Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
You seem to be confused - I don't believe anyone here ever suggested that you "said unilateral, unapproved secession is constitutional." Quite the opposite, in fact, which suggests you have no connection, whatsoever, to reality...
;>)
WIJG: "In fact, given that the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, the maintenance of federal forces within Fort Sumter following the withdrawal of South Carolina from the union, was an act of war on the part of the remaining United States... "
BJ: Utter, complete b*ll cr*p. In fact, no law then or now said that ANY Federal property would AUTOMATICALLY belong to a state -- much less a Confederacy -- immediately on declaring secession.
So what? 'No law then or now mentions brushing your teeth,' so far as I know - which in your 'learned opinion' (presented most recently in Post 1868) somehow makes dental care unconstitutional.
In fact, "The powers not delegated... nor prohibited ... are reserved..." Paraphrasing for you (because you apparently have trouble understanding the concept), the powers not mentioned are reserved "to the States respectively, or to the people [of the States]," as clarified by the specific written terms of the Tenth Amendment. That is a concept which the very best of our Supreme Court Justices recognize (please see Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas's dissenting opinion in US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779).
Finally, your arguments claiming the 10th Amendment, or some states Constitution "signing statements," imply secession is authorized is bogus to the max because:
* Neither the 10th Amendment, nor the Federalist Papers, nor any of those "signing statements" use terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the union," etc. Those ideas were just not part of the original discussion.
Care to provide any citation from the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the federal or State conventions, declaring that powers not even mentioned by the Constitution were somehow magically delegated to the federal government?
Of course not. Your argument is simply not consistent with recorded history.
To claim the "power to secede" is "implied" in the 10th Amendment is like saying the "power to murder Federal troops" is "implied," since it is not specifically forbidden in the Constitution.
Sorry, but that's an idiotic argument - you might just as well suggest that rape was legal. In fact, at the time, such crimes (murder & rape) were generally addressed under State law.
But let's smoke a little peyote, and assume you're right: how many "Federal troops" were "murdered" during the attack on Fort Sumter? Hmm? I'll let you answer (posting an honest fact wouldn't hurt you in the least ;>)...
As Lincoln pointed out, any party can break a contract, but to change it requires approval of all parties, which the South manifestly refused to even seek.
Both Mr. Jefferson & Mr. Madison, in their published statements, disagreed with that statement. By the way, why would you cite Mr. Lincoln? In your Post 1822, you discounted the opinions of one of the preeminent legal scholars of the early 1800s, because (in your 'learned opinion' ;>) "he was not involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, or in discussions of that time regarding it's meaning -- i.e., the Federalist Papers. So his later opinions have to be judged against the politics of the time he expressed them." That apples to Mr. Lincoln, in spades - but here you are, citing him as an expert.
Congratulations, for your blatant hypocrisy...
;>)
As Southern sympathizers often point out...
How do you define "Southern sympathizers?" If you are referring to me, you are absolutely incorrect.
...the new Constitution of 1787 contained no language equivalent to the 1777 Articles of Confederation, Article XII...
However, the absence of these words was not commented on in 1787 as being significant, or as allowing the understanding that unilateral secession was now considered acceptable.
The Articles also contained language regarding the incorporation of Canada into the United States ("Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union..."). According to your idiotic argument, absent specific language relating to the admission of Canada, the entire country of Canada can still become part of the United States, any time it so desires.
Give me a break.
Further, the new 1787 Constitution included many new provisions which dealt specifically with how to approve Amendments. Plus it dealt with, for the first time, such issues as Insurrection, Rebellion, "domestic violence," and Treason against the nation.
And not one of those provisions prohibited the formal withdrawal of a State from the union.
Frankly, I find your arguments nauseating - you are apparently the type of person who would sue a neighbor, to prevent them from selling their home and thereby withdrawing from a home owner's association, even if the covenants nowhere prohibited such action...
As declared by Lincoln and Congress in 1861, Insurrection and Rebellion are precisely the crimes committed by the South against the US Constitution.
