Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.
The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Nonsense.
The Confederate military assault on Fort Sumter was equivalent in its day to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or today to a possible Cuban assault on US forces at Guantanamo Bay.
They were not just provocations of war, they were the actual start of war.
Whatever their reasons might have been, Confederate actions were acts of war, period.
Firing on Sumter wasn’t a sneak attack.
Lincoln was well aware of the previous attack on the Star of the West and knew he was provoking a similar response.
But there was no secrecy to it, since Lincoln sent directly to South Carolina Governor Pickens notification of his actions and intentions, including the fact that his resupply mission was ordered not to land reinforcements so long as it was not opposed militarily.
But Pickens had already demanded Sumter's surrender numerous times since December 1860, and now again demanded of Jefferson Davis that he order the assault.
Which Davis immediately did.
Because everyone knows it takes 1,800 men with guns to unload food.
But Lincoln's orders to them, and his promise to South Carolina Governor Pickens, was that no attempt to land them would be made so long as the resupply mission was not opposed by Confederates.
I have recently been informed of an analysis that makes a pretty good argument that Lincoln never was going to attempt to land them. Their purpose was only to serve as compelling evidence that he was intent on violating the armistice and his own agreement.
They were basically sent to 10 miles east of Charleston's lighthouse to bob in the water for the sole purpose of allowing the confederates to see that they were there, and to convince them of the probability of an attack from the Sea forming one component of a pincer, with the other being provided by the Fortress, still at that point in Union hands.
The reason this was done in secret is because many people would have rightly seen this armed force as a deliberate provocation, so it was essential that the larger public not be aware of it.
The Southern government was most definitely aware of it because their spies had told them those ships carried armed men.
General G.T. Beauregard, Charleston Montgomery, 10thIf you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Washington government to supply Sumter by force, you will at once demand its evacuation, and, if this is refused, proceed, in such manner as you may determine, to reduce it.
L.P. Walker, Secretary of War
Total rubbish.
It was Jefferson Davis who ordered war, not Lincoln.
Davis had many reasons to want war, chief among them the fact that without war Upper South states like Virginia would never declare their secession.
Davis' reward for starting war was to double the Confederacy's population and military man-power.
So war was a highly successful opening gambit for Davis.
Lincoln had already been advised by his Military experts that it would take a force of 20,000 men to reinforce that fortress. A token force of 1,400 could serve no other purpose than a provocation.
It could not take the Fort, it could not serve as an effective attack, it literally served no other purpose than being a pawn move in an opening game.
Complete rubbish, the product of a very warped mind and total misunderstanding of actual history as opposed to pro-Confederate propaganda.
But like all pro-Confederate propaganda, it was total rubbish, complete historical revisionism having no connection to actual historical facts.
There was a pre-War peace delegation from the South led by former President John Tyler that Lincoln studiously ignored. Lincoln didn’t want peace, and he made it clear that he intended to press the issue of Fort Sumter, well aware of the response that he would get.
http://www.historynet.com/pre-civil-war-peace-conference.htm
The US Customs Service, not the US Army.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln maneuvered the South into technically firing the first shot of a war he knew he needed that was essential in the Northern public eye and gain support that in NO way supported a CW".
But there was no "maneuvering" required!
The Confederacy was eager for war, as their numerous provocations clearly demonstrated.
And with every new provocation -- seizing Federal properties, threatening Union officials, firing on US ships, etc. -- Northern sentiment waxed toward war.
Then would come calming words from politicians, intended to dampen down Northern war-fever -- discussions of peace and reconciliation, etc.
Then secessionists committed yet another outrage and war-fever would rise again in the North.
Finally, the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter drove Northern sentiment for war to the boiling point, and most states responded immediately to Lincoln's call for troops.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln and his Northern Industrial Puppetmeisters needed a war waged in order to keep the South subjugated and its tax revenue and agricultural raw material under their thumb."
Nonsense.
Just consider that Civil War brought all exports of Southern cotton and other such products to a 100% end.
How was the North going to pay for its imports without Southern cotton for exports?
Oh, that's right, they found ways, many ways to double and double again Union revenues necessary to pay for the war.
So, it turned out that Southern cotton was not nearly as important to either the Union or the Confederacy as some might wish us to believe.
HangUpNow: "...conflating Fort Sumter with Pearl Harbor doesn't apply AT ALL, other than afterward creating the obvious demand for military manpower and equipment."
But Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were exactly equivalent in their effects on American public opinion regarding the need for war against those who attacked us.
