Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
;>)
WIJG: What if Mr. Lincoln had declared a 'National Sodomy Day?' Care to elaborate, with citations from the Constitution that define the President's power to define "a state of Insurrection?" By the way, you yourself 'declared' in your Post 1528 that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection.' "
WIJG: "Looks like Mr. Lincoln must have been in violation of the Constitution, as you read it..."
First of all, as I quoted to you in 1,799:
"And be it further enacted, that all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States after the fourth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, respecting the army and navy of the United States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States." see page 1,140
So, the issue cannot be whether President Lincoln, by himself, overstepped Constitutional limits, but rather did the Federal government as a whole do so?
Unlike the previous Articles of Confederation, the new US Constitution of 1787 specifically mentions and provides for cases of violence against the United States, such as invasion, insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence" and treason. Only in the case of "domestic violence" is a specific request from the states required before the Federal government can respond.
So, by any reasonable inference, a Congress which can declare War, can also declare those other conditions. And what is your argument to claim it cannot? And if not Congress, then constitutionally, who?
WIJG: "So what? The words "marriage," and "funeral," are not mentioned in the Constitution either. You would suggest that both are therefore unconstitutional. Congratulations."
Do you even know what you just said? Go back and read your own words again. Do you still claim they make sense? And you accuse me of "irrational" argument? Come on, pal, clear your head! You can do better than that.
What the US Constitution is ALL about is separating those few designated powers of the Federal government from those many but unlisted powers of state & local governments. Since legal matters relating to marriage and funerals are clearly local or state matters, they are not mentioned in the Constitution. This does not make those "unconstitutional," but only means the Federal government should not be delving in such matters. Is that hard for you to understand?
WIJG: "As I have noted repeatedly, your arguments are completely irrational "
I'd say you are "projecting" your own problems onto others, and you may need some therapy. Might I suggest, oh, say, the Ayn Rand institute? They are very good at logical thinking... and no doubt take a "special interest" in monikers mentioning John Galt...;-)
WIJG: "Bull crap - all they had to do was include 'boiler plate' language from the previous compact, including the words 'perpetual union.' They did not - and by your own argument, presented in Post 1510 (paraphrasing), "the Constitution does not mention [a perpetual union] because it did not in any way contemplate it." "
Now I'm pretty sure you have a problem with logical thinking. Of course the Constitution, as first written in 1787 was not intended to be "perpetual." That's why provisions were made for legal amendments and constitutional conventions to modify or even abolish it in favor of something else.
But no provisions were made, and no discussion recorded for such things as unilateral secession or unapproved withdrawal from the Union.
WIJG: "Actually, you ARE saying that Mr. Jackson was a constitutional expert, if you weight his opinions more heavily than Mr. Rawle's. "Jackson was a very popular war hero elected president... his strong words against nullification and secession can be said to express the beliefs of most Americans at that time?" Bull crap - you might just as well weight Barack Obama's opinion of constitutional law, over Thomas Jefferson's, or William Rawle's."
I consider Jefferson's actions as President of more Constitutional weight than his partisan political opinions, either before or after. For example, Jefferson's arrest of secessionist Aaron Burr on charges of treason says FAR more about his true beliefs than other writings.
Same with Jackson, in his proclamation to South Carolina in 1832:
" I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."
FYI: Andrew Jackson was a veteran of the Revolutionary War, and became a lawyer in 1787, same year the Constitution was written. He became a Congressman in 1796, a US Senator in 1797, and a judge of the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1798. In 1801 he was appointed commander of the Tennessee militia, with the rank of Colonel. Not too shabby for a man barely 30.
Point is, young Jackson lived the Revolution as a soldier, and lived the Constitution as a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention, as a Congressman, US Senator, judge and military commander.
So yes, I'd say President Jackson's constitutional opinions count for quite a bit.
As for our present Obamanation -- don't get me started... ;-(
As near as I can figure, the first person to call it an armistice was a Captain Barron who had been sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Pensacola with Senator Mallory to confirm to federal troops and ships that an agreement for peace was in place.
