. It confers no legal justification to the squatters, and justifies the victimized party's attempts to regain its' rightful property by any means it sees fit within reason.

Did the British and Iranian governments just hand over deed and title to the Arab terrorist group nobody remembers when they took the Iranian Embassy in London Hostage? No. They moved in to crush them. As was their Right. Likewise, the Union had every right to do what its' electorate demanded when it came to dealing with illegal, thieving, squatters.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Nonsense at every level.

Such nonsense Hanny cannot even explain why. Yeah, very impressive.

I suppose Hanny thinks terrorism, murder, armed theft, and furthering a charnel house of a system against the will of the system *the people practicing it were stupid enough to agree to* is all fine? That's the only explanation I can see, since he hasn't exactly given any others.

**Riverknight** · May 21, 2014, 08:54 PM

You are true.

The South lost the moment they hit Sumter, many thought had they freed the slaves and then fired they could have been saved by England.

**Sir Adrian** · May 25, 2014, 05:22 AM

This is a great read. Script material.

**Aawulf** · May 31, 2014, 08:10 PM

One of the elective history courses I took while in college was about the American Civil War. A good amount of time was spent during lectures on why Longstreet was "to blame". It has been decades since the lectures and I don't have sources for those lectures, but I remember the focus was that Longstreet had no real home to lobby for him, so he was an easy target for the blame. The other generals all had regional and state loyalists lobbying for their reputations. The matter wasn't who was really to blame, but it was who could be blamed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**GarretJax** · June 04, 2014, 12:06 PM

That's one thing I've always heard brought up by Lost Cause, Confederate Apologists. That slavery wasn't the main issue, it was about state's right and defense of state liberties. In reality though, there was really only one "liberty" that the US was trying to impose on the southern states and that was abolition of slavery. I don't know of any other legislature trying to be imposed on states other then that, so in reality the Civil War was about slavery and the only liberty that they were fighting to preserve was in fact slavery. I don't like when people make it out to be more noble then it really was.

That said, I realize that slave owners were a minority, especially large plantation owners (there was a larger portion of people who only owned a couple slaves or house slaves). I'm sure as in most modern wars the elite powers that be in the south were able to twist abolition to appear to the common folk that there were wider abuses trying to be imposed by the Federal government. Politicians do it today to stir up support for unjust wars, I'm sure it worked just as well for the leading southern politicians to get young southern men to fight to protect the interests of the 24% or rather the 10% or less that had large plantations.

Sorry, I know this is a bit off topic but James Longstreet does get a bad rap. I don't know if it was his friendship with Grant or the fact that he didn't have a plantation of his own. As far as I know his father did, but he spent his time in the army or in frontier duty before the Civil War. Lost Cause proponents like Jubal Early and Wade Hampton had larger plantation families and in Hampton's case had a plantation himself. He was an easy target since he was the top leader in the Confederacy that survived the war, and people couldn't blame Lee, even though his actions bear a lot of criticism, which Longstreet never failed to point out as well.

**Aawulf** · June 20, 2014, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by GarretJax

That's one thing I've always heard brought up by Lost Cause, Confederate Apologists. That slavery wasn't the main issue, it was about state's right and defense of state liberties. In reality though, there was really only one "liberty" that the US was trying to impose on the southern states and that was abolition of slavery. I don't know of any other legislature trying to be imposed on states other then that, so in reality the Civil War was about slavery and the only liberty that they were fighting to preserve was in fact slavery. I don't like when people make it out to be more noble then it really was...
Sorry, I know this is a bit off topic but James Longstreet does get a bad rap. I don't know if it was his friendship with Grant or the fact that he didn't have a plantation of his own. As far as I know his father did, but he spent his time in the army or in frontier duty before the Civil War. Lost Cause proponents like Jubal Early and Wade Hampton had larger plantation families and in Hampton's case had a plantation himself. He was an easy target since he was the top leader in the Confederacy that survived the war, and people couldn't blame Lee, even though his actions bear a lot of criticism, which Longstreet never failed to point out as well.

It isn't about whether or not it seems more or less noble in any individual's opinion, the point is to understand what they believed at the time without such biases.

Unless one can allow one's conditioned ideas of what Southerners believed or felt, one will never begin to understand the Civil War's causes or turbulence resulting from the Reconstruction. In fact, to argue that the cause for the war was slavery and end of subject pretends that there weren't divisions and compromises that began before the US Constitution was agreed upon. Even in our modern 21st century, Zogby found that 22% of Americans believe states have the right to secede. Claiming that there was but one liberty, the abolition of slavery, threatened by the federal government, requires us to forget that the North's march to war was "to preserve the union". The emancipation of slaves and the following crusade came over 2 years into the war, after Lee's withdrawal from Gettysburg.