They were also roughly comparable militarily, considering the relative size of forces involved to total US military.
HangUpNow: "An entire Union Army of 17,000 in 1861?
Let's say I accept that figure.
Lincoln then snapped his fingers in a call for 75,000 volunteers for an army to implicitly invade and submit a South while meeting with his industrialist-profiteers, who would manufacture the usual war machine toys."
That figure of 17,000 (or similar) total US Army troops in early 1861 can be found in any Civil War history, for example, this one.
But in February 1861, before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate Congress called up 100,000 men for their Army, and in May, on declaring war against the United States, called up hundreds of thousands more.
So there was no point during early 1861 when the Union Army was not grossly outnumbered by Confederates on a scale of several to one.
Later on, of course, things changed.
HangUpNow: "Fort Sumter: A significant southern SHIPPING hub for importing/exporting goods, of which the NORTH was a prime beneficiary.
I'd say that was a good reason for it to become a domestic naval/military outpost. Agreed? "
You argue as if Lincoln himself both built and manned Fort Sumter, which is, of course ridiculous.
The project for building Fort Sumter began decades before 1861, as did South Carolina's deeding the property to the United States.
It was built to defend Charleston against potential foreign invasion, and had nothing to do with trade or tariffs.
HangUpNow: "Stop the hysterics.
The two Union troops died NOT in any heroic exchange of combat action, but accidentally during a salute to the U.S. flag when a pile of cartridges were set off by a spark."
No "hysterics", just the facts, sir.
The fact is those six Union troops (out of 85) were killed or wounded in the final act of the Confederate military assault on Fort Sumter.
Those casualties were roughly as significant, relatively, as casualties at Pearl Harbor, and were just as much caused by Confederate actions as were, for example, Hawaiian civilian deaths caused by US firing at Japanese planes.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln refused to meet with Southern reps."
But Lincoln certainly did meet with Southern representatives, from Virginia, and offered them a deal: "a fort for a state", meaning that if Virginia agreed to adjourn its secession convention and remain in the Union, then Lincoln would agree to abandon Fort Sumter.
But Virginians refused Lincoln's offer, and so it was withdrawn.
HangUpNow: "There is nothing constitutional about tolerating a fundamentally unfair, tyrannical feral gummit."
Except there was nothing either "unfair" or "tyrannical" about "feral gummit" in December 1860, when South Carolina declared its secession, and others soon followed.
Those states were perfectly happy with "feral gummit" just so long as it was safely controlled by their Democrat party allies.
It only instantaneously became "unfair" or "tyrannical" when friendly Democrats were defeated in the November 1860 election.
Nothing changed, Democrats were still in control, but the mere prospect of "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" taking charge four months in the future drove Fire Eating secessionists to act insanely, unconstitutionally and unlawfully.
HangUpNow: "Abe Lincoln and his Northern elite quickly operated out of the box out of desperation, with barely any electoral support other than northern pockets..."
More rubbish.
In fact, in April Lincoln did nothing regarding Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens that President Buchanan had not already attempted back in January 1861.
His actions were 100% lawful, constitutional and appropriate considering the military situation.
HangUpNow: "Aaah -- but then Lincoln played his ace in the hole: THE SLAVERY CARD! (which he was privately indifferent about by his own admission.)"
Your utter ignorance and distortion of real history is breathtaking here.
In fact, slavery became an issue in the war only long after it was full operation, and then only because slaves themselves made it an issue by escaping their captivity into Union lines.
What was to be done with them?
Should they be returned to their "masters"?
That lead to various executive orders, culminating in Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and, soon after, actions to pass the 13th Amendment.
HangUpNow: "THE evidence that Japan was indeed going to launch a 'surprise' attack on Pearl harbor was *already* known by FDR and his minions.
NOT a part of actual 'history.' "
Sorry, but no, there's no evidence that "FDR knew" a Japanese attack was coming at Pearl Harbor.
What he and Washington certainly knew was an attack was coming somewhere and some time, and so Washington sent out "War Warnings" to all Pacific commanders, from MacArthur in the Philippines to Kimmel & Short in Hawaii.
The fact is that none of those commander -- with the remarkable exception of Admiral Halsey and his Enterprise aircraft carrier -- none of those commanders responded appropriately, as events soon showed.
HangUpNow: "You've compared the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor in a so-called 'sneak-attack' with a full-scale planned bombardment to TWO accidental deaths at Fort Sumter, and *I'M* the one living in La-La Land? "
FRiend, you certainly do live in La-La Land if you fail to see the historical parallels between Pearl Harbor and Fort Sumter.
