Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 1996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

From: Raymond Macon <maconr~at~speakeasy.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:28:31 -0600
To: "'Jules Verne Forum'" <jvf~at~gilead.org.il>

Sir:

 

Thank you for your considered reply. I was not trying to provoke you or anyone else into a bitter argument. Nor is the JVF the right place for this discussion since its purpose is to discuss the works of Jules Verne and not the details of American history. I will not address your treatise point-by-point here, but will gladly do so in a private exchange, if you so wish.

 

Of course, my ancestors had a vital stake in the outcome of the Civil War then as their descendants do now. That should be obvious. You say “Truth” has no color, and that the winners write the history books. Both of those statements are, shall we say, shallow and disingenuous. But we shall let that pass as well. The Constitution of the United States has always been the subject of great debate from its drafting to the present day. Your citing the discussion of levying tariffs is one that is hardly new. It goes back to the presidency of Andrew Jackson and his tussles with secessionists like John Calhoun in the 1830s.

 

As for the powers of the presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, while they are outlined in the Constitution and the reserve clause in the Tenth Amendment is certainly important, those have been subject to shifting beliefs and practice since the founding of the Republic. More than likely, they always will be.

 

Passing to the point of whether secession was legal, I stand by what I posted earlier. While Lincoln may have said people had the right to shake off a government they no longer supported, he definitely didn’t think that Southern secessionists had the right to do it by extra-Constitutional means. Furthermore, Lincoln clearly believed that his oath of office charged him with preserving the Union. Passively allowing secession, or doing nothing to prevent it as his predecessors Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan had done, was not an option either. The government of the United States does not have the right to stand permanently without alteration or dissolution. The Constitution says the people have the right to dissolve that government, but it can only be done by calling a constitutional convention. Three-quarters of the states must agree to such a convention. When that convention meets, then questions about dissolving the government can be freely discussed. If the convention decides that the government of the United States is to be dissolved and a new one put in its place, then any move to secede from the Union has legal sanction. Those states wishing to leave will then and only then be free to do so.

 

What troubles me most about your reply is the imputing of wrong motives to those like me who disagree with your thesis and the bringing up of a subject that is not really germane to this Forum. Yes, Verne had definite views on slavery and race and those are open to discussion in the context of his works. The Civil War is a valid topic for discussion here in that context. But splitting frog hair over the definition of “civil” war, and raising issues of “states’ rights” and other purely American political and historical issues are beyond the pale in my opinion. I do not expect you to agree with me on this, but I think it is necessary to state it.

 

As for regretting the defeat of the Confederacy, a government whose own vice-president Alexander Stephens said was founded “on the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man”, I am appalled that you think I should do so. That’s one reason I stated my ethnicity at the start of my post because it was certainly relevant. The Confederacy was no better than any other racist, tyrannical government that has ever existed; and its downfall and destruction are something that all lovers of freedom and justice should feel no guilt about. I have lived in the American South. Most of my family still resides there. My parents and grandparents suffered the indignities and humiliation that were their lot under the Jim Crow laws and segregation. That is something, sir, you have never experienced and evidently have no understanding of. Those were beliefs and part of a culture that sprang directly from the old Confederacy. Change eventually did come, but it wasn’t through an armed insurrection, fortunately, even though there were many who advocated this. I am most grateful that other means were found to achieve civil rights, but how much better it would have been if racists in both the American North and South had done the right thing in the first place and abolished slavery when they drafted the Constitution. It would have prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of treasure.

 

Raymond Macon

 

From: owner-jvf~at~Gilead.org.il [mailto:owner-jvf~at~Gilead.org.il] On Behalf Of mystery1881~at~verizon.net
Sent: Monday, 23 May, 2011 10:43
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il
Cc: drmmystery1881~at~gmail.com
Subject: Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

 


Mr. Macon, At the risk of boring our non-American friends on this group (although some even might enjoy it) by a discussion of individual "takes" on the War Between the States, I will respond to the more egregious items in your apparently deliberately provocative post. First off, I don't know why your being a "black American" (as opposed to an "African-American"?) makes your interest in my take on the American War Between the States any different from anyone else's. Truth has no color. Unfortunately, it is not only black Americans who are prone to believe the false statements made by erring historians with agenda to promote (it is well recognized that "Truth is the first casualty of War", and "The victors write the history books" - But, this doesn't make them right.). Black American Professor Louis Gates of Harvard has stated that the real Lincoln is not at all like the adoring haigiography he was presented with as a child. He has attempted to tell the true story of both Lincoln and of the slave trade, and been castigated for doing so by members of the Black American community who have self-interests in promoting the old biased views, which seem possibly to have mis-informed our Vernian friend Mr. Macon as well.

