Lee, Jackson, the Right of Rebellion, and Hanging Cromwell’s Corpse

The thirst for vengeance has no expiration date: hanging Oliver Cromwell’s corpse.

by Jock Yellott

As an August vacation from current events, let’s explore Virginia’s Right of Rebellion — and the question of Confederate treason.

It’s in our state constitution Bill of Rights: “Whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to [the benefit, protection, and security of the people] a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. Virginia Constitution Art. I §3 (June 12, 1776).

Virginia’s Constitution was no anomaly.

When the American colonies seceded from England in 1776, and afterwards for the next three quarters of a century until 1860, most state constitutions in their Bill of Rights or Preamble reserved to the citizens the right to abolish their own governments. A representative sample: the original colonies Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Georgia, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, and later (when added to the union) the states of Texas and Maine.

Some, like New Jersey and New Hampshire, hedged their bets by saying rebellion was only temporary: “protesting and declaring that we never sought to throw off our dependence upon Great Britain, but felt ourselves happy under her protection, while we could enjoy our constitutional rights and privileges. And that we shall rejoice if such a reconciliation between us and our parent State can be effected ….”

Jefferson was right: monarchists lurked among us. And, judging from the rest of the state constitutions, he was only half-joking when advocating another revolution every twenty years.

Prominent lawyers including both Jefferson’s arch-nemesis Alexander Hamilton and later Abraham Lincoln can be found arguing both sides of the right of rebellion.

Hamilton in the Federalist Papers warned only a strong Union could prevent fractious states from fragmenting the country into pieces, to be picked off by foreign nations one by one. Yet Hamilton’s own Federalist party in the 1790’s began organizing for New England’s secession, fearful of Jefferson’s egalitarian fanaticism, that he would bring the French Revolutionary guillotine to America.

Secession gathered steam after President Jefferson ordered an embargo against trade with England, utterly destroying American merchants but little annoying the British. Jefferson got a letter from one despairing merchant whose child starved to death, because the father could not feed his family. The embargo and the threat of New England’s secession fell by the wayside with the end of Madison’s feckless War of 1812.

In the House of Representatives in 1847, supporting Texas’s secession from Mexico, none other than Abraham Lincoln said, “[A]ny 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 suits them better ….” Lincoln appears to have changed his mind later.

In the Civil War, the seceding Virginians asserted they were the rightful heirs of the Founders: Washington, Madison, and Jefferson especially. And like Benjamin Franklin, they knew what failure meant. Franklin reputedly remarked at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

But very few, unlike Jefferson Davis, actually did face treason charges following the Civil War. The charges were dropped since Davis could argue he hadn’t been a United States citizen those four years. Also, if tried in Virginia, no jury would convict him. The general sense was: time to put the Recent Unpleasantness behind us.

Those now railing at statues of Confederate Generals Lee or Jackson as effigies of traitors are nurturing the anger to keep the anger alive longer than the folks who actually fought them. “Waving The Bloody Shirt,” it was once called.

The right of rebellion can be traced back to the literature of classical Greece and Rome, revisited in the 17th Century writings of John Locke. Locke’s views reflect the turbulent times when Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy and had King Charles I beheaded. After that, England was briefly a Puritan Commonwealth (from which “Commonwealth of Virginia” derives).

After Cromwell died and England restored the monarchy, we note in passing, Cromwell’s (or somebody’s) corpse was dug up, charged with treason, and hanged. The Woke charging dead Confederate officers with treason follows the tradition of vindictive empty gestures.

Locke’s Social Contract theory, along with the concomitant right of rebellion if the contract is breached, was imported and popularized in the American colonies. Locke’s theory undergirds the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and in turn James Madison’s first draft of the federal constitution in 1787.

But let’s get real — can you use your Virginia constitutional right of rebellion, say, to beat a parking ticket? Arguing to the judge (never EVER debate with the police officer, only make your case later to an impartial judge): “Your honor, the majority in my car exercised our indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to abolish two hour parking, for the public weal.”

No. Depend on it: a judge won’t declare Virginia law abolished and himself out of a job. Only one Virginia case has cited this provision. The case considered the people’s sovereign right to amend the constitution, curtailing poll taxes so World War II soldiers could vote in the 1945 elections. Minor reform. But abolishing the regime?

In truth this Virginia “right” of rebellion has only ever been enforced by force of arms (twice: 1776 and again in 1860). Not a legal right, in the sense of briefed and argued in court, closely or broadly read, stretched, shrunk, or circumvented. More a recital of fighting faith.

And as Hamilton cautioned, a right of rebellion doesn’t work as a principle of government. It’s self-destructive. The New York constitution had it right: in the absence of royal government the citizens have a right to create one. But some government is a necessity, even if a necessary evil as the Founders seemed it. We are better off within the rule of law than without.