As I've pointed out before, relatively speaking, Fort Sumter was as important in 1861 as was Pearl Harbor in 1941, both in terms of its strategic location and in terms of its size relative to the entire US military of the time.
And total casualties at Fort Sumter (six of 85) were approximately the same percentage as those at Pearl Harbor when compared to the entire US military in Hawaii.
So there is just no legitimate minimizing the importance of the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter as an act and cause of Civil War.
Now my time for today is over, must move on to other things.
Will try to return this weekend, if possible.
You guys are great, thanks again for amazing discussions!
Yours truly,
BroJoeK
“And yet, faced with a violent rebellion and the loss of those markets the northern states managed to survive and even recover. Imagine that.”
Some choose to start a war when faced with failure.
Bro tells us: “But other exports, including “specie” (gold & silver) from new mines out west, were not insignificant, and were growing.”
Bro, source please.
Bro comes up with this as a pathway to remaining competitive: “Matching Confederate (tariff) rates would be a simple step.”
Correct Bro, but given the choice between calling Congress into session to do that, or leaving them out of any effort to follow the Constitution, the Executive chose to sent war ships South.
So according to your logic, the Executive was not very smart in starting the war.
And you would be correct, Sir.
And you would be correct, Sir.
To the contrary. I think he was too smart by half.
I've noticed a correlation between so called "Genius" Presidents, and disasters.
You can't even properly understand the concept of "strawman."
A "strawman" is a deliberately distorted version of an opponents position. The debater then points out how ridiculous and offensive are the particulars of this false position that he is attributing to someone else.
The point is, it's not an accurate representation of their position, it is like a man made of straw. It vaguely has the shape of a man, but it is not a man.
No, I wasn't distorting BroJoeK's position, I was articulating my own position, and I believe that of others, that the Union launched a war against the South to protect the pocketbooks of New England.
No. You can't have it both ways.
Following the principles you espouse, it was the job of the British Navy.
1. Let me first deal with the 10th Amendment.
The 10th's words are:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Can you tell us where the Constitution prohibits states from seceding? And where in the Constitution is the power to stop a state from seceding given to the central government or to the states that didn't secede?
Here's Jefferson Davis in his speech to the US Senate, January 10, 1861:
...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.
A majority of the 13 original states either had statements in their ratifications the allowed the resumption or reassuming of powers of governance (NY, VA, or VA) or made statements or proposed 10th Amendment like amendments:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
So, apparently the words of the 10th Amendment (which is the law of the land) and the statements of the ratifiers don't mean much to you. Do you disagree with Madison's statement I posted above, that "the only authoritative intentions [of the Constitution] were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution."? Was Madison wrong?
2. Now I'll address this part of your post: The rebels knew it in theory and war proved it [rb note: by "it" here I gather you mean the 10th Amendment did not apply to secession] in practice. The south had no “right” other than through open rebellion, to leave the United States. A war decided that.
So, might makes right, hmmm? Doesn't matter that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession, the Northerners go to war to prevent the South from successfully seceding (psst, sotto voce -- because if they were successful it would ruin the North's economy}.
You are no doubt aware of de Tocqueville's statement:
However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.
If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.
What the Constitution said and the ratifiers said the Constitution meant didn't matter to the Northern states who were trying to protect their economies. As some poster once said, "It was all about the Benjamins."
3. Now let's address your statement: A supreme court decision affirmed that.
You are talking about Texas v. White, whose decision was written by a former member of Lincoln's cabinet who had helped conduct the war against the seceded states and had dealt with the Texas bonds in question in this case when he was Secretary of the Treasury. He didn't recuse himself from the case. He had been nominated to the Court by Lincoln as its tenth member back when Republicans added a tenth justice to the court to protect Lincoln.
Texas v. White is currently the law of the land because it was a Supreme Court Decision. But IMO it is a flawed decision. Chase said the Union was perpetual under the Articles of Confederation and that perpetuity transferred to the Union under the Constitution. The Union under the Confederation was a different Union than the Union under the Confederation. As George Washington told the Senate in 1789:
"As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
The "Present Union" was not the same as the previous perpetual Union from which the states had withdrawn. The "Present Union" he was referring to was the Union under the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that the Union formed under it was perpetual, only that the Constitution was a "more perfect Union." Was it more perfect that the Union under the Articles? Yes, it was, but it was a different Union, as Washington suggested.