 

Mr. Macon said Lincoln had the "right" view on this matter, secession, without backing this up. Let me quote Lincoln's own words:

 

 "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suitys them better... nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and m;ake their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

 

Are you calling Abe Lincoln a liar? Remember the Declaration of Independence? The Articles of Confederation? There was no expectation of perpetual union of the States, or even one perpetual government system, made by the Founders.

 

Most people do know that Lincoln also said: "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."

 

In fact, Lincoln's political objectives as endorsed by the Republican party platform, were to transform (not to "save"), the union into a much more centralized, facist or marxist if you will, form of government that is even now decried by much of the population.

 

I will refrain from quoting Lincoln's views on slavery and black folk in general, but they might not be what is generally expected. Let me just say that while he would have welcomed the adoration of the children portrayed at the Edinburgh statue, he had a very low regard for them as potential citizens.

 

Lincoln also said, in answer to the question of why not just let the Southern states go, "What about my tariffs, who will then pay for my government?".

 

The States of the South first seceeded on the points of finding that the federal government had strayed from its constitutional authority and limits, and the prosects of its not upholding even previous Federal law, and increasing the tariffs; and later States on the basis that Lincon was engaged in making unconstitutional war on the others. Where in the Constitution does it say that once in, a State may not withdraw? Who formed the federal government?- the States. Who could withdraw?- the States! Look to contract law- this was a unilateral contract- the principal could withdraw at any time. Several states actually conditioned their ratification on the reserved ability to withdraw. The 10th Amendment guarantees all rights not expressely reserved to the Federal Gov't to the States. Therefore, while the federal Gov't could not unilaterally dissolve, the States could legally withdraw at any time. Actually, historically, several states had made previous movements towards withdrawal, and no argument was made that they could not do so legally; only satisfaction of their economic complaints kept them in. The withdrawing states contemplated no unconstitutional war with any other state, only Lincoln threatened and dragged the Northern states into a war with them. There was no congessional vote to go to war.

 

Who caused the first belligerence? Lincoln ordered Massacheusetts militia to fire on Maryland citizens who were gathering to form a secession convention. He unconstitutionally ordered States to provide him with a 75,000 man army to invade the South, especially S. Carolina. Lincoln also promised not to reinforce Sumter, which he then reniged upon, causing an armed tresspass on the sovereign state of South Carolina.

 

To say that there was recourse to amendments is to be either ignorant of history or provocitively disingenuous. Since the compromises of 1820 on, there was a deliberate arrangment not to allow for a supermajority of either side. It would have been an excercise in foolishness to ask for such an amendment. In fact, Lincoln supported the Corwin 13th amendment which would have guaranteed legal slavery. By not persuing this course, the Southern States showed that the war was not about slavery per se, but about greater economic and political issues.

 

Mr. Macon, there was no armed insurrection, there was legitimate armed defense against invasion and aggressive war. In the post-Nuremburg era, Lincoln and his generals would be guilty of war crimes and atrocities. (NB, The Baltimore Gun club was all about ever more aggressive attack, as well as about war profiteering; Nichols was about defense - significant? There's a paper in there for us Vernians to consider.)

 

 The South continually asked just to be left alone. When a faction wants to withdraw from the central government, it can not be, by definition, a "civil war". I will allow that internally, in some States, there was a struggle for political control of the State's government. There were even States with shadow governments of either side. But, even West Virginia's case didn't amount to a full blown sub-war. Missouri and Kansas are perhaps better examples.

 

In the end, Mr. Macon, you do make one valid point, the destruction of the Confederacy was nothing to be ashamed of. The Southrons fought patriotically and heroically against a much superior enemy willing to squander drafted men as canon fodder. I am pleased that at least you do not doubt that the Confederates fought bravely. Their arms were defeated, but not their cause. The shame is forever on the US Federal government for its viscious conduct of the war and the bitter farce of military occupation and "Reconstruction". You should regret the defeat of the Confederacy, Mr.Macon. Without that, reconciliation would have progressed. I don't know your personal circumstances, but a Southern victory would have been a better outcome for all in the long run. Please read Winston Churchill's well-considered version of "If the South had Won the War".