Still, the Right of Rebellion in the Virginia constitution is a rejoinder to those who charge treasons against Generals Lee or Jackson. Even if it’s just a leftover in the law, a picturesque historical relic as a reminder of the past. Sadly, thanks to the Woke, not many of those remain in Virginia.

Jock Yellott, a retired lawyer in Charlottesville, is an occasional contributor to Bacon’s Rebellion.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

49 responses to “Lee, Jackson, the Right of Rebellion, and Hanging Cromwell’s Corpse”

  1. Warmac9999 Avatar
    Warmac9999

    If there is no right of rebellion, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are nothing but parchment.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Civilization is ordinarily concerned with creating a peaceful commonwealth. When that society becomes corrupt and/or autocratic, redress is required. Rebellion is then an option and does not require a right in writing. That’s why there is voting.

      1. Warmac9999 Avatar
        Warmac9999

        Stalin’s USSR had a Constitution and Bill of Rights. You had a right to vote, but he who counts the votes was key – and we certainly know this truism from the evidence of an increasingly obvious debacle being exposed in association with the 2020 election.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Dr” Warren, sorry but Trump actually lost…. smh…

      2. Rebellion is then an option and does not require a right in writing. That’s why there is voting.

        …and torches and pitchforks.

        😉

    2. If there is no right of rebellion, the Declaration of Independence is nothing but parchment.

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights were the fruits of a rebellion, but were not its catalyst.

    3. If there is no right of rebellion, the Declaration of Independence is nothing but parchment.

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights were the fruits of a rebellion, but were not its catalyst.

  2. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Interstate and international compacts almost always have a succession provision. Perhaps the Constitution erred in this regard.

    1. Your comment is confusing. Are you referring to succession or secession? They are two different things, and either can be part of a Compact.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Secession. Thanks for asking.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Still there. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article1/section3/

    Pretty clear that in 1865 as in 1783 and now the word “treason” was simply a label applied by one side to another. Like any other accusation, only a court can make it mean something. George Washington and his friends were traitors to the Crown and fully understood that. Lee and others who left the U.S. Army were certainly oathbreakers. Where are the monuments to the Virginia oathkeepers of the day? George Thomas? Winfield Scott? He was a William and Mary graduate, deserves great credit for devising the strategy that crushed the rebellion. No Winfield Scott Hall there on that campus that I’m aware of….If this was all just about history, their history would be told along with the losing side’s.

    Damn proud that my Republican political ancestors crushed that ill-advised rebellion and ended slavery. A divided and then fully fractured United States would never have played the key role against tyranny it provided in the 20th Century.

    And if you think Virginia’s status as a “commonwealth” is a nod toward the roundheads, you’d best read up on why Virginia is called “The Old Dominion.”

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Point well taken. Virginia’s statues were never an homage to the Civil War or even Virginia’s role in the Civil War. They were monuments to the Confederacy.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        They were the byproducts of the Politicians who wanted to make sure the “people” still knew their place.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Hmmm… Winfield Scott was the son of a wealthy Petersburg planter. Upon his father’s death the slaves and property went to the oldest son James. Scott did not graduate W and M. Only attended. Left school to study law under the noted Petersburg Judge, David Robinson. A law license was much better than a W and M diploma at that time. Attended the trial of Aaron Burr in Richmond where he later correctly accused General James Wilkenson of being a traitor, more so than Burr. Problem. Scott was now commissioned a captain by Jefferson. Court martialed and demoted for those remarks. No statue in Virginia to General Scott. Most of his life was spent outside of the state. His true home is the War Department in Washington and West Point where he is buried. Ah, then there is that little bit of history known as the Black Hawk War and the Trail of Tears. No statue from Virgnia but we did name an entire region after him. Scott County down in Gate City country. One of my favorite Virginians. Scott was Robert E. Lee’s mentor. Lee’s brilliant staff work for Scott paved the way for the capture of Mexico City. Scott declared Lee as the finest officer he ever saw in the field.
      https://library.bowdoin.edu/arch/mss/ooh-pdf/M91b41f056

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Progress remains a most important product to allude to Ronald Reagan’s weekly pitch on GE Theatre. In the contemporary Politisphere, the struggle against monarchical rule continues. Popularization of the Presidential vote is threatened by possible return to power in state legislatures to determine outcomes. The anxiety among the Founders that gave rise to the Electoral College to protect from the rabble resurfaces. Some advocate rescission of the Constitutional amendment granting the popular election of US Senators. The more things change…….

  5. From a practical standpoint, the right of rebellion only exists if the rebellion is successful. Furthermore, the only way you can find out if you have a right of rebellion is to try to exercise that right.