For a discussion of perpetual union, I turn to a post by Nolu Chan who provided arguments for the secession of American states written by a British barrister [Link].
But on turning to the previous Articles of Confederation, we find in the title the words "perpetual union," and in the body, the express injunction -- "And the union shall be perpetual." On this point they clearly possessed greater force than that of the Constitution; yet, notwithstanding this, they were terminated at the end of a few years, and that, too, with liberty to any State to leave the Federation altogether. The Union has, therefore, proved, by its own act, that terms of this nature have no force of law, but simply indicate the intention and the desire of the parties at the time. We find, too, that the Federal Government entered into a close alliance with France, the terms of which strongly enjoined that it should last for ever; yet these terms were held to be no obstacle to annulling it, without the consent of the other party.
I am reminded of other perpetual agreements of the past. The Treaty of Paris (1783) also said there should be perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the American states and that navigation of the Mississippi River shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain. So much for "perpetual" and "forever". Then there was the "The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643" where participating colonies agreed to:
The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare.
Gone with the Wind, if I might make a Southern reference.
Besides, the Union continued right along without the seceded states, and it waged a huge war effort to bring the seceded states back into the Union.
Chase's decision in Texas v. White has been characterized as an ipse dixit decision, i.e., asserted not proves or it is so because I say so. IIRC, some on these threads have characterized Chase's decision as made out of whole cloth, or, in other words, a ruling with no basis in fact. But it's the law.
rockrr, with respect, are you a proponent of a Living Constitution, or perhaps are you in any sense an originalist in the interpretation of the Constitution?
You know as well as any that the United States Constitution is silent on the matter of secession or deconstruction of the union. That was for reason. Although many whispered “what if it doesn’t survive?” “What if it turns out worse than what we had before?” and there were many side conversations a secession clause never made it into the union. This was by design.
The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply here because the constitution defined the mechanism for admission and consent authority for the construction and definition of the states to the Congress in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.
Respectfully, I don’t GAD what jefferson said or thought - my attention is on what he did - and that was commit treason against the United States.
The signing statements of those states are interesting artifacts but totally irrelevant. They have zero force of law.
“You are talking about Texas v. White, whose decision was written by a former member of Lincoln’s cabinet who had helped conduct the war against the seceded states and had dealt with the Texas bonds in question in this case when he was Secretary of the Treasury.”
I don’t care about the circumstances regarding how he came to be a sitting member of that case but his decision stands. I have nothing but contempt for justice taney but he was the legitimate chief justice and his ruling, however idiotic and divisive, stand as well.
Around the first week in January, 1861,the arsenal at Augusta was taken by Georgia troops without firing a shot.
The U.S. Arsenal at Apalachicola was occupied by Florida troops, the caretakers having walked out. The U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge was taken by Louisiana troops along with Forts Phillip, Jackson and Pike, and Macomb. Fort McRae and the naval yard at Pensacola were occupied by Florida troops. Fort Massachusetts was occupied by Mississippi troops.
All were done peacefully while arranging for the Federal caretakers to ship home.
Charleston Harbor's main fort, Fort Moultrie, along with two of the other three major forts there all predated the federal presence. Similar forts were found in all of the original British colonies in the south (VA, NC, SC, GA) and also several of the gulf states. There were defensive positions originally built by the Spanish all over Florida. The harbor defenses of Mobile, Alabama were begun back in 1699 and built over the following century. Even the “new” forts around Mobile by the civil war had pre-federal components as all US army improvements were built upon existing structures.
Louisiana was another classic example as practically every major fort in the state was a pre-federal structure. The main defense of New Orleans and the Mississippi river mouth, Fort St. Philip, was begun in 1792 by the Spanish on an earlier French fort begun in 1761. The other river mouth defense, Fort Jackson, was originally Fort Bourbon from pre-American days and had only been modernized and built upon by the feds. Fort St. Philip was used prominently in the War of 1812 and in the civil war battle of New Orleans. Several of the other city defenses were built by the Spanish or French and one of its forts on the Mississippi was even built by pirates.
Texas was another case of a state dominated by pre-federal forts. Most of the state's forts dated from the Republic of Texas days or earlier. A few far western posts there were built by the federal government in the late 1840’s, but these tended to be little more than wooden stockades. Most of the central Texas stockades were pre-federal frontier defenses and virtually all of the stone forts in the state dated back to Republic of Texas or Spanish control.
Your accusation of aggressiveness is unfounded.
Have you learned how to spell the name yet?
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.