Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
All of which they perfomed unilaterally, including coining money, enterered into treaties, alliances, and confederations. Georgia was not a member of the Articles of Association, nowhere in the DoI does it form any "union" to which independent states are legally bound. What constitution was formed? What document delegated powers?
Nothing ever did, and nothing ever will, justify the institution of human slavery. However, courts of law are required to follow the law as it is given, even if that law is contrary to their own sense of morality. The U.S. Constitution clearly recognized and protected the institution of slavery within those states who chose to have it. It was left to the individual states to determine whether they would, or would not, legalize slavery within their jurisdiction.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERYArticle 1, Section 2. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article 1, Section. 9, Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article 5. ... Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
[cr #573] But there is no moral justification. The tenets of natural law, upon which this nation was founded, reject the institution.
Taney was interpreting the organic law of the USA, the Constitution, not that undefined, unwritten, something or nothing called the Natural Law. The USA has but one Constitution and probably about 300 million versions of that unwritten Natural Law. The law required to be used in Courts of Law is the Constitution and it is not superseded by some unwritten Natural Law, at least not in the courts of law of the USA.
It was not the Court's job to pass judgment on the morality of the Constitution, but to accurately interpret the law therein stated and apply the law to the facts. The Judge does not write the law.
[cr #573] Bledsoe and others attempted to provide the moral justification, with such rationalizations that slavery was a "positive good," and that "the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit." The moral foundation for slavery never existed. The legal foundation continued to crumble during the first century of our county's existence, not withstanding all the attempts to prop it up. It took time to build an abolitionist sentiment, but it was building as civil war approached.
There can be no legitimate moral justification for slavery, but this digression is wholly irrelevant to the job of the Court. They are required to uphold the law as it has been given. If the law is wrong, then the law should be changed. One should not expect judges to rule contrary to the written law.
[cr #573] It scared the crap out of the racist southern leadership like Rhett and the other fire-eaters, and their apparatchik in the Supreme Court, Taney.
The decision in Dred Scott was 7-2. It follows the same reasoning that was reached by the British High Court of Admiralty in 1827 when slavery did not exist in Great Britain. In The Slave, Grace, Lord Stowell ruled that residence in England only suspended slave status. When she returned to a slave jurisdiction, the law of England no longer applied to her, and her status would once again be determined by the law of the slave jurisdiction. Presumably Lord Stowell and the British High Court of Admiralty was under the vice-like grip of southern leadership and the other fire-eaters.
[cr #573] Taney and the other on the Court were not forced by precedent to rule they way they did. They chose to by presenting a "gross perversion of the facts."
The Agreed Statement of Facts was submitted by the parties, and restated by the Supreme Court at the beginning of the Opinion of the Court.
Scott was in Missouri. The law of Missouri applied. The highest court of Missouri held that Scott was still a slave. The courts of Missouri cannot be required to apply the law of any other jurisdiction. This follows the precedent in Strader v. Graham (U.S. Supreme Court 1850) and The Slave, Grace (British 1827).
Which of those facts (and not irrelevant b-s) do you allege is grossly perverted?
What is your legal argument, as opposed to harummmmph and a moral argument?
[cr #573] An intellectually honest evaluation of the case would have led to a decision that would have been, in retrospect, hailed by the world (outside of the deep south) as a classic statement of human rights, instead of being characterized as the worst Supreme Court decision ever made. By foisting the Dred Scott perversion on the country, they set the stage for increased sectional conflict.
An intellectually honest evaluation of the case was rendered by Mr. Justice Nelson, based on the precedent in Strader. Mr. Justice Curtis insisted on writing a dissent going into all nature of other things. Mr. Justice Curtis then released his opinion to the press before the case was officially published. A brother of Mr. Justice Curtis (George T. Curtis) argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Scott.
An intellectually honest evaluation of the case, with facts now known, would have thrown the case out of court. The case involves the real owners, Congressman Chaffee and his wife, the former Mrs. Emerson. It involves a fictitious bill of sale to Mrs. Emerson's brother, John F.A. Sanford, a citizen of New York. Dred Scott asserted he was a citizen of Missouri, and sued Sanford, a citizen of New York, claiming Federal jurisdiction by way of state diversity. Sanford was in New York, outside the jurisdiction of the St. Louis Federal court, but he travelled to St. Louis to accept service of the summons against him.
Scott won in the lower Missouri court and "Sanford" appealed. Bear in mind that as soon as the case was over, the abolitionist Congressman Chaffee and his wife sold the Scott family to Taylor Blow of St. Louis.
In the Emerson case, Dred Scott and Henry T. Blow, under oath, named Peter Blow as the person who sold Dred Scott to Dr. Emerson. Taylor Blow and Henry T. Blow were brothers, both sons on Peter Blow, the owner of Dred Scott before Emerson.
Now that we have caught up with "All in the Family," we can return to the appeal. As Scott was to be freed in any case, the purpose of "Sanford" appealing the case can be little more than the desire to move the case along to the Supreme Court. A falsified Statement of Agreed Facts purported, among other things, that Sanford acquired Scott from Dr. Emerson ( d. 1843) who was most assuredly a corpse at the time of alleged acquirement. Upon submission to a jury, the same Federal Judge reversed his former ruling. And in such manner was the case manufactured for the Supreme Court.