    At least as far as the Civil War is concerned, it turned out Virginia did not have a right of rebellion.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Thus canonizing that the victors write the history.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The “right of rebellion” is the wrongly assumed right implied in the 2nd Amendment, i.e., the “2nd Amendment Solution” is illegal by all standards.

      But, like laws against suicide, enforcement is for the failures.

      1. The “right of rebellion” is contained in the Declaration of Independence. But, I note that our founders chose not to “include it by reference” in the new Constitution they crafted…

        😉

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Like I said, snark is snarkiest when it carries the weight of law… and the founders were well aware of snark. They weren’t stupid enough to arm the populace and then say, “Look, if we piss you off…”

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I think the Articles of Confederation may have allowed it, or words to that effect, which is why they ditched those faster than a $2 pistol.

          1. I can’t find any specific language permitting secession, but Article I has this to say:

            Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

            I also found this little gem in Article IV:

            The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;

            “Paupers and vagabonds” – I like that.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Good for us they dumped them, eh?

          3. Yes. Lowell George may have freely admitted to being a vagabond, but I’m not quite ready to do that – even though I might be one.

            https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tFP1zcsNjAtKs5JSTNg9JLIySwpyUlVSEtNLFEoys_JUSjNVUhNLK4EAAjZDY4&q=little+feat+roll+um+easy&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS945US945&oq=little+feat+roll+&aqs=chrome.1.0i355i512j46i512j69i57j46i512l2j0i512l3j0i22i30l2.7951j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

            One of my favorite Little Feat songs. It reminds me of a fellow I used to know, now passed, a long time ago.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Is there one that isn’t. I could listen all day to 3 bands, Little Feat, Cars, and Kinks.

          5. No argument from me on those three.

            The Kinks were always an underappreciated band; often treated like the ugly bastard stepbrothers of the Beatles and the Stones.

            I’ve always liked the Kinks more than either of those bands. Better songwriting, in my opinion – and quirky.

            ——————————————–

            If you’re in to downloading music, here is a link to a ‘bootleg’ recording of a Little Feat show from 1977. The sound quality is surprisingly good – some tape hiss, but otherwise pretty nice:

            https://archive.org/details/lf1977-08-02.sbd.135985.sbeok.flac16

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Songs, like poetry, are to project an image and make the listener think too. The Davies boys are exceptionally good at it.

          7. Waterloo Sunset comes to mind.

      2. Rafaelo Avatar

        “[T]he threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.”–Scalia, J., Heller v. District of Columbia.

        Scalia and Nancy Naive agree. I am so pleased I am ready to propose marriage.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Nah, the founders were, if nothing else, cheap bastards. Why pay taxes to raise a standing army (which most founders saw as a source of mischief unless they are off in some foreign land raising mischief there), when the populace is more than willing to use their own powder and shot to repel and drive out invaders and such, including the indigenous folks.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          What the Constitution did NOT do was define what “arms” meant and as a result citizens have no where near “arms parity” with the govt.

          Their “militia” would get squashed in a heartbeat from a basic and simple military attack.

          But we love Red Dawn anyhow.

        3. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          What the Constitution did NOT do was define what “arms” meant and as a result citizens have no where near “arms parity” with the govt.

          Their “militia” would get squashed in a heartbeat from a basic and simple military attack.

          But we love Red Dawn anyhow.

    3. Warmac9999 Avatar
      Warmac9999

      Rebellion, even if it fails, is cautionary. It implies that a large part of the populace is unhappy about the state of affairs. The French Revolution was preceded by a number of mini-revolutions that were quickly put down. However, eventually the entirety of the French population rose up and overwhelmed an increasingly corrupt and distance monarchy.

      1. Okay. You kind of veered away from the topic of my comment, but okay.

        1. Warmac9999 Avatar
          Warmac9999

          If I recall correctly, when Lee surrendered to Grant, Lee’s troops were allowed to return home. This was not the case with Stalin purges.

          Grant and Lincoln wanted to re-Americanize all confederates and even created new ones with the end to slavery. If you messed with Stalin, you were either killed or interned.

          1. Okay. You veered further away from the topic of my comment, but okay.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            There is a deep rabbit hole around this man… fyi…

          3. I love rabbit holes. At least until I get distracted by a squirrel…

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Scalia, in Heller I think, made damned sure that he stated the ownership of a handgun, or even a long gun, was for legal purposes only. It’s in that section where he goes off pontificating. But even in his pontifications, he had to be aware of…

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

      Snark is always snarkiest when it carries the weight of law…

  6. M. Purdy Avatar

    The states did not create the Union, the people did. It’s right there in the first line of the Constitution. Lee and Jackson took oaths to protect and defend that Constitution, but went with their home state (actually only Lee did in the end) to attempt to destroy the Union because they lost a free and fair election and wanted to defend the institution of slavery. Those aspects distinguish the Revolution from the Civil War. The Revolution was justified because the colonies’ lack of representation in parliament; confederates could make no such argument, because they were represented (far beyond their actual stake in the country, in fact) and their votes were counted. The Revolution also sought to expand the rights of mankind, though imperfectly; the Confederacy sought to subject an entire race to slavery as a natural right and societal organizing principle. In short, those two events aren’t the same legally, morally or politically. Sorry.

