Walter Williams article

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
56
I want to know is Walter Williams correct or does he make a mistake in bad interpretation of history in his analogy of the Confederate secession to American Revolution. I would like a good critique of his article. Thank You Jgoodguy for this site.



 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I want to know is Walter Williams correct or does he make a mistake in bad interpretation of history in his analogy of the Confederate secession to American Revolution. I would like a good critique of his article. Thank You Jgoodguy for this site.



From a historical perspective, the 1776 rebels won and got to determine their destiny. The Confederacy lost and dead countries/causes do not determine their destiny. Politically speaking, the 1776ers were patriots in relationship to the US and the 1861ers were traitors.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I'll follow up with the observation that as long as Confederate admirers had the political power to put up statues, name army bases, and otherwise glorify the Confederacy, they could. That political power is mostly gone and opponents of the Confederacy are ascendent. We could get into some detailed and perhaps interesting discussion about slavery, states rights and failed independence movements vis a vis the Confederacy, but in the end, it lost its war for independence. 100 years later white men lost the ability to vote for black men. All of this is the result of that.
 

Nitti

charon's apprentice
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
282
Reaction score
263
I think its rather basic,in the revolution we rose up against an oppressive monarchy.A a result we would up with 13 indepentant states which decided to unite under a binding constitution.as more states joined the union the citizen agreed to joined the new,y formed republic and abide by the laws set forth in the constitution.
When the states left the union declaring their independence they thus became traitors as spelled out in the constitution.its really a no brainer but thanks to Lincoln thinking of bring them back in as brothers instead of traitors we showed why we became the world leader we are today.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
As someone once said, "If you intend to secede, you better succeed."

Further, from Williams and his cherry picking: 'Article I of the Treaty held that “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.” '

Actual reading:

Transcript of the Treaty of Paris:
The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783
In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory Intercourse between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal Advantages and mutual Convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony; and having for this desirable End already laid the Foundation of Peace & Reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the Commissioners empowered on each Part, which Articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until Terms of Peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain & France, and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly: and the treaty between Great Britain & France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty & the United States of America, in Order to carry into full Effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the Tenor thereof, have constituted & appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his Part, David Hartley, Esqr., Member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their Part, - stop point - John Adams, Esqr., late a Commissioner of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; - stop point - Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late President of Congress and Chief Justice of the state of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United States at the Court of Madrid; to be Plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the Present Definitive Treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full Powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following Articles.
Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/primary-source-the-treaty-of-paris.html
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
As someone once said, "If you intend to secede, you better succeed."

Further, from Williams and his cherry picking: 'Article I of the Treaty held that “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.” '

Actual reading:

Transcript of the Treaty of Paris:
The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783
In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory Intercourse between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal Advantages and mutual Convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony; and having for this desirable End already laid the Foundation of Peace & Reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the Commissioners empowered on each Part, which Articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until Terms of Peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain & France, and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly: and the treaty between Great Britain & France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty & the United States of America, in Order to carry into full Effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the Tenor thereof, have constituted & appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his Part, David Hartley, Esqr., Member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their Part, - stop point - John Adams, Esqr., late a Commissioner of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; - stop point - Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late President of Congress and Chief Justice of the state of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United States at the Court of Madrid; to be Plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the Present Definitive Treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full Powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following Articles.
Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/primary-source-the-treaty-of-paris.html
IMHO a very good case can be made that the original 13 states were sovereign states under a Confederacy(The AOC) a collection of independent sovereign states acting collectively). But what does that matter? The AOC failed and was replaced by the Consitution. The grant of sovereignty by the Constitution to States also failed resulting in the Reconstruction Amendments, removing most of that sovereignty.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I think its rather basic,in the revolution we rose up against an oppressive monarchy.A a result we would up with 13 indepentant states which decided to unite under a binding constitution.as more states joined the union the citizen agreed to joined the new,y formed republic and abide by the laws set forth in the constitution.
When the states left the union declaring their independence they thus became traitors as spelled out in the constitution.its really a no brainer but thanks to Lincoln thinking of bring them back in as brothers instead of traitors we showed why we became the world leader we are today.
Some folks look at states rights as some sort of holy grail, but if there is a lesson from the Civil War, States Rights is not some sort of holy grail because States Rights as evidenced by the CSA failed.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
The CSA had the same problems with states' rights of a certainty - very similar to those of the Revolution. Georgia kept threatening to leave, Mississippi kept good arms for their state and gave old junk to the CSA...and various regions, counties, even towns kept declaring themselves neither CSA or USA. The Union had its similar problems - parts of New York, Maryland and Wisconsin were loud about leaving. I think it was finally resolved in 1947. One might say that's when the US came center stage as a world power - the only super power at the time - and states' rights seemed kind of a puny argument after that. The finishing stroke was the Civil Rights movement in the 60s - no, states cannot set up as separate governments by setting up their own laws infringing on rights guaranteed by the nation's Constitution.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
The CSA had the same problems with states' rights of a certainty - very similar to those of the Revolution. Georgia kept threatening to leave, Mississippi kept good arms for their state and gave old junk to the CSA...and various regions, counties, even towns kept declaring themselves neither CSA or USA. The Union had its similar problems - parts of New York, Maryland and Wisconsin were loud about leaving. I think it was finally resolved in 1947. One might say that's when the US came center stage as a world power - the only super power at the time - and states' rights seemed kind of a puny argument after that. The finishing stroke was the Civil Rights movement in the 60s - no, states cannot set up as separate governments by setting up their own laws infringing on rights guaranteed by the nation's Constitution.
The Civil Rights Movement was the coup de grace to States Rights which came to mean in the antebellum period, the Civil War, reconstruction and Jim Crow era, white men voting for black men.
 