As for a gross perversion of the facts, the Agreed Statement of Facts, submitted by the parties, constitutes precisely and provably that. They certainly kept the case from being called Scott v. Chaffee. The case of Scott v. Emerson failed when there was the fatal absence of any testimony that Scott had ever been owned by Mrs. Emerson. Sanford, on the other hand, who purportedly obtained Scott from a corpse, travelled all the way from New York to St. Louis just so he could accept service as the defendant in Scott v. Sandford.
When Dred Scott appealed to the Supreme Court, his appeal bond was signed by Taylor Blow for the purpose of their emancipation, it being so expressed in the bill of sale by which Taylor Blow acquired ownership of the Scott family from the Chaffee's after the litigation ended. Sanford could not have sold Scott after the decision was announced. Sanford was in an insane asylum where he died on May 5, 1857.
This was a moot case. A moot case occurs when ostensibly opposing parties collude together to manufacture a case for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the court, for their own interests, where there is no actual controversy.
The King James version translates it as 'whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons'.
The Amplified as 'impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers'.
The New Life as 'It is for those who do sex sins and for people who do sex sins with their own sex. It is for people who steal other people and for those who lie and for those who promise not to lie, but do.'
The New American Standard as 'immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers'. It goes on to link to Exodus 21:16 'He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.'
And 1 Corinthians 7:20-22 gives direction the those who have been enslaved
As does I Tim 6:1 (ESV) 'Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.'
And I believe nowhere in the Bible is there the sanction for racial/African slavery.
I think God did not distinguish - a slave is a slave. I believe we are all one blood, all descendenats of Adam and Eve. No "race" was cursed and forced to serve as slaves to another.
I will leave this issue here. If you wish to try and make the New Testament case for slavery, I will listen without comment.
I will not make a case that slavery is justified. I just refuse to see Southerners condemned, when the same actions by yankees are ignored.
Justice Grier writes, 'The Government of the United States has recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed her determination to remain neutral between the parties. Each party is therefore deemed by us a belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights of war.'
Get it? When a neutral recognizes the parties to a civil war, they are acknowledging the existance of two nations under international law. A blockade is an act of war against a foreign nation. Just how stupid are you?
Grier debunks your invalid assertion of Article IV, Section 4. "Just how stupid are you?"
The United States 'shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.'
It was not invasion, and no governor nor legislature requested aid. The Constitution says nothing about a state being forced to remain in the union. IN fact, given the chance in THIS decision, Grier could have stated that secession was illegal. He does NOT. He states, '[t]heir right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.' Just how stupid are you?
Recognition of what, I ask. The answer is right there in black and white - "two belligerent parties" in a "civil war." That's not diplomatic recognition. "Just how stupid are you?"
Let me get this straight - a country is not a country unless other countries recognize it diplomatically? ROTFL!!! Does that mean if we do not maintain diplomatic relations with Iraq they ceased to exist? Just how stupid are you?
I will concede that you are correct and publicly apologize to you if you can name for me Great Britain's "ambassador plenipotentiary" to the Confederate States of America. Otherwise, I must ask again, IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS: "Just how stupid are you?"
I will concede that you are correct and publicly apologize to you if you can cite the section of the federal Constitution that explicitly prohibits secession. Just how stupid are you?
On a side note, since you assert that formal diplomatic relations must be in place for a country to exist, who was the united StateS of America ambassador to the England or Great Britain in 1776? 1777? 1778? 1779? Just how stupid are you?
[nc #565] It is an axiomatic premise of all written law, as explained by Aristotle, that if circumstances arise in which the letter of the law negates the intention of the lawgiver, then the intention must be preferred to the letter.
-- SOURCE: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p. 363
[nc #565] "Harry needs to jump into his wayback machine and move to ancient Greece. The written law is the law, not the intent of the legislator. At least, that is the way it is in the United States of America."
[cr #571] But, you well know, courts often look at "legislative intent" when making their decisions. On Constitutional matters, it is not unusual to find the "Federalist Papers" and other early supporting documents quoted for intent.
They look at "legislative intent" to interpret the meaning of the written law. They do not look to "legislative intent" to replace the written law. It is the written law which is the law, not the intent of the legislator. The purported "intent" is not preferred to the letter of the law. Harry is clearly saying that if the letter of the law misstates the intent, then the intent is preferred, and the written law is to be ignored.
[nc #565] "As I said, the written law is the law, not the intent of the legislator. At least, that is the way it is in the United States of America. If the written law negates the intent of the lawgiver, somebody better amend the written law."
[cr #571] And how many times have we seen the law intended to do one thing, and end up bastardized in the courts to mean exactly the opposite? Wasn't it Hubert Humphrey who said that if his Civil Rights Act ended up as a quota system he would eat the legislation? He died of gluttony, no doubt.
