[gutzmank]

“Perpetual” under the law of nations meant “not having a specific sunset provision.” Thus, a “perpetual” treaty was one without an end date. That didn’t mean that the parties were locked into it, with no way of exiting.

[gutzmank]

I’m pretty sure that’s precisely what I’ve been saying.

[gutzmank]

All true, Wundershoen, except the bit about the British. Queen Victoria made clear to the US ambassador that there was no way her government would aid the CSA so long as she was queen; her reason was slavery.

[gutzmank]

Marvel’s THE LAST DEPOT, and account of the Confederate POW camp at Andersonville, is outstanding — a great read, and it totally vindicates the commandant, who was the only Confederate executed after the war. (I say this as someone whose great grandfather and great-great uncle were held at Andersonville.)

[gutzmank]

In the ’70s and ’80s, this debate flared across the historiographical landscape. Some said “republicanism.” Others countered “liberalism.” Still others tried to push the influence of republicanism and liberalism into later and later periods of American history.

In the end, former proponents of the “republicanism” argument, such as Lance Banning, conceded that both liberal and republican ideas influenced the Revolution and the Founding, with virtually every serious thinker and nearly all notable politicians drawing from one and the other of the two threads at different times.

I have myself profited from works produced by both camps, which is why a few days back I responded to a query about my favorite American historians by offering a list of historians including prominent advocates of the Republican Thesis (Wood, Banning, McCoy) and the leading advocate of the Liberalism Counter-Thesis (Appleby).

[gutzmank]

SmartMuffin, just ask, and we’ll reply.

[gutzmank]

The militia’s performance was strikingly bad in the War of 1812. One result was the maintenance of a professional army ever since. I deal with militia as subjects/objects of Republican propaganda in JAMES MADISON AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA, and any account of the War of 1812 — e.g., Hickey’s — will give you the grim story.

[gutzmank]

I don’t know that one. The standard treatment of the subject is Richard’s THE FOUNDERS AND THE CLASSICS. I also like Rahe’s REPUBLICS ANCIENT AND MODERN, although it’s heavily Straussian. Part I (on Sparta) is stupendous.

[gutzmank]

I think I’m the author of the only scholarly article comparing those two documents, It is K[evin] R. Constantine Gutzman, “Jefferson’s Draft Declaration of Independence, Richard Bland, and the Revolutionary Legacy: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due,” The Journal of the Historical Society 1 (2001), 137-154.

Which part of their theory do you have in mind? Surely Bland’s claim, picked up by Jefferson, that man has a natural right to emigrate is directly contrary to the British understanding. so is the claim that the English government had no role in establishing the North American colonies. Please be specific about your point, and I’ll reply to your query directly.

[gutzmank]

The Union states abolished slavery at their own paces — all of them by war’s end.

[gutzmank]

It’s irrelevant to what I said before. Whether some Confederate leaders decided after three years of war that giving up slavery was a price they were willing to pay for independence does not answer the question why the Deep South seceded in the first place.

Besides that, there was substantial resistance in the South, notably in South Carolina, to enrolling black men in the Confederate armies even in 1865. The Rhetts, for example, insisted in The Charleston Mercury that the war was in defense of slavery, and so giving up slavery to win the war made no sense. Georgia’s Governor Joseph Brown made similar statements. I am not saying that this remained a majority position in 1865. We don’t know. The idea of giving up slavery was certainly very far from Deep South politicians’ minds in 1861, however.

[gutzmank]

Domestic violence seems very different from rebellion? Hmm. I confess that I don’t see it that way. Again, the point was that the Federal Government guaranteed each state a republican form of government — which meant that in case of future events like Shays’ Rebellion, the feds could intervene on behalf of duly-constituted authority.

[gutzmank]

Slavery was a VERY healthy institution in 1860. In fact, slaves’ value was at an ALL-TIME HIGH. In other words, people certainly didn’t think slavery was about to be abolished at the time.

[gutzmank]

In the end, all of the territory under the control of Confederate authorities on January 1, 1863 was conquered by the USA, and thus the Proclamation led to the freedom of the slaves in that territory.

[gutzmank]

It’s a federal question whether the 6th Amendment right is enforceable against a state. For purposes of saying “no,” then, the case should be heard by a federal court.

Note, too, that in case this were a matter involving federal officials, I think the fellows should be able to question the actual technicians under oath.

[Author]

Posts