Nitti

charon's apprentice
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
282
Reaction score
263
The Civil Rights Movement was the coup de grace to States Rights which came to mean in the antebellum period, the Civil War, reconstruction and Jim Crow era, white men voting for black men.
States Rights was all bullshit,it came out of Edward Pollard's mind
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
States Rights was all bullshit,it came out of Edward Pollard's mind
It was thought to be very very good at one time, but that faded with experience.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
This showed up at CWT. Link Went for a tad under 60 posts, but nothing not covered here.
 

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
56
This response was taken from the CWT thread and I wanted to share it because I thought it was good:

"Libertarian historians (or economists dabbling in history) are pretty much all seeing history through a very particular lens. To them, all history is a struggle between freedom and tyranny, where freedom is usually expressed in the form of free market capitalism. The Lincoln Republicans were the pro-tariff, big-government party thus the bad guys.

It's a narrowminded, misguided approach to history. On the opposite end of the political spectrum are the similarly tiresome and invalid Marxist historians who see all history through the lens of the struggle between Labor and Capital.

Both are examples of modern day politics projecting themselves backwards in an effort to justify themselves in the present day."

I think Walter Williams is an libertarian ideologue and is so dedicated to the idea of extreme property rights and individual liberty that he is willing to overlook the suffering of his ancestors by the Confederate government to defend right-wing libertarian ideology. I thinking that is pretty amazing and shocking.
This showed up at CWT. Link Went for a tad under 60 posts, but nothing not covered here.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
I would like a good critique of his article.
It sounds like we doing your homework...

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain’s King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.

AS mention earlier our traitors our founding fathers won their independence which makes them liberators... The confederates lost their bid for slavery and independence so they are traitors...

I think Walter Williams is an libertarian ideologue and is so dedicated to the idea of extreme property rights and individual liberty that he is willing to overlook the suffering of his ancestors by the Confederate government to defend right-wing libertarian ideology. I thinking that is pretty amazing and shocking.
Williams is a economist not a true historian. I have not ever met an economist that did not write his political bias into his work so he writes a bias into his history as well. No surprise, he very active in right wing media world...

Williams seem to forget the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union... Do you need to read the definition of Perpetual?

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution.

Our Constitution did not create a new nation but only a change in how the present government was going to work. It was a document on administration of governance... Our more perfect union is perpetual... once in the union it is forever...
 

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
56
Yesterday, I just discovered that Walter E Williams died on December 2, 2020. Around that time, I was deeply involved in studying and trying to complete my insurance course so I didn't hear about it in early December. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/business/economy/walter-e-williams-dead.html

While he did make some valid criticisms against extreme leftist politics, he was an extreme right wing libertarian on the other side. I can appreciate a good critique from whatever political source. However, he was wrong about the civil war and was an apologist for the Confederacy.
 

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
56
That's good enough for me.
His defense of the Lost Cause was something else. His Austrian School libertarian ideology was nonsense and radical.

This is a good rebuttal:

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
This is a good rebuttal:
This is right wing kookiness'... If you go back to the gold standard we all be poor overnight... it is an outdated notion...

This is right wing kookiness... if ended minimum wage laws, anti trust laws, regulation we all be poorer again and the rich will be richer... and we live in a dirty world and deadlier world...

This right wing kookiness... ended social programs again making everyone poorer...

this right wing kookiness... end the FED... sorry it may need to be reformed but modern nation can not live without a central bank...

@nicholls go on believe this tarp...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
I like to point out @nicholls that Walter Williams, who I care little for...

Forgot the Articles of Confederation and these words... look the name of our nation name and the words Perpetual Union


The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first written constitution of the United States. Written in 1777 and stemming from wartime urgency, its progress was slowed by fears of central authority and extensive land claims by states. It was not ratified until March 1, 1781. Under these articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. Significantly, The Articles of Confederation named the new nation “The United States of America.” Congress was given the authority to make treaties and alliances, maintain armed forces and coin money. However, the central government lacked the ability to levy taxes and regulate commerce, issues that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for the creation of new federal laws under The United States Constitution.

Snip... opening day...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-107/pdf/SMAN-107-pg935.pdf

‘‘ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION BETWEEN THE STATES OF NEWHAMPSHIRE, MASSACHUSETTSBAY, RHODEISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA."
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
If you go back to the gold standard we all be poor overnight...




(snip)

When economic depressions struck the Midwest in the late 1880s, despairing farmers faced low crop prices and found few politicians on their side. While many rallied to the Populist cause, Bryan worked from within the Democratic Party, using the strength of his oratory. After delivering one speech, he told his wife, “Last night I found that I had a power over the audience. I could move them as I chose. I have more than usual power as a speaker… God grant that I may use it wisely.” He soon won election to the Nebraska House of Representatives, where he served for two terms. Although he lost a bid to join the Nebraska Senate, Bryan refocused on a much higher political position: the presidency of the United States. There, he believed he could change the country by defending farmers and urban laborers against the corruptions of big business.
 
Top