And Mr. Obama & our current Congress just declared the town hall protesters to be (in essence) a Nazi mob. So what?
So it was the South's insurrection which triggered the Civil War, not secession alone.
As I have noted previously, if State secession was constitutional, then "insurrection" never occurred. But please feel free to explain to us - once a State had withdrawn from the union (secession), how could any action it took be considered "insurrection?"
In fact, your (many & varied) arguments are self-contradictory...
;>)
(sorry dude, I've been away, just now returning) No, what you told me was just hateful crap, it was I who knew the details, I explained them to you. And, Oh...to simply resort to namecalling...wow, what a victory you won with that one. Not.
Many history books of the pre-civil war period were very kind to the Indians, and spoke well of their culture while being honest about how they treated us and how we treated them.
Oh, then that just makes up for Sherman's attempted genocide, doesn't it? No.
You’re not one of those fools who thinks that all Indian tribes lived in harmony until white men came along, are you?
Sigh. No. Thank you for repeatedly demonstrating that your thought processes are composed singularly of stereotypes and archaic bigoted perceptions. All I did was point out that your union heroes immediately went west and perpetrated a campaign of genocide. Deal with it, it's history.
Well, I have to admit I can see your side's legal argument with that explanation. Very well stated, and concise. I would, of course, dispute the legitimacy of a few western counties being the entire "legitimate" government of the State as the Constitution intended, but we both know I would. Lincoln's "Court" notwithstanding, of course. Excellent response, I appreciate your succinct and straightforward answer.
Someone should have told all those "brave" union heroes that rode into villages of women and children and killed them all. So brave.
Of course, many Indians did not want to live on reservations, and even took a certain delight in hatcheting white settlers, but the policy was the policy.
Please, that one speaks for itself, even if your hateful, obviously bigoted mind can't grasp it. How would you feel if I were going to pull your family group out of your chosen land/area and stick you on some crappy dead land? Oh, I know, you'd be happy as a lark because your union heroes chose that dead barren land for you! baaaaaaaa...
So now you supposedly can produce some quotes from General Sherman, explaining his policy of killing buffaloes. But I would challenge you to produce even one verified historical incident where US forces massacred Indians on their own reservations.
LOL! Who said anything about massacres on reservations? Including such a specific requirement is tantamount to admitting they slaughtered them everywhere else. Sad, and shallow. As to quotes about genocide, I will not restrict myself to mere buffalo...
General Sherman on genocide:
“…But the more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war. For the more I see of these Indians the more convinced am I that they have all to be killed, or be maintained as a species of paupers.." (General William Tecumseh Sherman’s letter to John Sherman Sept. 23, 1868)
In 1867, General William Tecumseh Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux [Lakotas] even to their extermination: men, women and children."(Ward Churchill, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," City Lights Books, (1998))
Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out..." (John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order, p. 379).
Sherman gave Sheridan "authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages" (Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman,p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.
Sherman was once brought before a congressional committee after federal Indian agents, who were supposed to be supervising the Indians who were on reservations, witnessed "the horror of women and children under military attack." Nothing came of the hearings, however. Sherman ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to achieve what he called "the final solution of the Indian problem," and promised that if the newspapers found out about it he would "run interference against any complaints about atrocities back East" (Fellman, p. 271).
In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for "civilian interference," his army would have "gotten rid of them all" and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).