Hostility to the notion that the war, to many Southerners, was as much if not more about state sovereignty and the romanticism and honor in defending one's home from an invading oppressor seems rooted more in a projection of disdain for the slave holders to Southerners and even to those who espouse views that may appear to be sympathetic to Southerners. There is only one word for that and it is "bigotry".

There is sufficient enough evidence that the question of secession had been debated vigorously and several states tested the waters over issues completely unrelated to slavery. Federalists argued the issue was settled and the states never gave up their sovereignty upon signing the permanent contract of the Constitution because they were never really sovereign to begin with. Jefferson was still arguing at the start of the 19th century that the states are forever sovereign and would not have joined the treaty willingly were they to have believed they surrendered that sovereignty. Surely you have heard of the Federalist Papers, Nullification and the Alien Sedition Acts of 1798? The plain truth is that the issue continues and was not settled until the North forced the end of debate, at least for any real threats over a 150 years. Interestingly, at least one state tried to secede from the union because they wanted to abolish slavery (Pennsylvania). And there are at least a dozen attempts in the 21st century where groups have argued before courts for secession. Texas v White purports to have settled the issue of secession once and for all but because it's cornerstone was that states are indestructible thaerefore the union is indestructible, but the SCOTUS missed the fact that states aren't really indestructible because they have been and can be redefined as happened in such instances like Virginia and West Virginia.

The reason the right of secession is important because it fundamentally does not exist absent the belief that your state had sovereignty and there is no evidence refuting that Americans have been divided on that issue more than any other since America's inception, even before and after the slave dilemma was settled. Do we believe Lee who said he could not raise his sword against his Virginia or do we believe someone with a bone to pick with anyone trying to paint Southerners as noble and assume Lee really just wanted to fight to preserve slavery? Likewise, do we ignore the thousands of letters from Confederate soldiers and diary entries because our lying eyes aren't as credible as the edict by someone who doesn't like it when people make their service appear to be noble?

With respect to Longstreet, I didn't think to mention it before, but it is of no small consideration that Longstreet was a Republican and later joined the conservative Democrat coalition after the war and during Reconstruction. He was one of the poster boy "scalawags" who were the Republican coalition of Southern white abolitionists, freed black males and carpetbaggers which made it particularly easy for Southerners to blame anything and everything on him and because he had no home state claiming him and loyalists lobbying for him. My college professor, Dr. Ted Tunnel is quoted on Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by Dr. Ted Tunnel

Reference works such as Joseph E. Worcester's 1860 Dictionary of the English Language defined scalawag as "A low worthless fellow; a scapegrace." Scalawag was also a word for low-grade farm animals. In early 1868 a Mississippi editor observed that scalawag "has been used from time immemorial to designate inferior milch cows in the cattle markets of Virginia and Kentucky." That June the Richmond Enquirer concurred; scalawag had heretofore "applied to all of the mean, lean, mangy, hidebound skiny [sic], worthless cattle in every particular drove." Only in recent months, the Richmond paper remarked, had the term taken on political meaning.

**kentuckybandit** · August 18, 2014, 12:50 PM

Longstreet becoming Catholic and leading an almost entirely black army of militia to quell unrest in New Orleans after the war set him up perfectly as a vessel for the movement to channel its rage.

**Napoleonic Bonapartism** · August 23, 2014, 11:45 AM

In the account of the Battle of Gettysburg in 'Battle Cry of Freedom' James McPherson seems to me to give a good impression of Longstreet at Gettysburg, he urged Lee to move to attack Meade's left, which in truth seems like a sound strategic plan, the 20th Maine barely survived the attack on the second day of the battle and a strong move against the Union left would have rolled up the Union line, either resulting in a strategic withdrawal by Meade in a nick of time of a sheer disaster for the Union. This may not have won the war for the Confederates as there was plenty of time before the 1864 election - their main hope of victory - and the North could quickly have scared up reinforcments to defend Washinton. It could had led to peacetalks but Lincoln was always ardent about victory. But I digress, Longstreet at Gettysburg seems to have had more sense than Lee.
As for the Whole was the Civil War about slavery thing - yes it was let that be an end to it - we all know it was lets not kid ourselves or shove it under the rug for some lost cause sentimentality. Even if other states had attemtped seccesion for other reasons the South secceeded due to the election of a President from an anti-slavery party. If it was about States Rights it was about the states rights in regard to their propery - slaves. If it was about States Rights why leave just when an anti-slavery party is elected, a party who I might add had said they would not interfere with slavery where it existed, a nod to their support of the States rights. In fact Lincoln firmly beleived it was up to the States to choose how and when to abolish slavery, himself beleiving in gradual emancipation with compensation,
he proposed such plans to the border states in 1863.