You remember Mallory. He is the ex-Florida senator who stopped hostilities from occurring at Pensacola by sending a telegram directed to Buchanan proposing that no attack on Fort Pickens would be made if the fort was not reinforced. Mallory's telegram to Buchanan (via some other senators) said, "I am determined to stave off war if possible." But, but, but ... I thought you said the South wanted war (your post 1342). How do you reconcile Mallory's action with your earlier statement that the South wanted war?
Let's look at what US Navy Captain Barron said about this being an armistice. [Official Records of the Navies, Series I, Volume 4, page 77]:
I understand that some of the forces which have assembled here from other States will in a short time return to their homes, in consequence of the armistice established by these papers.
The papers referred to by Barron were the pledges by Mallory and the head of the Florida forces (Colonel Chase, the military officer who built Fort Pickens) pledging no attack if the fort wasn't reinforced. These were the assurances mentioned in the order by Holt and Toucey (see post 1519).
Suppose a gang of armed thugs comes to your house, announces it's no longer your house, and you must evacuate immediately so they can take over.
Two can play this game. Suppose a gang of armed pirates threatens to shoot ships in your harbor from the fort in your territory they occupied against the wishes of their own leader.
And what was the very first thing the South did after seceding? They completely ignored Federal property rights to dozens of forts, arsenals, customs houses & ships. ;-)
The South offered to negotiate for a fair compensation for the forts, armories, etc., in their territory and a division of the public debt and property. The South Carolina Commissioners did this. The Confederate Commissioners did the same. The attorney general of South Carolina met with Buchanan and offered in a letter to buy Fort Sumter.
A fair division of the property of the United States would have been in the South's favor because of the Southern share of the territories that had been purchased with Southern money and blood. Here's an old post about the value of the territorial land: [The elephant in the room]. A fair division of the property of the country would have given part of the territories to the South. But the North didn't want a fair division of the property. Their position was like arguing that all that I have is mine and all you have is mine too.
Good Morning from Boston
When one is no longer able to continue with logic, they resort to obfuscation and negative attribution to vague concepts.
It appears that you no longer are attempting to refute the presence of the Revenue Cutter ‘Harriet Lane’ on the evening of April 11, or that she fired at the civilian steamer ‘Nashville’, attempting its regularly scheduled landing at Charleston, or the fact that that ship and others like her anchored off the entrance to the harbor due to the presence of a hostile Union naval flotilla.
Nor, are you disputing the fact that the same Union flotilla seized another civilian ship trying to enter the harbor. Blocking civilian shipping with gunfire and seizure is blockade.
Then it is agreed that these are facts.
That must have been quite a sitdown. Surprising that Jefferson could even stand to be in the same room as swattie. Maybe they both just liked making things up. That would have been common ground enough.
that the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Which would make the discretion of a state, and not the Constitution, the measure of federal powers ...
Funny how that works out ...
Come on now X, don’t go getting in the way when grampa is showing me a thing or two...;’}
;>)"
And in the name of "John Galt," no less!
"Facts," as one of your Massachusetts predecessors once said, "are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." And your continued claim that the Lane firing a warning shot at the Nashville was the first shot fired in the war, and that such an action constituted a blockade does not turn your Southron myth into fact.
The Lane arrived on station on April 11th and halted the Nashville on April 12th. Once the Nashville identified herself then she was allowed to proceed. But she did not enter Charleston harbor until several days later. You ask why and claim nobody knows the reason she didn't proceed into the harbor. Your claims, if sincere, reveal an abysmal lack of knowledge about the rebellion and it's history. The reason why the Nashville didn't proceed into the harbor on the 12th is easily understood - fear of flaming death and destruction. Because as any student of the rebellion knows, confederate batteries began bombarding Sumter at 4:30 in the morning of April 12th and they continued firing on the fort until roughly 2:30 in the afternoon of April 13th. The Nashville remained off the bar because the only way to enter the port was to pass through the fire between the fort and the shore. The warning shot that the Lane fired was not the first shot of the war, nor was the Lane's actions a blockade against a peaceful port. It was, perhaps, the first naval shot of the war. But the actual war had started hours before.
I hope that you have found this enlightening. When Southron myth is pricked and deflates, exposing the truth of the matter, that's usually the result.
quoting BJK: "I take this all to say that the Harriet Lane landed troops at Fort Pickens on April 8, then arrived at Fort Sumter on April 12, triggering the Southern bombardment."