Your argument is irrelevant. It refers only to some judges who ignore the written law, or who make erroneous rulings. Under Jaffa's concept, every judge could claim he had an epiphany about the nature of the lawgiver's "intent" and rule in any way he pleased. The law would be whatever Ms. Cleo says its intent was.
Assuming that the intent of the lawgiver is the law, rather than the written law, would result in chaos. How would any individual, group, or corporation determine if an intended action is lawful? Researching the written law would be useless.
[nc #565] In 1981 President Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address, declared that the states had made the Union, showing that Calhounianism, even at the highest levels, was still alive and well. I am confident that Reagan, a native of Illinois, had no idea that he was contradicting Lincoln. His entourage, from which the speech emerged, like the conservative movement generally, was, however, filled with disciples of Calhoun.
-- SOURCE: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p. 520
[nc #565] "I am confident that Reagan was correct. Only a nutcase would agree that the Union created the States."
[cr #571] I believe the point I made was that the States never existed outside of the Union. The Declaration of Independence transformed colonies into states, and simultaneously created a union of those states. I have also made the point that American nationalism preceded, necessarily, the Declaration.
Such a short memory. The point you made was at #539. [ LINK ]
One quotation
50 year career
Wow! That's quite an indictment.
With a sharp mind like yours, you ought to think about going into law.
You complained about the quantity of quotes so I gave you more. Is is coming back to you now?
Here are some more JAFFA quotes from his 50-year career. This time it is from Original Intent.
"One wonders whether Judge Bork has ever read a single document of our Founding" (p. 31)."Comparing Bork's prose to Churchill's is approximately on a level with comparing Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can to Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper" (p. 293).
"[I]t would take at least 50 pages to explain ... all of Bork's innumerable errors in dealing with [the Dred Scott] case" (p. 298).
"What then was the fundamental question in Dred Scott? Although I have written often on this subject, what I have written seems not to have penetrated the emanations or penumbrae that surround... Mr. Justice Rehnquist" (p. 101).
"Because [Meese] followed [Bork and] Rehnquist, [he] utterly misinterpreted the significance of the Dred Scott decision, as I believe I have shown beyond a reasonable doubt (or beyond a possible doubt by a reasonable person!)" (p. 391).
"The attempt by Bork no less than Rehnquist (or Meese) to treat Dred Scott as primarily a matter of judicial usurpation, shows as profound an ignorance of constitutional history as Taney himself displayed in his opinion for the Court in that case" (p. 275)
[cr #571] Reagan's underlying motivation was to transfer power and responsibility away from the federal government back to the states and localities - which is a very good thing.
Unlike Lincoln, Reagan simply told the unvarnished truth.
Reagan had no need for Lincoln's absurd fairy tale.
Before the Revolution there were thirteen colonies, which later became the thirteen states. Some of these were known as Proprietary colonies, some as Provincial, and some as Charter colonies; but all were under Great Britain's sovereignty. These colonies were separate and distinct, and had no political relation to each other. As early as 1643 some of the New England colonies joined together for their mutual good and protection; but England ended this relationship by abrogating the charters of the colonies which formed it. In 1754 and in 1765 there was an attempt on the part of certain colonies to form a union for defense against the Indians, and to resist the growing aggressions of England. In 1774 something more definite was done toward a union, and this is the union to which Lincoln first referred in his Inaugural as being the beginning of the union idea. At this time the British Parliament passed the Boston Port Bill, and enacted still another law which changed the charter of Massachusetts. This state was from the first always doing something against someone or requiring something to be done for it. Now, because the charter had been taken from Massachusetts, all the colonies bristled with resentment. Virginia, where Jefferson and Washington lived, sent up the battle cry, and appealed to all the colonies to send delegates to a general convention or congress, in order that there might be joint consultation on the crisis. Twelve colonies responded to Virginia's call whose delegates met at Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. It was determined at the outset that the congress should be one of separate political organizations, that is separate colonies, or geographical units; and every colony was allocated but one vote, with no reference to the number of delegates which it had sent. The object of this congress is shown by the powers which were conferred upon the delegates. Virginia empowered her representatives "To consider of the most proper and effectual manner of so operating on the commercial connection of the colonies with the mother country, as to procure redress for the much injured province of Massachusetts." Maryland and South Carolina similarly empowered their delegates. [Elliot's Debates, I, 42.] All this congress did was to declare what the rights of the colonies were in the premises, and to make certain recommendations. Then the congress dissolved; recommending that the colonies send deputies again to meet in Congress on May 10, 1775.Whatever union was created in 1774, was thus ended. However, delegates came again, and now what was called a permanent union was formed between the colonies. Words like permanent, perpetual, indissoluble are used by men who well know that time and circumstances make all things impermanent and transitory. They are the expressions of human nature trying to mold the future, they are bonds given to Fate while intending to avoid the bond if the consideration for it fails. This congress of May 10, 1775, was the one which, on July 4, 1776, adopted the Declaration of Independence.
