The Civil War's Tragic Legacy

Walter E. Williams, George Mason University ^ | January 1999 | Walter E. Williams

[Nowhere Man]

Guns of the South would make a great film...if done right.

Were there to be a hot war in today's USA, the red staters would win hands down as we are the ones armed. In the meantime, I'm all for a return to the days of tarring and feathering of well-deserving liberals...Michael Moore would certainly be a candidate.

I think Guns of the South would be nice to see on the sivler screen, I enjoyed the book. I also like Turtledove's "The Two Georges" where the Americans lost the Revolution and the main character is with the Los Angeles Mounted Police and he is trying to recover the painting of George Washington surrendering to King George III, hence the name of the title. I think Richard Dreyfuss was a co-author.

As to tar and feathering, I think it will take tons of tar and feathers for Michael Moore, but I'll drink to that. B-)

[Nowhere Man]

It was the other way around, the North allied with Germany and the South with Britain and France. In the Turtledove world, the U.S./German/Austrian alliance won.

OK, my bad, I had them reversed then. I would like to read the series though, sounds interesting.

[rustbucket]

The lack of a Court is indeed striking, or at least it is to me. What little I know suggests lack of interest in the question by the Confederate Congress and the unwillingness to cede such power (underwartime, at any rate) by Jefferson Davis. He cannot have been eager to have some of his dictates ruled unconstitutional by a Confederate Supreme Court.

The duty of organizing the Confederate Supreme Court fell to the Confederate Congress, which could never agree on forming it. Here is Jefferson Davis' reminder for them to create one [from Davis' more-or-less state of the union address to the Confederate Congress, Feb. 26, 1862]:

I invite the attention of Congress to the duty of organizing a supreme court of the Confederate States, in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution.

[jonestown]

You keep going around in circles, attempting to justify secession from our Constitutional Union as an individual right.
-- I agree. -- It is.

-- Anyone that wants can renounce their citizenship.
-- But as long as they stay in the USA, they must support our Constitution as the law of the land.

Seceding as a group, as a State, and continuing to live in the boundaries of the USA as a foreign power, is an entirely different 'game'. -- One you would not be allowed to play by the rest of the citizens of this Republic.

-- the Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession, and the right to secede is therefore reserved to the States and their people. Period.

Not true, as I outlined above, which you cannot counter. -- Just as you were unable to counter 'colorado tanker' at his post #395. He wrote:

"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."

_____________________________________ Feel free to try to make some logical comments 'sport'.

[Monterrosa-24]

"...How quickly they forget the secession of 1776 and Declaration of Independence that founded this very Republic...."

That is our solid Southern card. The Declaration of Independence gives the South the moral high ground. It speaks of seeking independence as a duty of paramount importance. The Second War for Independence was not successful and the defeat was tragic--chimneyvilles all over the South, a devastated countryside, the loss of our best generation of men, unspeakable crimes during reconstruction, and a constitution which became ever more elastic and pervertable.

If we had given up on the 1st revolution and remained part of England we would have had some sort of representation but the cause of good government would have suffered a terrible setback. During the era of 1861 to 1877 we suffered a terrible degrading of the cause of good government.

[Petronski]

WELL, Down south we BARBEQUE pigs....(Michael Moore) hehehe!

Though Moore himself is like the pig that's never eaten because the butcher discovers it was sick inside.

[Smokin' Joe]

They served for the duration, as I have been told. Some never came home. Southern Maryland (Charles, St. Mary's, and Calvert Counties were very pro-southern, as was much of the Eastern Shore.

Had Virginia voted on their bill of secession sooner (Maryland couldn't very well seceede unless Virginia did), Maryland might well have seceeded as well. It would have been a very different war, and possibly have had a different outcome.

Everyone concentrates on cotton, but the big cash crop for Maryland and Virginia was tobacco, which remains a labor intensive crop. No machinery has ever been developed to harvest it successfully. I worked in the tobacco fields as a youngster, and can attest to the tremendous amount of labor involved.

To add insult to injury, the Union established a POW camp no better than Andersonville on a sand spit at Point Lookout, in full view of Westmoreland Co. Virginia. Conditions there were horrible, and many prisoners did not survive captivity.