You're just stuck on this, aren't you, pal? And you just can't get your facts straight, no matter how hard you try, right? Here, for example, you claim to review the history of this point, but you don't really.
This is it:
BJK: "Since I can't find anything to confirm this, I'm wondering if it is possibly being confused with the following, from May of 1862..."
BJK: "To date, I've been unable to verify this, and now suspect the report is in error."
DM: "So, the question has been answered....you will not acknowledge when you are in error."
Seems to me that one of us has a real problem with truth-telling, but I'm not certain it's me... ;-)
from 1,558 DM: "Even though you think that the per capita income of Northern citizenry was double that of the South, in fact, according to the US Census the 1860 individual per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040....a numerical factor of sizable magnitude in 1860 dollars."
Your numbers on annual percapita income in the North and South are grossly, obscenely in error, and you've made no effort to confess the truth of the matter, now have you?
One more time: here is the actual 1860 census. Look it up, pal.
DM: "Of course you know the story about the talk of the city of New York joining in the secession..."
The correct quote, from 1,871 is:
"I doubt if it's fair to say that either North or South "needed" the other economically in the same way that, for example, today the world "needs" Mideastern oil. Both could turn to other customers and other sources of supply, though no doubt at less profit."
The proof of my statement is that for four years, the North was able to supply for itself all of the requirements of a vastly expensive Civil War without the benefits of Southern raw materials.
The South, of course, was not able to keep up. But let me just hazard a guess, which you are free to dispute if you can. Despite the effects of the Union naval blockade, I'll bet that Southern manufacturing in 1864 was considerably increased over 1860.
Point is, North and South could, if necessary, get along economically without each other, though no doubt economics was a strong motivator on both sides.
The article references Nebraska City and "Old Fort" Kearney. Kearney and Nebraska City are both in Nebraska, not exactly a central theater of the Civil War.
Your point was that, in addition to the four forts selected by President Buchanan in 1861 to defend against Southern seizures -- Forts Pickens, Jefferson, Tyler and Sumter -- there may have been a fifth, "Old Fort Kearney."
I doubt if events at Old Fort Kearney represented anything other than exuberance of the fort's commander. At the time, some Nebraskans owned slaves, but it was a Union territory, and sent three regiments of cavalry to support the Union war effort.
I take this to mean we agree. Have a great day! :-)
I take this to mean we agree on my points, and that your alleged "quote" from Lincoln is nothing more than fabricated secessionist propaganda.
Have a great day! :-)
"In fact, your (many & varied) arguments are self-contradictory..."
Sorry pal, but I think your arguments are a disgrace to the name you chose as your moniker: "John Galt." You need to pick out a more appropriate name for that mixture of insults and ridiculous nonsense you've been posting.
Let's see, Stand Waitie is appropriate for the Cherokee Colonel who fought with Confederate General van Dorn at Pea Ridge, Arkansas (March 6-8, 1862). Since Stand Waite and Pea Ridge are already taken, you could pick another Southern leader there -- how about Sterling Price, or the Texan Ben McCulloch, or that other Cherokee regiment commander, Albert Pike?
Any of those would be far more appropriate than disgracing the good name of "John Galt" with your ridiculous nonsense.
But I digress... ;-)
"Care to provide any citation from the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the federal or State conventions, declaring that powers not even mentioned by the Constitution were somehow magically delegated to the federal government?
"Of course not. Your argument is simply not consistent with recorded history."
I'll repeat the historical facts & argument:
There is no discussion in any of those documents that I've ever found of such terms as "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the union."
But to suggest that, therefore, these are approved as "constitutional" is equivalent to saying "unprovoked murder of federal troops" is also approved, since that is also not mentioned.
But what those documents DO ENUMERATE are lawful methods for amending the Constitution -- methods which do NOT include secession. Also ENUMERATED are such definitely illegal / unconstitutional activities as, "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "invasion" and "treason."
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To... "To declare War,...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;..."
Note: it's Congress, not the States, which declares war. Also note, the purpose of a "Militia" to "suppress Insurrections" is ENUMERATED even before "and repel Invasions."