With the adoption of the Declaration, the colonies became states. "We... solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states... and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other things which independent states may of right do," are the words of the Declaration. By the treaty of peace between the states and Great Britain, at the close of the Revolution, the separate sovereignty of the states was acknowledged: "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to be free, sovereign and independent states; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claim to the government, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Meanwhile, after the Declaration in which the colonies had asserted their rights as sovereign states, this same congress formulated the Articles of Confederation. This was in 1777; and into this union eleven states entered in 1778; one in 1779 and one in 1781. These were articles of "confederation and perpetual union" between the states. Curtis, in his work on the Constitution, wrote: "The parties to this instrument were free, sovereign, political communities, each possessing within itself all the powers of legislation and government over its citizens which any political society can possess." Marshall, to whose school Lincoln belonged, held in deciding one of the landmark cases of American jurisprudence, [Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat, I.) that the states before the adoption of the Constitution were sovereign. "It has been said," he declared, "that they [the states] were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true." These affirmations as to the sovereignty of the states, before the Articles of Confederation, could be multiplied out of the mouths of Webster, Calhoun and many others, but the point is not debatable enough to need further authority.
By the second article of this instrument which created the confederation, it was provided: "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." In preserving the character of the confederation as a league of states, each state had one vote in Congress. And finally the Xlllth Article was written to read: "The Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual." Here to refer to Lincoln's Inaugural, the government formed by the Articles had no "provision in its organic law for its own termination;" but on the contrary had express words that it should be perpetual. And yet this union was dissolved and another one created under the Constitution.
Before we come to this, some notice must be taken of the movements which were made to amend the Articles of Confederation. On February 3, 1781, a resolution was adopted by Congress, looking to a tariff on imports, that power not having been given in the Articles. The resolution was rejected by the states. In April, 1783, the same movement was renewed; but the states would not accede to it. In 1784, Congress asked of the states power for fifteen years to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Not enough states agreed to this to make it effective. In 1785 Monroe, in Congress, moved that Congress be empowered to regulate trade. This proposal was ignored. Madison went to the legislature of his state, Virginia, and initiated there a program for investing Congress with the powers so previously rejected. This failed. But in January, 1786, the Virginia legislature passed a resolution, and by it appointed eight commissioners to meet like commissioners from the other states to consider a uniform system of commercial regulations for the states. This resolution was sent out; and New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware responded, by appointing commissioners. These, from the several states mentioned, met at Annapolis in September, 1786. They accomplished nothing beyond recommending the holding of a general convention of all the states to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday of May in 1787, there to take into consideration the situation of the United States, and to "devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." Here it is to be noted, these men, such as Madison and Edmund Randolph, lawyers and scholars, spoke of the Articles as a Constitution. Yet later there were to be infinite dialetics by Webster to show, if he could, that the Articles were a compact, while the Constitution was only the result of a compact. This convention of May, 1787, was the one that formulated the Constitution, by which the inviolable and perpetual union of the Articles was dissolved, and a new government created.
SOURCE: Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln, The Man, copr 1931, reprint 1997, pp. 320-3.
[nc #565] As we shall see, Rehnquist's "original intent" has less in common with the intent of those who ratified the constitution than with the intent of those who "de-ratified" it in 1860-61.
-- SOURCE: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p. 87
[nc #565] "Chief Justice Rehnquist has it all wrong. So sayeth Jaffa."
[cr #571] Jaffa is about to discuss the point. Read the discussion, rather than mischaracterize it.
[JAFFA, New Birth, p. 86-7] "Like Madison, Rehnquist takes issue with those who hold that the Constitution as a "living organism," should "evolve" over time and that judges should discover an evolving meaning in its words."
[nc] Sounds like a good argument for Harry and CR to take over to DU.]
[JAFFA, New Birth, p. 88] "It is clear, therefore, that Rehnquist's jurisprudence of original intent has more in common with Calhounian or Confederate original intent than with that of the Founders or Lincoln."
[JAFFA, New Birth, p. 89] "Actually what he [Rehnquist] says is that there is no basis in reason for any opinions as to what is right or wrong, just or unjust, either in the Constitution and laws of our society or outside them. If no individual conscience is more rational thaan any other, how can any collective conscience be fore rational than any other? A collective conscience becomes merely another name for superior force. This means that there is nothing in the power of reason to support the view that the moral judgment of a Washington or a Lincoln is superior to that of any absolute monarch, not to mention that of a Hitler or a Stalin."
[JAFFA, New Birth, p. 90] "In dismissing 'someone's idea of natural justice,' Rehnquist simply ignores the historic argument of the American people. Of this argument there is no attempted refutation, merely denial."
[nc #565] We believe that we have examined, and found wanting, every serious argument of contemporary historical scholarship to deny or disparage the intrinsic significance or validity of Lincoln's assertion that the United states was founded upon and dedicated to "an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times."
-- SOURCE: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p. 121
[nc #565] Harry is writing, of course, about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."
[nc #565] "Those words are attributed to slaveowner Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was tended to by one of his slaves as he wrote that all men are created equal, and he remained a slaveowner until he died. (George Washington died a slaveowner also.)"
[cr #571] Nobody, with one exception, is perfect. Being a slaveowner was not dissimilar to being a crack addict. Both Jefferson and Washington spent much of their adult lives as part of the "landed poor." To them, the slavery question was a conundrum. There is no moral justification for human slavery. When Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" he did not mean "all white men" (which is your implicit, racist reading).