 

Mr. Macon, I'm pleased to be able to correct your no doubt well-meant, but incorrect, "take" on The War Between the States, for the benfit of other forum members. This forum is not for such discussion, however, it is for Jules Verne. Unless we stick to Jules Verne topics, I request that the members refrain from promoting biased historical viewpoints. It only encourages those of us to respond with the truth, but which is nonetheless distracting from our main purpose. There are other fora for extensive discussion of War Between the States topics. (Let's take it outside to the schoolyard, boys.)

 

Nevertheless, since Jules Verne did write during this period, it is valid to consider HIS take on the War. I do hope that the NAJVS will meet in Charleston during the period of the Sesquicentennial. Perhaps this will help promote discussion of Jules Verne's take on these things. As a European, his favorable viewpoint was no doubt certainly ernestly solicited by both sides. I don't know what his personal views were, and I am not even well versed in North vs. South and other novels which deal with such topics - Earth to the Moon, Mysterious Island, etc. I hope we can discuss these as literary works without unnecessarily bringing up historical politics.

 

Yours, David McCalllister

 

PS. La Guerre de Secession is a well-reasoned appellation.

  
May 21, 2011 09:35:21 PM, jvf~at~Gilead.org.il wrote:

Mr. McCallister,

 

Writing as a black American, I found your take on the American Civil War to be interesting. Let me say that I profoundly disagree with it. The Southern States had no legal or constitutional right to secede from the Union. Why do I say this? Because secession would have meant an end to the government of the United States as it was then constituted. Abraham Lincoln had the right view of this matter when he denied the right of any state to leave the Union in that manner. That doesn’t mean that there was no legal or constitutional recourse for Southerners to pursue. As Lincoln (and others) went on to point out, the question of secession was one that could be settled in two ways. One was to introduce a constitutional amendment to that effect and have a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress pass it and then three-quarters of the states ratify it. The second option was to convince three-quarters of the states to call for a constitutional convention where the question could then be debated.

 

The Confederacy pursued neither of these options, but instead chose armed insurrection. The Union’s response was the correct one in my view. This is aside from the deep moral questions the existence of the Confederacy raised and which I won’t bring up here. The only thing I will say is that the destruction of the Confederacy was nothing to be ashamed of. I have never doubted the bravery of those who chose to fight for the Stars and Bars, but I have also never regretted their defeat, either.

 

Raymond Macon

 

From: owner-jvf~at~Gilead.org.il [mailto:owner-jvf~at~Gilead.org.il] On Behalf Of mystery1881~at~verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, 21 May, 2011 15:06
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il
Subject: Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

 


I will look up the memorials to the War Between the States in other countires.

Right off the bat, I can cite the monument of the Confederados in Brazil to their ancestors who emigrated to escape the destruction of the so-called "reconstruction". You can see their celebrations on youtube.

 

 I believe that the grave of Judah P. Benjamin , the Sec. of State of the CSA, and the first Jewish member of any American cabinet ( as well as a famous barrister and legal scholar in the British phase of his career), in Pere Lachaise Cemetary in Paris, has a Confederate marker.

 

   

BTW, the term "Civil War" is incorrect by definition. The use of this term is much criticiized among scholars. There was a Roman Civil War and an English Civil War, but not an American Civil War. The two factions did not vie for control of the central government; the Northern or Union States, initially treacherously and unconstitutionally attacked the legally seceeding States, causing even more States to seceed. The proper term is The War Between the States.

 

With apologies to any Vernians who find this subject controversial - it is. As long as we can be fair to all points of view and relate the historical truth, then we can all get along. Truth is the first casualty of war. Jules Verne may have had his own opinions on things; and that is fine, we are all here to study Verne. What he may have had to say about the War Between the States is valid for discussion. When side-lights are addressed, they should be considered objectively.

 

David McCallister

May 20, 2011 04:10:46 PM, jvf~at~Gilead.org.il wrote:

I was in Edinburgh this morning to discuss the translation of The
Blockade Runners with my publisher and visited Old Calton Cemetery, a
very small almost hidden cemetery at the foot of Calton Hill (visited by
Verne in 1859). Our American colleagues might be interested to know in
this anniversary year of the Civil War that here is what is claimed to
be the only memorial to the war outside America. It is a fine full size
bronze statue of Abraham Lincoln on a large plinth at the foot of which
is a second statue of a slave gazing at Lincoln and extending an arm in
gratitude to him. To see a picture of the monument and a short text
enter "Edinburgh's Civil War Memorial" in google. It is a moving
monument and I will include an image of it in the essay that I am
writing to accompany The Blockade Runners.
Ian Thompson
Received on Mon 23 May 2011 - 21:46:12 IDT

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2011/05/23 21:00:03 $$