General Sheridan on wiping out Indians by wiping out buffalo:
Gen. Philip Sheridan Before the 1875 Texas Legislature (The Border and the BuffaloPages 163 & 164 By John R. Cook): When he heard of the nature of the Texas bill for the protection of the buffaloes, he went to Austin, and, appearing before the joint assembly of the House and Senate, so the story goes, told them that they were making a sentimental mistake by legislating in the interest of the buffalo. He told them that instead of stopping the hunters they ought to give them a hearty, unanimous vote of thanks, and appropriate a sufficient sum of money to strike and present to each one a medal of bronze, with a dead buffalo on one side and a discouraged Indian on the other. He said, “These men have done in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last thirty years. They are destroying the Indians’ commissary; and it is a well known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them powder and lead, if you will; but, for the sake of a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle, and the festive cowboy, who follows the hunter as a second forerunner of an advanced civilization”
General Sherman on wiping out Indians by wiping out buffalo:
…They naturally looked for new homes to the great West, to the new Territories and States as far as the Pacific coast, and we realize to-day that the vigorous men who control Kansas, Nebraska, Dakota, Montana, Colorado, etc., etc., were soldiers of the civil war. These men flocked to the plains, and were rather stimulated than retarded by the danger of an Indian war. This was another potent agency in producing the result we enjoy to-day, in having in so short a time replaced the wild buffaloes by more numerous herds of tame cattle, and by substituting for the useless Indians the intelligent owners of productive farms and cattle-ranches.(Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman Vol. 2 Pgs. 413 & 414)
Wow, that's really f'd up, dude. Just read what you said, and be amazed. I guess "complete" history means "completely made-up one".
Other tribes suffered as much, or more, from white-men's diseases as they did from "massacres" or starvation.
Yep, and the deliberate sale of infected blankets is a well-known enterprise of destruction. Most, of course, perished from simple interaction, but it was helped along, that'st just fact.
Speaking of massacres, I'd challenge you to demonstrate how more Indian women and children died from Sherman's massacres than white women and children died from Indian massacres
You really are completely ignorant of history, aren't you? More cowbell, we have another graduate of public education! That one is so silly, I'll leave it up to the readers to laugh at you. I bet you believe Custer was a heroe charging "braves", don't you? Guess what, he wasn't, and those villages he believed to be full of women and children WEREN'T.
Afer all this time, you felt you had to respond??
Whiner.
I think he had to save up his bile...
COUNTY COURT -- Before Judge Garrison
Another Habeas Corpus Case -- One Hundred and Fifty United States Soldiers Ask To Be Discharged
It will be remembered that at the onset of our present national difficulties. Gen. Twiggs, commanding United States forces in Texas, surrendered the forts belonging to the government and the men under his command to Gen. Van Dorn, the representative of the so called confederate government. The forts were retained and the men released on condition of their taking an oath not to bear arms against the rebels. The men complied with these terms. Shortly after they were brought home by a United States vessel and are now in Fort Hamilton, it is claimed, in a disorganized condition. They seek their discharge now from the civil authorities on the ground that they are illegally detained in the service. Outside of the legal points in the case, it is contended that it is the interest and policy of the government to get rid of these men rather than keep them in the service, and by not employing them in suppressing the present rebellion, tacitly acknowledging the existence of the so called government which these soldiers swore not to take up arms against.
Judge Garrison issued the writ, but as far as I know was powerless to enforce it against the army.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
If the name fits, Squat......
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
*snicker*
I would assume some government agency. The same source that the Statistical Abstract uses since they reported the same figure for 1864 that Lincoln did in his speech - $102,316,152.99. Link
I believe June 30, 1864 was the end of the 1863 Fiscal Year. Lincoln quotes this figure for customs revenue for the year.
Really? Not even the fact that I quoted word for word from the chapter itself?
In 1860, the South imported $346 million dollars worth of products. Of this list of goods, $240 million came from the Northern manufacturers and suppliers, and imported goods sold to the South was $106 million.
You keep saying that. Others quote much smaller figures. And neither rises to the level of providing a large minority of federal tariff revenue, much less the overwhelming majority that you claim came from the South.
take your "snickers" to DAILY KOOKS, as you will "fit in nicely" with the other STATIST cretins/BIGOTS/IDIOTS/MORONS. (those CREEPS will likely even accept your FILTHY mouth.)
free dixie,sw
You first...
So what’s the latest on the book, Mortie? I’ve been away and haven’t had a chance to keep up. Did it ever arrive?
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.