He sure wasn't talking about his slaves back on the plantation where they stayed. Especially Sally Hemings. It is a nice try at changing the subject though.
Harry is saying the nation was founded on the abstract truth that all men were created equal. And the Constitution recognized and protected slavery. Black people were not equal in the eyes of the law of such a nation. Women were not equal. They could not own property. Women could not vote until 1920. Heck, not all White men were equal. In many places, only the landed gentry held the right to vote.
The Declaration of Independence was not law. Had it been incorporated into the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, Harry might have a point. As it is, he is just bloviating.
[nc #565] "In fact, however, the leading feature of the union before independence was its denunciation of slavery. -- SOURCE: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p. 371 -- "Really. Harry has me convinced. (What the hell were all those slaves doing there in 1861, anyway?)
[cr #571] Professor Jaffa correctly points out, in his book, that their were, even at the birth of the nation, those who recognized the incompatibility of human slavery with the founding natural law principles.
No. JAFFA did NOT say that. JAFFA SAID:
"In fact, however, the leading feature of the union before independence was its denunciation of slavery."
JAFFA PURPORTS that "DENUNCIATION OF SLAVERY" was "THE LEADING FEATURE OF THE UNION BEFORE INDEPENDENCE." Jaffa is blowing it out his butt.
[cr #571] I do like you "debating style." You set up a straw man and then punch holes it in. The only problem for you is that its punching back!
It does not matter when he punches like a bloviating girly man.
[nc #565] Appealing to the law of contracts, he [Lincoln] denied that even then there would be a right of secession, since a contract can be broken by one of the parties but can be lawfully rescinded only by all. This argument was sufficient to assert the legal perpetuity of the Union.
-- SOURCE: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p. 368
[nc #565] "Between sovereign states, this argument is nonsense."
[cr #571] There were no fully sovereign states, under any construction of the term "sovereign." The rest of your post is typical neo-reb screed.
In an argument that the states possessed no right of secession, eliminating the possibility of sovereign states assumes the conclusion and renders the entire argument nothing but hot air.
Try applying this specious argument to the Article of Confederation.
The Constitution was a compact entered into by sovereign states. The A of C documents there were sovereign states. The Constitution documents said compact was between said states who chose to ratify it. Article 7: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."
Articles of Confederation: "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." How did they lose their sovereignty? (Prior to Appomatox.)
Precisely. Capitan removed the name of the reviewer and expanded his words to suggest that they came from the newspaper in which they appeared. The Washington Times is a well regarded conservative newspaper that would give substantial credibility to a book that it recommended as a whole as if it were the conservative book of the summer or something. Mackubin Owens, on the other hand, is a Claremonster partisan with substantially less credibility and a conflicted interest in Jaffa.
I do the same with McPherson's crap. I would with Jaffa but seeing as the original sold so few copies, I figure that used ones are exceedingly hard to come by.
You are both pathetic.
The parts quoted in Texas v White, moron.
I'll save you the ignominy and just accept that you don't have a clue.
The same parts that Justice Chase couldn't cite? ROTFL!
On a side note, since you assert that formal diplomatic relations must be in place for a country to exist, who was the united StateS of America ambassador to the England or Great Britain in 1776? 1777? 1778? 1779?
A conspiracy, by definition, entails two or more persons working jointly and successively. Since NC and myself have simply noted that you altered the source of a book review to make it sound more credible than it is, do I take it that you suffer from a multiple personality disorder like your neo-nazi buddy #3, thus permitting this act of fraud to have originated from two or more "persons" acting jointly?
[4CJ] No, right. As nolu chan has carefully documented -- you really ought to pay attention sometime and quit blowing off his posts just because they annoy you -- Lincoln waited until Congress adjourned sine die, and then got busier than a one-armed paperhanger, instigating his war on the South.
The order to break the Armistice at Fort Pickens actually issued from the Lincoln administration on March 12, 1861. On March 28, 1861, the Senate Journal shows "Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make." It is the orders issued on March 12, 1861 that were subsequently delivered and carried out beginning April 11, 1861.
These orders of March 12, 1861, to Army Captain Vogdes were held until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861 and then delivered by USS Crusader to Captain Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861. Capt. Vogdes delivered them to Navy Captain Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders and requested Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles advise him how to proceed. Secretary Welles advised him to carry out the orders. These orders were then carried out, beginning on April 11, 1861 -- before the fireworks at Fort Sumter.
OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA.
[CHAP. IV.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, March 12, 1861.Captain VOGDES, U. S. Army,
On board U. S. sloop-of-war Brooklyn, lying off Port Pickens:SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, re-enforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders. Report frequently, if opportunities present themselves, on the condition of the fort and the circumstances around you.
I write by command of Lieutenant-General Scott.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.To: Captain I. Vogdes,
First Artiller, U. S. Army
on board Ship of War Brooklyn
off Fort Pickens,
Pensacola, Fla."
Delivery of these orders was delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861. They were delivered via USS Crusader to Capt. Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861, and by Capt. Vogdes to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders, see below.
This the end of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Senate will adjourn without day at four o'clock this afternoon.