**Hanny** · August 25, 2014, 07:15 AM

Do you even realize how much nonsense that is?

Facts are not nonsense, they are inconvienent to the those ignorant of them otoh.

The Federal Government is not merely party to the Constitution, the Constitution is largely about *terms the Federal Government accepts in order to be allowed existence, let alone power.* That's Social Contract 101 (IE: the idea of the contract between the governed and the governors, be it individually or as a body).

Fact free, all contracts are between those who sign and ratify, the federal governemnet is created by those who signed the Constitution, and acts as their representaivs. The Constitution creates the Federal government and defines and grants it authority to act in the Constitution, it had no sovreignty before the States gifted it to it to act on their behalf, it does not sign the AoC or the Constitution. It existed not before the States created it, and no one from it signs teh Constitution. Only competent authorty can enter into a compact, the federal Governemnt only becomes such after the required number of States ratified the Constitution.

You miss the central premise of the DOI, the consent of the governed, while being ignorant of who are the parties that create and are bound by the Constittion, Madison explaining it for us:
‘MW‘Who are the parties to…[the Constitution]? The people – but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”

Congress agreed with Madsion whenever they voted on the nature of the compact, “Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.

US Congreess 1833, motion passed and won by vote in congress

Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each, against dangers domestic as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext, whether political, moral, or religious, with the view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity--objects for which the Constitution was formed--and, by necessary consequence, serves to weaken and destroy the Union itself.

US Congress 1860 motion passed 36 to 19 by vote in congress.

Madison to d Webster during nulification crisses, telling Webster he was just wrong It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)

The British Crown did not govern the colonies under the British Constitution; no North American British colony was allowed any say whatsoever in voting or policymaking beyond what it could take or make itself heard from. When the British Crown Government responded to protest by ordering a military occupation to dismantle the last peaceful abilities to resist, the Colonies exercised their right to rebel and fight to protect those liberties. Something the British Parliament had no right to ignore or not understand, because it owes its' existence and power from doing the same to King Charles I.

Your not very bright, the question was that the poster claimed POTUS did not say the States could not secede. Her did. Second the Colonies in N America we goverened under the UK Constitution, 15th Article of the James I Charter to form colonies in N America, gives all UK citizens the same rights as if they were in England. ( see rights of Englishmen) Colonies had their representatives in the HoP, who btw abolished the Stamp etc act after the Crown iegaly put in place under Royal warrant without HoP consent. Under UK Constituinal law the parties to the social contract, (social contract law 101 which you refered to but have no idea how it works) are allowed to secede, as in the instance of the GR in the UK of 1689, the case of colonies secedeing from Crown authoritty in 1643-46 etc.

The Confederate states didn't do that. Their state governments signed on to a free, fair, and mostly binding agreement that in many ways privileged them and gave what they wanted (as they showed with Virginia's dominance and the South's hold on the Senate). They had every legal right to take part in free elections, policy making, lobbying, and others to petition for their interests in a free system, and they HAPPILY stood on it. Until of course, they started to not get their way. At which point they decided to hold national politics hostage with threats of armed rebellion if the rest of the country didn't do what they wanted.

The States and Terr that seceded did exactly that. Just as they had done seperatly in 1774-76. Those States who refused to supply State Militia to ceoerce the Secedding States also nullified POTUS ilegal use of powers not granted to POTUS.

And eventually decided to murder (yes, Murder) thousands upon thousands of their fellow Americans simply because after they had their Constitutionally-guarenteed say and pull, the rest of the country eventually told them to go themselves in a legal, free, and constitutional manner. That's not protecting rights. That's a group of armed thugs trying to overturn an election they would've accepted if they won. And that is beyond justification.

Fact freee, in law in 1861 one was only an American with right enumarted in the Constitution if ones State was in the Union, there was only State passports, ie everyone was citizen of a State, and while in the Union you had right etc, one was only American because of membership of the Union, hence when States seceded, a war was fought between seperate legal entitys, so no murder was committed, which was why pow and parole were taken and given rather than people tried for the civil crime of murder in the courts.

Utter Bollocks. The Federal Government is jointly owned and operated by the States *AND PEOPLE* of the United States. And in case you don't see the difference, the Constitution itself spells out that The State Governments And The American People Are Two Different Kinds Of Entity. As shown by their separate listings on the Bill of Rights.