Indeed, Constitutionally, the "Militia" can be used to enforce Federal laws. Did the South break NO Federal laws in seizing dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships?
I'll say again the simple historical truth: there was no Civil War as a result of just States declaring "secession." The war itself only started when the South added Insurrections, Rebellion, "Domestic Violence" and Invasions of Federal Property.
Indeed, that first attack on Fort Sumter could, for sake of argument, be considered either an act of Insurrection as President Lincoln and Congress termed it, or it might be called an act of War, as the Confederate Congress and President insisted.
Either way, the issue was then to be settled by War, and not by legal methods spelled out in the US Constitution.
OMG! No Way, Deeeeeewwwwwwwwwd!!! You are NOT going to come on Free Republic and quote to me WARD F*****G CHURCHILL as your AUTHORITY for historical "facts." That cannot happen. GO TO YOUR ROOM. CLOSE THE DOOR. NO COMPUTER. YOU ARE GROUNDED FOR A MONTH. GO NOW.
:-)
While you're there, I'll give you one pass. Go to your library, and look up the history, take a piece of paper, and count them up, one by one:
Look pal, if you want to argue that Native Americans were sometimes badly mistreated, you'll get no debate from me. But if you want to compare what Americans did, to the Nazi Holocaust, then you clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING of what the real Holocaust was all about.
When you finish your homework, you can come out of your room. ;-)
The usual method, especially in the beginning, was to hold POWs until they could be exchanged for captives held by the other side. As there were soon many captures on both sides, it was often not a long wait. Later on in the war, things changed drastically.
quoting from your link: "It is manifestly wrong, therefore, to look at the First Continental Congress as:
"It was called because a joint appeal for relief would naturally be more effective than any single petition."
And yet, those first reasons were exactly how many deligates to the First Continental Congress of 1774 felt -- most notably the "Father of the Revolution," Boston's beer maker Saumuel Adams, close relation to revolutionary leader and future Presidents John Adams.
Obviously, as you argue, the First Continental Congress did not amount to very much -- just as, perhaps, the first few cells after conception "don't amount to much." But they arguably helped make the colonies "pregnant," with ideas of Revolution -- ideas which within just a few months broke out in War against the Evil Empire...
True, but only up to a point. Both the Declaration -- "We hold these thruths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." and the Constitution "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..." both were written in the names of -- and appealed for support to -- all Americans, not just the Congress or of the States.
And all Americans eventually responded -- indeed, if you look at the percentages, nearly half as many Americans served & died voluntarily in the Revolutionary War as conscripted Southerners served and died in the Civil War. Think about that...
"That makes a total of seven states, a majority of the then Union. More states than that eventually ratified the Tenth Amendment."
Just so we're clear here, I don't dispute the 10th Amendment in any way, except the claim by secessionists that it somehow provides a "get out of Union free card," to any state whenever it wakes up in the morning with political PMS. ;-)
Sorry, pal, but I just don't buy that, for reasons which we've reviewed here time and again...
I just love it when people go nuts. Most entertaining. Sadly, it means you've lost what little power of logical thought you may have had, and you again disgrace the name of "John Galt," but, such is life... :-(
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:
"...Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?..."
Of course, Lincoln knew very well the US Constitution does not require ALL parties to make a change. But it does require 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. So, how many of those approved the South's secession in 1861?
"I understand that some of the forces which have assembled here from other States will in a short time return to their homes, in consequence of the armistice established by these papers."
Again, I question the word "armistice" in this context.
Suppose we use your more colorful example: a gang of armed "pirates" shows up at your house one day, a house which has been in your "family" for now "four score and seven years." The pirates claim it's no longer your house, and you must evacuate immediately.
So, legally, how valid is ANY agreement you might make with these pirates? Can they later take you to court and claim you somehow didn't live up to some provision of your "agreement"? I don't think so. But this is exactly the situation at places like Forts Pickens and Sumter.
"The South offered to negotiate for a fair compensation for the forts, armories, etc., in their territory and a division of the public debt and property."
Not really. First of all, what they offered to discuss was only those matters which might be of interest to themselves. But more important, it was a totally desultory and perfunctory exercise, when you consider that:
So the whole idea that Confederate representatives got mad and went home after just a few WEEKS in 1861 -- it's ludicrous to suggest they made any kind of serious effort at peacekeeping.