The Senate proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the said resolution; and, having been amended on the motion of Mr. Hale, it was agreed to as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate do now adjourn without day.
Whereupon
The President pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned without day.
[Lincoln special message 4 Jul 61] An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing of the troops from the Steamship Brooklyn, into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the longer, and slower route by sea.
[Lincoln special message 4 Jul 61] To now re-inforce Fort Pickens, before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was impossible
Lincoln lied that a message to Captain Adams could only go by sea. He then stonewalled the Congressional inquiry about Lt. Worden. The Official Records quoted below document that Lt. Worden carried a message to Captain Adams and did so by traveling overland, by train, to Pensacola, where he lied to the Confederate officials to obtain a pass, saying that he carried only a message of a "pacific" nature. Lt. Worden carried the order to break the existing armistice.
First, Lt. Worden saw Lieutenant Slemmer, of Fort Pickens. Then he visited with Capt. Adams. He then left without checking back in with General Bragg. The Confederates soon became aware of the Union violation of the Armistice and Lt. Worden was captured and held as a prisoner of war.
When Congress made inquiries of Lincoln, he invoked Executive Privilege.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1
Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.
JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
JULY 30, 1861.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
July 29, 1861.
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
[nc - Well, Lincoln couldn't very well deliver to Congress a copy of orders dated March 12, 1861 or Captain Adams message of April 1, 1861 which called the orders he received as being of "old date."]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1861.
To the SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
[Inclosure.]
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1861.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting the President of the United States to inform the Senate "under what circumstances Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, has been imprisoned at Montgomery, Ala., whether he is still in prison, and whether any and if any what measures have been taken by the Government of the United States for his release," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not at this time comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
[nc - Well, he told Congress the message could not be sent by land, and it was impossible to reinforce Fort Pickens before the events at Fort Sumter. So he stonewalled.]
USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861
210 -- OPERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.
Abstract log of the U. S. sbip Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding.
April 7. -- Came to anchor in the harbor of Pensacola.
April 11. -- At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens.
April 16. -- At 5 p. m. steamer Atlantic arrived with troops and muni- tions of war for Fort Pickens. During the night 300 troops were landed on Santa Rosa Island by the boats of the squadron.
CAPTAIN JOHN LORIMER WORDEN
The Philadelphia Enquirer
Saturday, March 15, 1862
Captain (formerly Lieutenant) John Lorimer WORDEN, the hero of the great naval battle at Hampton Roads, and who commanded the gallant little Monitor in her engagement with the Merrimac, is a native and citizen of New York, from which State he received his appointment to the navy in 1834. His entry, as a midshipman, into the service, bears date the 10th of January in that year, his commission as Lieutenant, the 30th of November, 1846. During this time he has seen nearly sixteen years of sea service. His shore and other duty amounted, at the end of 1860, to nearly seven years. Since his appointment he has been only threeyears unemployed. His total length of service up to the present time exceeds twenty-eight years.
He was last as sea in November, 1860, on board the sloop Savannah, twenty-two guns, on the blockading squadron, and was granted a short leave of absence on his return. After this he was sent as a special messenger to Fort Pickens, with despatches to Captain ADAMS of the Sabine. ADAMS was in command of the fleet which, carrying two companies of artillery, had been sent to Fort Pickens for the purpose of its reinforcement. Leaving Washington with despatches which conveyed orders to that effect, on the 7th of April, Lieutenant WORDEN, journeying by way of Richmond and Montgomery, arrived at Pensacola on the 11th. Fearing an arrest and search, owing to the excited state of the country, he tore up his despatches after committing them to memory. As he anticipated, he was arrested at Montgomery, Alabama, and as no papers were found on his person, he was allowed to pass.
On his arrival at Pensacola he obtained a pass from the Rebel General Bragg permitting him to carry a verbal message from Secretary CAMERON to Captain ADAMS. He went to him and repeated from memory his despatches. The fort was reinforced by Captain VOGDES that night; Lieutenant WORDEN took the cars at 8 P.M., on the 12th, on his return, and on the 13th, when within about five miles of Montgomery, he was arrested by five Rebel army officers, under the pretence of having broken his parole, but the main object was to obtain his despatches to the Government, if he should have had any in his possession. He was sent to Montgomery, where he was kept for some time as a prisoner of war. There was an intense excitement against him, as the Rebel General BRAGG had collected a force of 1000 men and intended to attack Fort Pickens the very night it was reinforced. This he subsequently learned. Lieutenant WORDEN was kept in confinement until the middle of November last, hwne he was exchanged and went to Fortress Monroe where he joined the Minnesota. He was afterward detached from that vessel and appointed to command of the Monitor. His gallant performance at the battle of Hampton Roads is recorded in every heart. Under Providence he saved our navy.
[lg] No, right. As nolu chan has carefully documented -- you really ought to pay attention sometime and quit blowing off his posts just because they annoy you -- Lincoln waited until Congress adjourned sine die, and then got busier than a one-armed paperhanger, instigating his war on the South.