BTW, just for grins, check out the lyrics of the State Song. It was written during the war by an expat Marylander in Louisiana. The couplet "Avenge the patriotic gore/That flecked the streets of Baltimore" refers to the riots which occurred when invading northern State Militias marched through the city.

[nolu chan]

"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.

The people may meet in their sovereign capacity, just as they did in 1787, and vote to scrap the Constitution and choose a new system of government more to their liking. The sovereigns are the people, not the government.

The Articles of Confederation prohibited any change without unanimous consent. Acting in their sovereign capacity, the people chose to scrap the Articles and its unanimous consent rule, and decided the change would be effective upon the ratification of nine states between said nine ratifying states. The number nine held no particular magical quality. They could have chosen to make the change effective upon ratification of seven states. When George Washington was inaugurated, and for some time thereafter, there were only ELEVEN united states. The people could have chosen a monarchy.

A State government may not deprive its citizens of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship while it is in the Union. A State government may not deprive the people of their sovereign right to their chosen form of government. The State government's only claim to exist is by the consent of the people.

There is no more fundamental issue than this in the American system -- consent of the governed.

Only by extinguishing or suppressing the sovereignty of the people can one impose a government by coercion.

[Non-Sequitur]

The duty of organizing the Confederate Supreme Court fell to the Confederate Congress, which could never agree on forming it. Here is Jefferson Davis' reminder for them to create one...

So the confederate congress as well as Jefferson Davis both ignored the constitution that they had sworn to uphold. And the point is?

[Non-Sequitur]

I think Guns of the South would be nice to see on the sivler screen, I enjoyed the book.

Hollywood doesn't have a great track record with bringing Civil War movies to the silver screen. "Gettysburg" remained faithful to the book but "Gods and Generals" bore only a passing resemblance.

[Non-Sequitur]

One observation on my part. A lot of the southron contingent have some really wacked-out interpretations of history and the Constitution.

[Who is John Galt?]

j: Seceding as a group, as a State, and continuing to live in the boundaries of the USA as a foreign power, is an entirely different 'game'. -- One you would not be allowed to play by the rest of the citizens of this Republic.

WIJG: ...the Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession, and the right to secede is therefore reserved to the States and their people. Period.

j: Not true, as I outlined above, which you cannot counter.

On the contrary - I need only refer to the Constitution itself, and documented historical fact.

1) The Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession, and the right to secede is therefore reserved to the States and their people – a simple fact “I outlined above, which you cannot counter.”

2) When the Constitution was ratified by the first nine assenting States, it was established between them, but not between the dissenting States. In fact, they had just seceded (formally withdrawn) from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation ‘as a group and continued to exist within the boundaries of the former USA as a foreign power (a union of 9 States, not 13).’ Likewise, the dissenting States ‘continued to exist within the boundaries of the USA as foreign powers.’ And this despite the fact that the Articles proclaimed the union which had just been dissolved to be perpetual, and required unanimous agreement by the States to modify the compact. Perhaps you should read a little history sometime, sport.

3) Your contention that secession is a "game” which a State “would not be allowed to play by the rest of the citizens of this Republic” may be relevant to a discussion of mob rule, or possibly one regarding the amendment of the Constitution to actually prohibit secession. It is entirely irrelevant here, unless you wish to resort to the old ‘might makes right’ argument.

;>)

-- Just as you were unable to counter 'colorado tanker' at his post #395. He wrote: "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.”
Feel free to try to make some logical comments 'sport'.

Certainly.

1) CT’s comment regarding “the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship” seems to be referring to this:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”

That is Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment – which was not even proposed until 1866, and ratified under duress in 1868. In other words, sport, it is completely irrelevant to a discussion (such as this) of Southern secession.

2) CT’s suggestion that “[t]o argue that joining the Union is a federal Constitutional issue but leaving is a state issue is completely illogical” is itself completely illogical. Let’s take another look at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 states:

”No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

The clause, quite obviously, discusses the constitutional requirements for ‘joining’ the House of Representatives. Now, to paraphrase CT (with whom you apparently agree ;>), ‘to argue that being elected to the House of Representatives is a federal Constitutional issue but leaving is a state or even personal issue is completely illogical.” According to your argument, a Representative would have to get some kind of federal ‘permission slip’ to resign from Congress. In reality, it is your argument that is completely illogical - sport.