Obviously, we are talking about a Fort in Nebraska which, unlike Pickens, Taylor, Jefferson and Sumter, play no major role in the Civil War.
Sorry, typo, should read: "How many Indians of any kind were murdered by white soldiers while ON their reservations?"
Basic facts about Harriet Lane seem pretty clear:
"She departed New York 8 April and arrived off Charleston 11 April.
"The next day she fired a shot across the bow of United States Mail Steamer Nashville on her monthly route from New York with passengers and merchandise to Charleston,[2][3][4] when that merchantman appeared with no colors flying.
"Nashville avoided further attack by promptly hoisting the United States ensign.
"When Major Robert Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter 13 April, USRC Harriet Lane withdrew with her sister ships.
"According to Captain H. D. Smith, Lieutenant W. D. Thompson fired the first naval shot of the Civil with the thirty-two pounder he commanded on the deck of the USRC Harriet Lane at the [United States Mail Steamer] Nashville"
That a shot was fired by Harriet Lane is not in dispute.
That it was the first shot of the war is ludicrous, especially since at the time, the Nashville was still a Union ship. The Nashville did not first become a Confederate blockade runner until some days later.
So, it was a Union on Union action, having NOTHING TO DO with the Civil War.
Not for long. Link
April 14.--From 4 to 8 a. m.: ... The steamer Nashville ran in for the harbor and when near hoisted the Palmetto flag.
Some sources say the Confederates seized her. In any event the Confederates paid the owners $100,000 for her.
Sorry, pal, but I just don't buy that, for reasons which we've reviewed here time and again...
Conventions that ratified the Constitution said their state could reassume their own governance and people such as John Marshall said during ratification that "does not a power remain till it is given away?" This was at a time when the states were exercising their power to secede from the Union set up by the Articles of Confederation. Where in the Constitution was the power to secede surrendered by the states?
Surely you can understand why I trust what the ratifiers said more than I trust your unsubstantiated assertions.
We hold these thruths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..
That is a noble and great statement by Thomas Jefferson, and one I believe in. All men should indeed be equal before the law and have equal rights. But most people forget that the Declaration also says this about the king: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us." This refers to Lord Dunmore's Proclamation:
And I hereby further declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing the Colony to a proper sense of their duty, to this Majesty's crown and dignity.
In other words, the Declaration says in essence that all men are created equal but leave our slaves alone.
If true then that's one of the only times I'm aware of that the confederates paid for any of the property they stole.
Sorry, another unfortunate typo, that should read:
"WARD F******G CHURCHILL" (didn't intend to curse) ;-)
There are sites on the web that mention the $100,000 payment for the ship. From the following site [Link]:
Witnessing the surrender of the Fort and the lowering of the U.S. flag, the Nashville was immediately involved in the conflict. In early May, 1861 her owners communicated their intent to the new Confederate government to outfit the ship as a privateer. However, the Confederate government had plans of its own. Needing a fast vessel to bring needed supplies from England and possibly transport Confederate Commissioners to England, the new nation authorized the purchase of the vessel for $100,000.
Teddy Roosevelt's uncle, James D. Bulloch, whose job it was to procure and equip cruisers for the Confederates in Europe, also states that the Nashville was purchased in his book, "The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, or How the Confederate Cruisers Were Equipped."
I know that Confederate troops sometimes paid for what they took, typically in Confederate money.
Receipts were issued by the Confederates for a number of the forts and equipment that were taken. I read in "Portals to Hell" by Lonnie R. Speer, that in 1860 or early 1861 Union Lt. Richard Meade declined to take any South Carolina receipts for Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor.
I was being semi-facetious when I said that.
I know that Confederate troops sometimes paid for what they took, typically in Confederate money.
Or not. The few confederate campaigns in the North were noted for levying requisitions on cities and towns, and threatening to destroy them if the required supplies were not delivered. Troops foraged liberally among the farms in Pennsylvania without paying. What payment that was offered by the confederate commissary officers was in, as you pointed out, worthless confederate script.
...that in 1860 or early 1861 Union Lt. Richard Meade declined to take any South Carolina receipts for Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor.