The order to break the Armistice at Fort Pickens actually issued from the Lincoln administration on March 12, 1861. On March 28, 1861, the Senate Journal shows "Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make." It is the orders issued on March 12, 1861 that were subsequently delivered and carried out beginning April 11, 1861.
These orders of March 12, 1861, to Army Captain Vogdes were held until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861 and then delivered by USS Crusader to Captain Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861. Capt. Vogdes delivered them to Navy Captain Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders and requested Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles advise him how to proceed. Secretary Welles advised him to carry out the orders. These orders were then carried out, beginning on April 11, 1861 -- before the fireworks at Fort Sumter.
OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA.
[CHAP. IV.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, March 12, 1861.Captain VOGDES, U. S. Army,
On board U. S. sloop-of-war Brooklyn, lying off Port Pickens:SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, re-enforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders. Report frequently, if opportunities present themselves, on the condition of the fort and the circumstances around you.
I write by command of Lieutenant-General Scott.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.To: Captain I. Vogdes,
First Artiller, U. S. Army
on board Ship of War Brooklyn
off Fort Pickens,
Pensacola, Fla."
Delivery of these orders was delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861. They were delivered via USS Crusader to Capt. Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861, and by Capt. Vogdes to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders, see below.
This the end of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Senate will adjourn without day at four o'clock this afternoon.
The Senate proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the said resolution; and, having been amended on the motion of Mr. Hale, it was agreed to as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate do now adjourn without day.
Whereupon
The President pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned without day.
[Lincoln special message 4 Jul 61] An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing of the troops from the Steamship Brooklyn, into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the longer, and slower route by sea.
[Lincoln special message 4 Jul 61] To now re-inforce Fort Pickens, before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was impossible
Lincoln lied that a message to Captain Adams could only go by sea. He then stonewalled the Congressional inquiry about Lt. Worden. The Official Records quoted below document that Lt. Worden carried a message to Captain Adams and did so by traveling overland, by train, to Pensacola, where he lied to the Confederate officials to obtain a pass, saying that he carried only a message of a "pacific" nature. Lt. Worden carried the order to break the existing armistice.
First, Lt. Worden saw Lieutenant Slemmer, of Fort Pickens. Then he visited with Capt. Adams. He then left without checking back in with General Bragg. The Confederates soon became aware of the Union violation of the Armistice and Lt. Worden was captured and held as a prisoner of war.
When Congress made inquiries of Lincoln, he invoked Executive Privilege.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1
Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.
JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
JULY 30, 1861.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
July 29, 1861.
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
[nc - Well, Lincoln couldn't very well deliver to Congress a copy of orders dated March 12, 1861 or Captain Adams message of April 1, 1861 which called the orders he received as being of "old date."]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1861.
To the SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
[Inclosure.]
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1861.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting the President of the United States to inform the Senate "under what circumstances Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, has been imprisoned at Montgomery, Ala., whether he is still in prison, and whether any and if any what measures have been taken by the Government of the United States for his release," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not at this time comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
[nc - Well, he told Congress the message could not be sent by land, and it was impossible to reinforce Fort Pickens before the events at Fort Sumter. So he stonewalled.]
USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861
210 -- OPERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.
Abstract log of the U. S. sbip Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding.
April 7. -- Came to anchor in the harbor of Pensacola.
April 11. -- At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens.
April 16. -- At 5 p. m. steamer Atlantic arrived with troops and muni- tions of war for Fort Pickens. During the night 300 troops were landed on Santa Rosa Island by the boats of the squadron.
CAPTAIN JOHN LORIMER WORDEN
The Philadelphia Enquirer
Saturday, March 15, 1862
Captain (formerly Lieutenant) John Lorimer WORDEN, the hero of the great naval battle at Hampton Roads, and who commanded the gallant little Monitor in her engagement with the Merrimac, is a native and citizen of New York, from which State he received his appointment to the navy in 1834. His entry, as a midshipman, into the service, bears date the 10th of January in that year, his commission as Lieutenant, the 30th of November, 1846. During this time he has seen nearly sixteen years of sea service. His shore and other duty amounted, at the end of 1860, to nearly seven years. Since his appointment he has been only threeyears unemployed. His total length of service up to the present time exceeds twenty-eight years.
He was last as sea in November, 1860, on board the sloop Savannah, twenty-two guns, on the blockading squadron, and was granted a short leave of absence on his return. After this he was sent as a special messenger to Fort Pickens, with despatches to Captain ADAMS of the Sabine. ADAMS was in command of the fleet which, carrying two companies of artillery, had been sent to Fort Pickens for the purpose of its reinforcement. Leaving Washington with despatches which conveyed orders to that effect, on the 7th of April, Lieutenant WORDEN, journeying by way of Richmond and Montgomery, arrived at Pensacola on the 11th. Fearing an arrest and search, owing to the excited state of the country, he tore up his despatches after committing them to memory. As he anticipated, he was arrested at Montgomery, Alabama, and as no papers were found on his person, he was allowed to pass.