  7. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    This is a debate that has no end. When the original 13 states ratified the Constitution, the reserved through the Articles the right to leave the Union. So the states in the Confederacy had a right but they exercised it to preserve slavery which was beginning to be seen as immoral and contrary to the Declaration of Independence.
    Robert E Lee was tortured in his decision to resign his commission and accept one from his “country” Virginia. Trying to judge him on the basis of today’s standards is futile and deceitful. He should be judged by his character and the standards that existed during his lifetime. President Eisenhower in 1960 spoke eloquently in his defense. His mistake of joining the Confederacy should not overwhelm everything else in his life. By that standard, we would all be found seriously wanting.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar

      “[T]hey reserved through the Articles the right to leave the Union.” Can you explain this? The Constitution supersedes the Articles, through the consent of the “people.” Also, just so you’re aware, Lee was one of nine active duty colonels in the US Army in 1861. He was the only one who betrayed his oath and went with the CSA.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        The majority of the 13 agreed to that provision in aratifying the Constitution. If they hadn’t the Constitution would not have gone into effect. There is also a lot of historical documentation post the ratification that reflects that right. But having that right does not mean that it was a wise and justified decision since it was driven by the economics of slavery.
        Lee took an oath which is true but at that time there was a widely held view that the states were not totally subordinate to the federal government. Lee referred to Virginia as my country which shows his thought process. All of that aside, an honest assessment of him would lead most reasonable people to find him a model citizen.

        1. M. Purdy Avatar

          What provision are you talking about? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a right to rebellion as a quid pro quo for ratification of the constitution. It’s certainly not in the document itself, which would have been a smart thing had it the people wanted it in there. I’m not sure how ‘widely held’ the view was that the states were coequal to the central govt. It was a minority view, promulgated by slave states and their defenders to justify defying the USG. I think an honest assessment by reasonable people can lead to conclusions that differ about Lee.

          1. It was a minority view, promulgated by slave states and their defenders to justify defying the USG.

            It may or may not have been a minority view – I have no statistics to make a case either way. However, there is ample evidence that it was not just a movement by “slave states and their defenders to justify defying the USG”.

            Many people in both the north and the south maintained that their states had a right to secede from the Union. In fact, if the War of 1812 had not ended when it did, there is a good chance the New England states would have been voting on whether to secede. And in 1861, the mayor of New York City organized an effort to have the city secede from the United States. He was a real go-getter – he believed the right of secession trickled down to the city level.

            There was also a secessionist movement which began in the northern states during the 1830s and which culminated in 1857 with conventions being held in several northern states. These secessionists wanted the north to secede in order to get away from slave states.

            Thus, it is clear that it was not just the southern states which believed they had a right to secede from the Union.

          2. M. Purdy Avatar

            I didn’t mean that the right to secession was a view held *solely* by those in southern states. I’m aware of other secessionist feelings/movements throughout the country, but the intellectual father of secessionism and the civil war is John Calhoun and the issue he cared most about was slavery. That’s the big kahuna.

          3. It was a minority view, promulgated by slave states and their defenders to justify defying the USG.

            It may or may not have been a minority view – I have no statistics to make a case either way. However, there is ample evidence that it was not just a movement by “slave states and their defenders to justify defying the USG”.

            Many people in both the north and the south maintained that their states had a right to secede from the Union. In fact, if the War of 1812 had not ended when it did, there is a good chance the New England states would have been voting on whether to secede. And in 1861, the mayor of New York City organized an effort to have the city secede from the United States. He was a real go-getter – he believed the right of secession trickled down to the city level.

            There was also a secessionist movement which began in the northern states during the 1830s and which culminated in 1857 with conventions being held in several northern states. These secessionists wanted the north to secede in order to get away from slave states.

            Thus, it is clear that it was not just the southern states which believed they had a right to secede from the Union.

          4. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            It is in the ratification of the Constitution. You are talking about something different.

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    You are a lawyer and you believe a unilateral statement of retained “rights” that predates a new contract can be cited as an excuse for breaching that contract?

    In your Cromwell analogy, were there parties that first dug up Cromwell to put him on a pedestal as a way of intimidating the peasants and establishing a permanent Puritan society based on race…??

Leave a Reply