I doubt he would have felt empowered to accept them, especially since Anderson commanded the area.
J.E.B. Stuart's 1862 raid into the North paid for most of what it took, IIRC. As you know (because I've posted it to you before) the 1864 raid of General McCausland demanded that $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in devalued US greenbacks be paid by Chambersburg PA and maybe other small cities to compensate for the roughly 2 million dollars in damage done to Southern homes, farms, and universities, etc., a few weeks earlier by Union General Hunter.
As you will remember also, after the retaliation on Chambersburg, Lincoln asked Grant if he couldn't see about making an agreement with Lee for a mutual discontinuance of burning houses and destruction of private property. See My old post. But the destruction of Southern cities and homes that had begun long before continued.
Ditto again. You can find three references to his comment in the public record.
FYI, from Lincoln Takes Command by John Shipley Tillery (excellent book, by the way):
An armistice is a formal agreement which opposing forces enter into for the purpose of suspending hostile relations either for a stipulated, or an indefinite period. Here was a truce of the most binding character, the stronger because of its simplicity. Captain Barron was right. The papers did constitute an armistice and the terms were transparent and explicit. There was no ambiguity for the most technical legalist to pounce upon; in the parlance of the courthouse it was airtight. Not only this, it was more than a formal obligation. In the truest sense, it was a gentlemen's agreement executed by honorable men whose several high positions in their respective sections attested their entire responsibility. The violation of the terms of such an armistice, the purpose of which was to allay irritation in a period in which the specter of war loomed, is unthinkable.
[rb]: The South offered to negotiate for a fair compensation for the forts, armories, etc., in their territory and a division of the public debt and property.
[BJK]: Not really. First of all, what they offered to discuss was only those matters which might be of interest to themselves.
See Post 1406. From the South Carolina Commissioners to Buchanan Dec. 28, 1860:
Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington."
Negotiations concerning forts, magazines, light houses, other real estate, an apportionment of the public debt, a division of Federal property, and peace and amity were not of interest to the United States government? I guess not.
I think the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Portals to Hell by Lonnie R. Speer, which gives a description of WBTS prisons and treatment of prisoners, says, "In the beginning of the war, most of the captives were released on parole in the field ..."
Funny how that works out ...
Only if you blatantly ignore the Tenth Amendment - which is (actually ;>) part of the Constitution.
Funny how that works out ...
;>)
And you’re really cranky when you've lost a debate...
;>)
It's touchingly simplistic to believe that state power to choose which laws to accept is somehow constitutional -- indeed the essence of the Constitution -- but it's also simple-minded. Jefferson didn't see that his own reading of the Constitution in the Kentucky Resolutions made that document as much of a dead-letter as the theory he rejected.
Actually, your argument was that that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection.' “
Care to comment on the Supreme Court, sport? Or the Tenth Amendment & the reserved powers of the States? Of course not.
;>)
WIJG: "So what? The words "marriage," and "funeral," are not mentioned in the Constitution either. You would suggest that both are therefore unconstitutional. Congratulations."
BJ: Do you even know what you just said? Go back and read your own words again. Do you still claim they make sense? And you accuse me of "irrational" argument? Come on, pal, clear your head! You can do better than that.
You’re the idiot who claimed that secession was unconstitutional, because it was 'not mentioned' in the Constitution.
Now I'm pretty sure you have a problem with logical thinking. Of course the Constitution, as first written in 1787 was not intended to be "perpetual." That's why provisions were made for legal amendments and constitutional conventions to modify or even abolish it in favor of something else.
Actually, you are the one who noted (in your Post 1799):
Of course President Lincoln's argument in 1861 was that the Articles' term "perpetual union" had been replaced in the Constitution with the phrase, "to form a more perfect union." Lincoln asked: how could a "more perfect union" not also be perpetual?
Apparently “you have a problem with logical thinking”…
Same with Jackson, in his proclamation to South Carolina in 1832:
" I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States…”
Once again, your ignorance is showing – you are conflating nullification and secession.
Point is, young Jackson lived the Revolution as a soldier, and lived the Constitution as a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention, as a Congressman, US Senator, judge and military commander.
So yes, I'd say President Jackson's constitutional opinions count for quite a bit.