On his arrival at Pensacola he obtained a pass from the Rebel General Bragg permitting him to carry a verbal message from Secretary CAMERON to Captain ADAMS. He went to him and repeated from memory his despatches. The fort was reinforced by Captain VOGDES that night; Lieutenant WORDEN took the cars at 8 P.M., on the 12th, on his return, and on the 13th, when within about five miles of Montgomery, he was arrested by five Rebel army officers, under the pretence of having broken his parole, but the main object was to obtain his despatches to the Government, if he should have had any in his possession. He was sent to Montgomery, where he was kept for some time as a prisoner of war. There was an intense excitement against him, as the Rebel General BRAGG had collected a force of 1000 men and intended to attack Fort Pickens the very night it was reinforced. This he subsequently learned. Lieutenant WORDEN was kept in confinement until the middle of November last, hwne he was exchanged and went to Fortress Monroe where he joined the Minnesota. He was afterward detached from that vessel and appointed to command of the Monitor. His gallant performance at the battle of Hampton Roads is recorded in every heart. Under Providence he saved our navy.
Your lack of education is showing. There are a set of criteria known as "essential attributes of nationhood." These describe features that real countries share, and include:
(1) A shared cultural heritage,
(2) A common language,
(3) A sense of national identification,
(4) Recognized and defensible borders,
(5) Diplomatic recognition neighboring nations,
(6) A functioning national government If one were to concede the CSA the first three factors (which I don't for various reasons), there is no way they could claim the last two.
From the beginning of the American Civil War, the CSA lost ground on several fronts. They never controlled some of the territory they claimed (such as Missouri, Kentucky, and the New Mexico Territory, not to mention large areas of Unionist support in western Virgina and the Smokey Mountains).
NO MAJOR POWER ever recognized the CSA. NO neighboring country ever recognized the CSA. The reason was simple - they dared not interfere diplomatically in an internal matter of the United States. You had the British (in Canada) and the Spanish (in Cuba), and the Mexicans on the southern border, and none of them exchanged ambassadors.
A now we come to the "government" issue. One needs only read an one of three books by historian William C. Davis ( Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America; An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government; or The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy) to understand how thoroughly dysfunctional the Confederate Government was. In fact the Confederate government was never fully constituted, in the four years the rebellion lasted, even by its own "founding" document (the focus of the deleted thread).
The best way to describe the South in the late ante-bellum period is, a "sub-culture."
A breath-taking display of ignorance and internally inconsistent thinking!! Even the droller couldn't back you up on this load.
A "civil war" is fought in one country. That's why it is a "civil war." That's why southerners don't like to use the term "civil war." But I am glad to see you recognize it for what it was.
If a "civil war" is fought within one country, an outside, neutral country, certainly can recognize that there exist belligerent parties to that conflict. A belligerent party to a "civil war" is not recognized as an independent nation among the family of nations. If you don't believe me, just ask any Biafran you happen to run into.
A blockade is considered an act of war when one country does it to another country. But there are not two or more countries in a "civil war." In fact, your compatriots have been belly-aching about Lincoln's blockade of port "before they seceded!" Lincoln's blockade was not an act of war, but (to use a more modern term) it was an internal "police action."
Have you been reading the Kennedy's book again? That would account for your comprehension problems.
Putz is the Yiddish word for penis. D'Amato termed Shumer a putzhead. The only realistic translation is dickhead. The Jewish people there when he said it, and the Jewish people of New York generally, were about as amused as if he gone to a meeting of Blacks and had dropped the N-word.
Ex-Senator D'Amato was the fool. Shumer won the election.
But if you want him as a politician, you can have him. I don't see where he could do much harm to California.
Down the road a piece. Just keep making left turns until you get there.
Iraq is not a nation. It cannot defend its borders.
Is the Vatican a nation? Can it defend its borders?
If we withdraw our recognition of Canada, will they cease to be a nation?
If the CSA had no functioning national government, who the heck was killing all those Yankees?
The CSA seemed to defend its borders against the biggest army in the world for about 4 years.
Against Germany in WW2, France and Poland lasted weeks. Were France or Poland nations?
In common example, the brigadier will permit the attributes of nationhood by demanding a stringent adherence to CSA law while attempting to allege the confederate government's shortcomings under those laws. He simultaneously denies the attributes of nationhood in all matters involving the CSA's standing as a combattant in war under the laws of nations...except, of course, when the CSA is accused of starving prisoners at Andersonville, in which case they are war criminals under those same laws of nations. But that newly acquired status switches back the moment Sherman comes into the picture, in which case he was only putting down "rebellious provinces." Nationhood typically resumes for them when diplomacy between the commands of the two armies come up...only to disappear again when diplomacy with Saint Abe over a peaceful secession in 1861 becomes an issue, though not diplomacy with Saint Abe at the Hampton Rhodes conference 4 years later, in which Saint Abe is always portrayed as extending a hand to "bind up the nation's wounds" or some such nonsense only to be shunned by the evil slavers. Confederate nationhood to them is kind of like a light switch that's in their hands. When it suits them to have it on, they switch it on. When it suits them to turn it off, they switch it off.
Of course all of this ignores and neglects the true de facto nationhood status of the CSA because it has nothing to do with that status, nothing to do with actual facts, and everything to do with the semantical convenience of an argument.
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.
