Posted on 01/06/2005 8:00:30 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Even the amicably divorced do not often remarry. When your "spouse" has been unfaithful, the chances are almost nil.
WRONG ANSWER! the first CSA "ALL-BLACK" units were formed in early 1861.
check out the LA Native Guards (who were FORCED in 1862 to fight for the union OR be sold INTO slavery!), the Mississippi Ethopian Free Rifles, The GA Sables & other all-black,Latino/black & mixed Indian/black units (like the SEMINOLE RIFLES for example, which was about 50% blacks. fyi, there were 2 white guys in that unit, as well.).
Well: I stand corrected on the Louisiana Native Guards. I overlooked them. You are correct: they were a black Confederate military formation right from the beginning, and even if, so far as I can tell, they were a state formation and not a national Confederate one, it's an important exception to make note of. Louisiana was in a somewhat unusual situation because of its unique societal structure, which included not only a large free black population but a larger mixed blood one as well, and it seems that led to more enlightened Louisiana attitudes (relatively speaking) on race.
Their later history under Union control does illustrate how badly black troops were treated by Union military commanders. But then anyone who has seen "Glory" knows that they had it rough. The Union used black troops for menial or garrison tasks wherever possible.
I confess my ignorance on the other units you speak of. Were they state formations or Confederate Army ones?
according to Dr H R Blackerby by mid-1862 the CSA military forces were DESEGREGATED down to company level. the damnyankees NEVER desegregated their military forces, period.
I agree on your latter point. I confess I am not familiar with Dr. Blackerby's work.
Even so I think there's a danger in stretching the enlightened character of the CS Army on black soldiery too far. There certainly were Indian and some mixed blood state units formed that served the southern cause; and the CS Army actually seems have treated black soldiers better than their Union counterparts at times, although as we have noted that's not exactly a difficult feat.
Most blacks seemed to favor the Union cause based on the evidence I have seen. When Lincoln visited Richmond in April 1865 he was greeted in rapturous tones by the local black population by all accounts. Some of that may have been opportunism, but many seemed to understand that the Union equaled freedom and the CSA equalled bondage. Of course, the former's promises took several generations to fulfill.
Really? In what way? Please be specific...
;>)
I know some of Forrest's own slaves (about 44 in number) served under his command but the 20% number seems awfully high. Where did you come by that number?
Sorry but thats not unconstitutional. If it was, it would be unconstitutional for veterans to emigrate...
;>)
WIJG: Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm?
j: None do, as you well know. It is mindboggling that you would assume that our Constitution would encourage secession as a viable option to using the due process of Constitutional law to solve political problems... 'Secessions' only existence is in the minds of those who oppose our Constitutional principles... The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution, nor to secede.
A few points:
Your argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you admit that none of the Constitution's written provisions prohibit secession. On the other hand, you imply that secession would somehow violate our Constitution.
You are also incorrect regarding the option of secession as a solution to political problems. If the federal government had not exceeded its constitutional authority by using military force to prevent the secession of the Southern States, almost three-quarters of a million American lives might have been saved, and the Union would likely have been restored in a peaceful manner. That sounds like a better option to me.
Third, you are wrong when you state that [t]he people have never authorized any level of government... to secede. The people of Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee voted to approve the secession of their States. Furthermore, your statement (The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution) assumes that secession somehow violates the Constitution when you previously acknowledged that none of the Constitutions provisions prohibit secession.
In summary, thanks for your opinion but it doesnt have much of a foundation...
;>)
Allow me to suggest an alternative interpretation:
No States rights = no secession
Without the concept of States rights promulgated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, there would have been no mention of seceding from the Union, whether the issue was federal violation of the Bill of Rights (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, 1798), war with Britain (the Hartford Convention, 1814), the unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds (Mr. Jefferson's Declaration of 1825), tariffs (1832), or slavery (1850s-1860s).
The States rights ideal of the Jeffersonian republicans was the 'root of secession' - and a most admirable root it is, indeed...
;>)
So, there is no provision for seceding? Allow me to quote Mr. Justice Thomas (who God willing may one day be Chief Justice):
...[W]here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people [of the States]...
As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned... the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it. These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States - are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [of the States].
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995
Thank you for proving my point.
;>)
Once you're in, you're in. Show me the provision that allows a state legislature or state convention to strip its citizens of United States citizenship. Show me the provision of the Constitution that prescribes a procedure for secession. You can't.
Sorry, but I dont have to show you anything: as Mr. Justice Thomas so eloquently observed the Federal Government and the States... face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it. In other words, its up to YOU to prove that the federal government possesses some constitutionally delegated power to prevent a State from retiring from the union. If you cant, then the States enjoy it.
Have at it, sport...
;>)
Oh probably because I have never seen a shred of evidence to support your crazy claim that Forrest's cavalry was even 2/10 of a percent black, much less 20%.
That's odd, considering that the title given to the War Department compilation of the records of the war was called "The Official Record of the War of the Rebellion" and it wasn't published until 1880. Sure you don't want to double check that claim?
A couple of points:
"The requirements of nationhood" hardly supercede "the Law of the Land." The Constitution of the United States is of greater importance when it comes to the question of State secession than are any international conventions - and the Constitution nowhere prohibits secession.
Also, it is quite obvious that, had the federal government remained within its constitutionally-defined bounds and not opposed secession with military force, the Southern Republic would have had absolutely no difficulty obtaining foreign recognition "as a sovereign nation."
;>)
Bull.
Unlike you, I don't have to "dream" - the Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession, and the right to secede is therefore reserved to the States and their people. Period. The Constitution provides the 'rules' for this "game," my friend - it is "the supreme Law of the Land." All you can do is attempt to justify breaking the rules.
Congratulations!
;>)
Justice Thomas was talking about the division of powers between state and federal government and what happens when a power is not one of the "enumerated" powers where Congress may legislate. To take a noncontroversial issue, abortion is a matter for state regulation since the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate it. This has nothing to do with admission to or secession from the Union.
In contrast, the Constitution does speak to the issue, prescribing the procedure for ratification of the Constitution and admission to the Union. There is no procedure to leave, period. A state may not deprive its citizens of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship after a state has joined the Union. There is no more fundamentally federal issue than this. To argue that joining the Union is a federal Constitutional issue but leaving is a state issue is completely illogical and Justice Thomas was not remotely commenting on this issue.
G'bye, sport.
Actually, it is you who have completely misconstrued Mr. Justice Thomas' statements. There is no "procedure" described in the Constitution for you to brush your teeth - which (according to your argument) would make 'tooth brushing' unconstitutional.
In fact, Mr. Justice Thomas stated: "where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people." He did NOT declare that 'where the Constitution is silent, it prohibits any action by the States or the people.'
Apparently you prefer a totalitarian government, where the people can do nothing, unless it is previously approved by the authorities. Allow me to suggest that you might find a more comfortable home somewhere outside these United States...
;>)
Typical of you - suggesting that one could somehow "copywrite" a word listed in the dictionary...
(By all means, have at it! ;>)
Great list. General Pike was a liason to the Indian Nations.
I spent part of the day reading some historical accounts of Prince George's county which was very much a southern plantation economy at the time. Quite different from the western part of the state. Conservative also, with the landed gentry believing secession to be a radical (meaning dangerous) idea. Sentiments there were pro-Southern but not to the point of leaving the Union.
Were your ancestors that joined up allowed to return home after serving or were they consripted for the duration?
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.