Paraphrasing your Post 1588:
And Mr. Jackson's role in the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 was what, exactly?
And his contribution to the Federalist Papers was what?
And in 1832, what issue were his words responding to?
You’re a historical revisionist, even when it comes to your own ‘history’…
from 1,870 rockrr: "I am impressed with your continued patience with this klown. He figures he can insult you all day as long as he follows it with a ;>)"
BJ: And in the name of "John Galt," no less!
That kind of ‘jumps the shark,’ coming from a couple of ‘klowns’ who “squat-to-post”…
;>)
Sorry pal, but I think your arguments are a disgrace to the name you chose as your moniker: "John Galt." You need to pick out a more appropriate name for that mixture of insults and ridiculous nonsense you've been posting.
A couple of points:
* The name you cite ("John Galt") belongs to different Freeper, you idiot; and
* You seem to have a singular lack of success, posting anything that resembles a rational ‘argument’ refuting my posts (in no small part due to the self-contradictory nature of your arguments).
There is no discussion in any of those documents that I've ever found of such terms as "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the union”… But what those documents DO ENUMERATE are lawful methods for amending the Constitution…
You are a master of the ‘circular argument,’ and other irrational approaches to debate…
;>)
I just love it when people go nuts. Most entertaining. Sadly, it means you've lost what little power of logical thought you may have had, and you again disgrace the name of "John Galt," but, such is life... :-(
Whatever you say, “squat-to-post”…
;>)
Thanks for enshrining me in such excellent company - and for your opinion, which would make the United States Constitution even more of a "dead-letter" than the "theory" you have rejected...
;>)
With what? Confederate script or real money?
As you know (because I've posted it to you before) the 1864 raid of General McCausland demanded that $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in devalued US greenbacks be paid by Chambersburg PA and maybe other small cities to compensate for the roughly 2 million dollars in damage done to Southern homes, farms, and universities, etc., a few weeks earlier by Union General Hunter.
So their ire could be bought off with gold? Not at all surprising.
But the destruction of Southern cities and homes that had begun long before continued.
So you all claim. To hear y'all talk Sherman didn't leave one brick standing upon another through all Georgia. And the campaigns in Pennsylvania and Maryland? What's the excuse for that?
It’s no use BroJoeK, grampa here is used to going around looking at life through rose-colored eyeballs. He’s gonna see only what he wants to (and whatever his trifocals will let him).
Time for a warm glass of milk and then off to slumberland grouchy!
Apparently you’re so far gone you can’t tell cranky from bemused, You ain’t John Galt, because I’ve got nothing to be cranky about.
And you’re way short of winning anything yet gramps because we have yet to debate...unless you’re talking about the little conversation you’re having in your head.
Sleep tight grampa...
You've got to work on your memory, both short term and long term. To save bandwidth, I'll simply link to previous posts.
Here is a post that listed Union correspondence in the Official Records about Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina [Union correspondence link, post 24]. Also provided in that post are newspaper reports and information available on the web. You corrected me once about one of the Union correspondence I had posted, so I know you've seen that part of this information.
Here are some posts about the destruction of Columbia, South Carolina. [See posts 100 and posts 108 and 109 on this linked thread]
Here is a Link to excerpts from an 1866 report about the destruction/burning of towns and villages along Sherman's path through South Carolina. You will note the towns and villages of Hardeeville, Grahamville, Gallisonville, McPhersonville, Barnwell, Blackville, Orangeburg, Lexington, Winnsboro, Camden, and Cheraw were burned. This report says:
For eighty miles along the route of his army, through the most highly improved and cultivated region of the State, according to the testimony of respectable and intelligent witnesses, the habitations of but two white persons remain. ... If a single town or village or hamlet within their line of march escaped altogether the torch of the invaders, the committee have not been informed of the exception. The line of General Sherman's march, from his entering the territory of the State up to Columbia, and from Columbia to the North Carolinea border, was one continuous track of fire.
That sounds roughly like the 60 miles of destruction in Virginia by Union General Hunter that prompted the Southern attack on Chambersburg. Link re Hunter destruction, post 85. A Confederate soldier reported a thousand homes destroyed by Hunter in Virginia in that 60 miles of destruction.