3) CTs suggestion that “Justice Thomas was not remotely commenting on this issue” is correct – but I never claimed that Mr. Justice Thomas was commenting on State secession. He was stating a general constitutional principle, which was most certainly as applicable in 1860 as it is today.

In short, your arguments don’t hold water.

But “[f]eel free to try to make some logical comments 'sport'.”

;>)

[4CJ]

don't forget the SIOUX & APACHE nations!

Thanks for the info, but I certainly didn't imply that it was a complete list, just evidence of treaties between various Indian nations and the CSA.

[The Iguana]

The duty of organizing the Confederate Supreme Court fell to the Confederate Congress, which could never agree on forming it.

I have to say: as bad as Jeff Davis could be at times, he was light years ahead of the congress in terms of effectiveness.

[rustbucket]

As you well know, Jefferson Davis did not have the power to create the Confederate Supreme Court. Separation of powers, don't you know.

As has been documented on other threads in the past, the Congress kept considering it and would go into private session when they did. Apparently, some of the Congress critters preferred not to have a Supreme Court -- such a court would have too much power to rule against the actions of their governors in keeping troops in their home state, etc.

State courts ruled on things like habeas corpus and the Confederate district courts may have as well.

[The Iguana]

GUNS OF THE SOUTH is probably too controversial and esoteric to garner the funding needed for a major motion picture.

But it might not be out of the question for a made-for-TV movie on cable. You wouldn't necessarily need a massive budget to do it (and there would be no lack fo reenactors available, as usual).

[The Iguana]

Alternative history works have had very little luck making it onto the screen so far.

Then again, if ten years ago you had told me a major studio would throw over $300 million at the previously-thought-unfilmable Lord of the Rings for a nine hour movie trilogy, I would have snorted beer out my nose.

I would never say "never." Though it might have a better shot on cable at first. SCI-FI and HBO are doing some good work these days.

Good possibilities might be THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE, GUNS OF THE SOUTH, and THE PESHAWAR LANCERS.

[4CJ]

Senator Trumbull, speaking of 1st Manassass/Bull Run fought on 21 Jul 1861, in reference to S. No. 25:

The amendment provides that if any person held to service or labor in any state, under the laws thereof (by which, of course, is meant a slave in any of these states), if employed in aid of this rebellion, in digging ditches or intrenchments, or in any other way, or if used for carrying guns, or if used to destroy this Government, by the consent of his master, his master shall forfeit all right to him, and he shall be forever discharged. ... I understand that negroes were in the fight which has recently occurred. I take it that negroes who are used to destroy the Union, and to shoot down the Union men by the consent of traitorous masters, ought not to be restored to them.
The Congressional Globe (Thirty-Seventh Congress, 1st Session),Washington DC: John C. Rives, 22 Jul 1861, pp. 218-219

[stand watie]

fyi, virtually ALL of the LARGE units in the CS Army (CSA) were either state, city/town/county OR "privately organized" units, which were "banded together" for "the length of the war plus 6 months".

the "regular army" of the CSA was known as the Provisional Army of the CSA (PACSA) & was very small, numbering only about 2,000 members (most of the regulars were senior commissioned officers, senior NCOs & a few technical troops = signal corps, military intelligence, balloonists (the CSA called them "areonauts"),scouts, etc.)

otoh,the CS Marine Corps (which had about 600-700 marines at any given time) & the CSN were virtually ALL regulars.

check out BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY, by Dr. Blackerby, published by Portals Press. while it is out-of-print, it IS available through interlibrary loan.

Dr Blackerby states that between 100,000 & 150,000 free blacks (depending on who you count as black-for example a "mixedblood" Latino-Indian or Black- Indian mixedblood could be counted as EITHER/both ethnic group(s)!) honorably served in the CSA.

the CSMC & CSN had about 20% free blacks in their formations.

as for the "rapturous reception" of lincoln, one presumes these people were either slaves or SCALAWAGS!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

a local member of the Company of Military historians is preparing a monograph on blacks in Nate Forrest's forces.

these are HIS figures, based on the veteran's service records on file at the US Archives.

his monograph is to be published within 6 months. i'm NOT prepared to further identify him OR give you more data at this time,on this forum & w/o his consent.

free dixie,sw.