Incorrect The States or people do not own the Federal governemnt, Federal,property is collectivily owned by the States and or people your the one not seeing the diference in ownership of propertry.

See Madison for example to explain the Constitution to you since you fail to grasp its import :
If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States. What is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.

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. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. 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.

Quote Originally Posted by Article the eleventh
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Refers in part to RI State rfusing to allow the People of RI to vote on entry, orr not, to the New Constitution and pro longing their term of office to deny that vote, ie the people have the right of acedding of seceding from compacts not their elected representives.

“We, the Delegates of the people of Virginia do, in the name of the people, declare that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. . . .[On this basis], we do assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended, on the 17th day of September, 1787.” (Elliot’s Debates Vol. I, p. 327.)

The people is of the seperate citizens of States.

Quote Originally Posted by Article the twelfth
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.

“We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol III, p. 233.)
Justice Marshal:

XII came about because Mason wanted to make clear that the general welfare clause would not exclude rights not so delegated. Judge Pendelton agreed:

We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then?... Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument.

The American people and large numbers of the states elected a Republican government under Lincoln during the election to run the Federal Government owned jointly by all the States and the American people. In response, the Rebels decided they had the "right" to secede from the Union without due cause and Steal (yes, Steal) the Federal Property on the territories they claim. This means that they are GUILTY commuting Murder And Armed Robbery against The People and the majority of states for the seizing of the Federal property alone.

Fact free and not historicaly acurate, and not legaly acurate.

Nevermind the fact that the Confederacy also had no qualms stealing the property of other states, state governments, and out-of-state people that they could get their hands on. Because apparently States' Rights only applied to one side, no?

No, no least because the Secedding States offered to recompense the Federal governemnt as agents of the states for all property disputes.

They stole those forts, that property, and other peoples' lives from the common trust they had signed on to, and they had no right to do that any more than the North would have had right to march down in a time of peace and murder every law-abiding Southerner simply to end slavery.

You cannot steal that which you jointly own, especialy when you offer full compensation, and when POTUS sent the Armwed forces in states out of the Union, he was not acting under ant existing law, so it was he who ordered murder to be commited as the citizens of those states were acting not conmtary to any law.

Constitution requires ownership of property for erection of forts,SC sold the land that Sumpter was to be erected on with the folowing condition, in 1805 and was neverfullfilled, rather like buying a car and never paying its hp, its not yours till you have done so.
"the United States... within three years... repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein." Failure to comply with this condition on the part of the Government would render "this grant or cession... void and of no effect."

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides clear instructions about how and under what circumstances the United States government may acquire title to property located within a state:

"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."

Sumpter was sold to the US Governemnt by its owners ( 1812 invasion ) for the purpose of erection of fort to protect Charleston, and a federal garrison to man it, ina time span of 10 years. it bnever had a federal garrison, and SC had payed for its erection, and all its armaments, when federal funds were not provided.

The problem is that the US did not leave a political body, the Confederate States left the Union. And the Federal government- and property of other states and Northern citizens- did not vacate willingly. They were stolen by violence or threat of violence (even when no actual shots were fired) by Illegal Squatters. Which is exactly what the Rebel militias constituted, along with traitors. It was nothing but common theft. It confers no legal justification to the squatters, and justifies the victimized party's attempts to regain its' rightful property by any means it sees fit within reason.

No the problem is you inability to understand history or law, POTUS Buchanon entered into an agreement in SC that no federal movement of troops would take place, instead the vacant Sumpter, excpet for a night watchman, and unarmed SC workmen was taken bya bayonet charge by a federal force for Ft Moultrie, when PoTUS elect Lincoln sent orders to Scott to that effect and Scott obeyed Lincoln orders. First this is an impeachable criminal action, second its an act of war.

POTUS "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."

Did the British and Iranian governments just hand over deed and title to the Arab terrorist group nobody remembers when they took the Iranian Embassy in London Hostage? No. They moved in to crush them. As was their Right. Likewise, the Union had every right to do what its' electorate demanded when it came to dealing with illegal, thieving, squatters.

Straw man, and nothing to do with the legal process of leaving a compact, and what happens under emminent domian.

Such nonsense Hanny cannot even explain why. Yeah, very impressive.

Self evident that the statemnt is as described.

I suppose Hanny thinks terrorism, murder, armed theft, and furthering a charnel house of a system against the will of the system *the people practicing it were stupid enough to agree to* is all fine? That's the only explanation I can see, since he hasn't exactly given any others.

What you see is up to you, so far you have shown a complet ignoranjce of the subject as your posts show at length, and you unwarrented asumption is of course without any bassis in fact.