Here is a post about the burning and looting of Fredericksburg, post 2649.
And perhaps you are forgetting the 18-month long bombardment of civilians in Charleston, SC, post 128. I used to post that to you on occasion when I found casulaties listed in the old papers.
rustbucket: "Some sources say the Confederates seized her. In any event the Confederates paid the owners $100,000 for her."
If I understand the timeline correctly, here's what we have:
evening of April 11: Major Anderson in Fort Sumter tells General Beauregard's representatives that he must surrender by April 15, for lack of supplies. He is given a deadline of 24 hours, which would be sometime on April 12.
evening of April 11: Harriet Lane arrives in Charleston Harbor.
3:20 AM of April 12: Beauregard's representatives again demand precise time for evacuation, and Anderson tells them noontime on April 15. Anderson is then told Confederates will begin bombarding within one hour.
4:30 AM of April 12: "the shoreline around Charleston Harbor erupts into flame as 18 mortars and 30 heavy cannon, backed by 7,000 troops, bombard Fort Sumter." Bombardment continues for 34 hours, ending around 2:00 PM of April 13.
Sometime on April 12: Harriet Lane encounters Nashville, which at this point is still a Union ship on Union business, but flying no flag.
So, one could easily argue here that Nashville's lack of a US flag would be perfectly natural, considering that objects with US flags would be fired on from shore.
On receiving a warning shot from Harriet Lane, Nashville raises her US flag, which would prevent her from sailing between Fort Sumter and the Confederate shore batteries then firing. This in no sense is a "Union blockade."
Finally, in the morning of April 14, even before Sumter officially surrenders, Nashville completes her mission by removing the US flag, then on nearing shore, raising a Palmeto flag and landing unmolested.
As to the signifigance of Nashville's Palmeto flag -- consider this: could Nashville have even landed on April 14 while still flying a US flag? I think not.
So, at what precise point does the Union ship Nashville become a Confederate Nashville? I'd say not until AFTER she lands and is first seized (or bought?) by Confederates.
Therefore, the incident in Charleston Harbor remains Union on Union action, having nothing to do with "first shots" of the Civil War.
Surely you can understand why I trust what the ratifiers said more than I trust your unsubstantiated assertions."
Unsubstantiated assertions?? Which of the following do you dispute?
So I will repeat my argument: SECESSION alone did not cause the Civil War. Instead, it was the South's repeated violations and triggering of Constitutionally ENUMERATED Federal powers, even before the Confederacy DECLARED WAR, which made violence inevitable.
Which part of that do you disagree with?
It's extraordinarily important to remember that Southern Founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & others, and unlike their descendants of 1860, still had active consciences regarding slavery. This caused Washington, for example, to free his slaves in his will, and it caused Jefferson to make some extraordinary remarks in his draft of the Declaration of Independence -- remarks later edited out:
Jefferson's draft:
Please note that "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms" included Benjamin Franklin for 18 YEARS trying to get the Brits to listen to sweet reason...
"An armistice is a formal agreement which opposing forces enter into for the purpose of suspending hostile relations "...
I'll say it again: when, for example, criminals or terrorists, take hostages police will send in "negotiators" attempting to arrange an "armistice" and free the hostages. To my knowledge, none of these "negotiations" confer on the police any legal obligations regarding the criminal or terrorists. Once the hostages are free, the authorities will do whatever they can to arrest or kill the hostage takers. That's what we are talking about in these cases.
rustbucket quoting:
"Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property... "
IIRC, President Buchanan met with these delegates, but refused to negotiate, at which point they went home mad. By contrast, from 1757 through 1775 -- 18 YEARS -- Benjamin Franklin worked to negotiate Colonial grievances with the British government, only sadly returning home AFTER the first battles had been fought.
So, I don't think your quote above represented a sincere effort in the least. Instead, the South realized that a War for Southern Independence, like the earlier Revolutionary War, was not only inevitable, but necessary. And they didn't want to waste a whole lot of time with political "foreplay," so to speak...
I'd say WIJG has passed beyond the realm of reason (if he was ever there), and entered into the Stand Waite world of insult and nonsense.
And it's so sad, to see someone using the name "John Galt" behaving so poorly. Oh well... ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.