The Author of the Civil War

New York Times ^ | JULY 6, 2012 | CYNTHIA WACHTELL

[nickcarraway]

At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."

Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.

In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."

Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.

[arrogantsob]

The inability to secede is in the logic and definition of a constitution.

Conditional ratification was never an option for the state ratification conventions. The question was to be answered with a “yes” or a “no” not a “yes, if...” It was explicitly voted down at the NY convention after receipt of the Madison letter.

The states were never truly sovereign most did not even have constitutions as states until the Union was formed. Americans fought for NATIONAL independence and the generation of the Founders thought of themselves as one People.

It was that PEOPLE gathered in conventions in the states (for administrative convenience) which ratified the constitution.

In reality, Congress EXPLICITLY forbid ratification by state legislatures PRECISELY because, if considered as just another state legislative act, it could be revoked by another legislative act.

St. George Tucker quotes don’t change these facts. Nor do they refute what I said. In fact, he specifies how the Union could be CONSTITUTIONALLY changed. A procedure the Slavers never tried.

While I admire Non-Sequitor’s knowledge of the RAT Rebellion I am not him. Thanks for the compliment, though.
Should I call you Stand Watie?

[central_va]

The states were never truly sovereign most did not even have constitutions as states until the Union was formed. Americans fought for NATIONAL independence and the generation of the Founders thought of themselves as one People.

Would the Constitution have been ratified if the states thought they couldn't exit at will? I think not. It is ridiculous for any student of history to think otherwise. The perpetual union thing is BS.

Since you are playing fantasy history here, if I had any say in the matter, each state legislature would have to vote every 4 years to STAY in the USA, the default would be to leave the UNION and become independent.

[rockrr]

Would the Constitution have been ratified if the states thought they couldn't exit at will?

Of course it would. Because the alternative was unthinkable. And it was ratified unconditionally.

[Bigun]

I didn't suppose I would change your mind with quotes from THE law book of that era and never questioned by anyone for more than 50 years. So I suppose another from a former Secretary of State of the United States of America will either but I'm going to post it anyway for the benefit of others who might read and appreciate it.

""The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are."

Abel Upshur, The Federal government: Its true nature and character

[Ohioan]

The idea that the States were never sovereign is a blatant denial of history--a denial of what was won at Yorktown & formerly acknowledged in The Treaty Of Paris--1783.

Obviously, they did not owe their existence to a political structure--or agency that did not even exist for another six years.

William Flax

[central_va]

Because the alternative was unthinkable.

So Greece leaving the EU is just unthinkable!

[Bigun]

Here is yet another for our potential audience.

The supremacy of the Union in all those points that are thus transferred, and the sovereignty of the state in all those which are not transferred, must therefore be considered as two co-ordinate qualities, enabling us to decide on the true mode of giving a construction to the constitution.

A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE United States of America.

BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.

SECOND EDITION.

PHILADELPHIA: PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER, NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET. 1829.

[rockrr]

Not analogous.

[Bigun]

You are exactly right! It is an insult of the first order!

[Ohioan]

While a great admirer of Sir Walter Scott, the article is a bit misleading. In 1836, Judge Beverley Tucker published an anonymous novel--not really finished, although the sizable fragment implies the denouement--The Partisan Leader, which foreshadows the conflict. (Tucker was a writer highly respected by Edgar Allan Poe, at the time.)

The manuscript is revealing, not only as a guide to Southern thinking in the era, when relations between the States were going into a decline; but it also shows something of racial attitudes, at least among educated Virginians, which tends to refute the anti-Southern stereotypes that Leftist have promoted for a long time.

I heartily recommend the Tucker offering to my Southern friends, who may not be familiar with it.

As for anti-Southern posters: The Conservative tradition in America has long been better supported in the South than in most of the other States. There is virtually no hope of restoring the principles of the Founding Fathers, without working with our Southern neighbors. Smearing the South helps no one but those trying to destroy our common heritage. Obama, one may be certain, just loves the anti-Southern propaganda.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Thanks for the support.

But there was a typo error in the attempted link in my #90. This should work: Partisan Leader.

William Flax

[rockrr]

What “anti-Southern posters” are you referring to?

[Ohioan]

Well, blame my post 40 vision! Here is another attempt at the link: Partisan Leader.

[Ohioan]

What “anti-Southern posters” are you referring to?

Those who go out of their way to post material denigrating the honor & ethics of the Old South. Those who disparage men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, etc., and continue 147 years after Lee surrendered to Grant, to belittle the Confederate cause. (I am not referring to those who simply air differences of opinion, in a respectful manner.)

[Liberty Valance]

Here’s a link to a great documentary about the Scotts-Irish thru American history ... http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/show.do?series=799#video

BORN FIGHTING
In this landmark two-part series, Senator Jim Webb tells the largely forgotten story of the Scots-Irish, a people whose values, culture and fighting spirit profoundly shaped America. Follow Senator Webb as he tracks their heroes and legends from William Wallace to Andrew Jackson, the first of 17 Scots-Irish U.S. Presidents. Their Bible-thumping, battle-scarred march for independence took them from Scotland to Northern Ireland and finally the open expanses of early America, where they would leave an indelible mark on the national character.

---

Comes on in about an hour for those who might have the smithsonian channel. Schedule at link for repeats.

[rockrr]

OK. I proudly “belittle the Confederate cause” because I consider it unworthy, but I do try not to presonalize it and I do not equate contempt for the confed movement with any sort of regional bigotry. I don’t think that I’m “anti-southern” - even towards a few who are rather vocal in their contempt for me.

[central_va]

The Conservative tradition in America has long been better supported in the South than in most of the other States. There is virtually no hope of restoring the principles of the Founding Fathers, without working with our Southern neighbors. Smearing the South helps no one but those trying to destroy our common heritage. Obama, one may be certain, just loves the anti-Southern propaganda.

Thank you, you seem to get it.

[Teacher317]

Firing on federal property is ok? Firing on federal soldiers is ok?
Lincoln had no choice but to defend federal property and personnel.

Look at a map sometime, FRiend. Ft Sumter is in South Carolina. Now go open a history book. SC was the first to secede, and did so on 12/20/1860. Following this several other states seceded. The Federal government of the remaining Union states withdrew their forces and materiel from every base in those seceding states over the following months... but not Ft Sumter. They were invited to peacefully leave SC numerous times, as it was no longer under their authority. Given their final requests, and refusing to leave... and it being a military fortress... the PROPER AUTHORITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA WHO OWNED THAT LAND had no choice but to remove the foreign invaders by force of arms.

Lincoln himself offered to withdraw the troops from Ft Sumter if Virginia would not secede. source

There is no other way to view this event, unless you simply enjoy ignoring facts and history.

[PeaRidge]

thanks rockrr. You must have passed your “Charm School” finals with flying colors.

Just let it be said that you have your opinion, and I have my facts.

[PeaRidge]

“State militia have no business firing on federal troops.”

Actually it was Federal troops that first fired on lawfully constituted state militia at Pensacola. That was the first hostile move by the Federals.

Insurrection is rebellion against established authority.

The Confederacy had legally adopted its Constitution, with the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

There was no insurrection against that legal entity. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply a contrivance to refute the truth......a canard on your part.

The land for the fort was transferred under stipulations of usage and payment. The Federal government had violated its agreement, and therefore only possessed it by theft.

You can rattle on about Federal law, but jurisdiction was not established through Constitutional methods.....just the deaths of 700,000 people.

I do not think anyone is interested in your education, or dis-informational experience. You are only interested in painting the picture of history with extreme bias.

Is there anything else?