150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

Pioneer Press ^ | 11-15-14 | Christopher Sullivan

[TurboZamboni]

MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. (AP) — At the heart of this well-preserved antebellum city, sunbeams stream through the arched windows of a grand public meeting room that mirrors the whole Civil War — including its death throes, unfolding 150 years ago this week when Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman launched his scorching March to the Sea.

The first major objective along Sherman's route, Milledgeville was Georgia's capital at the time, and this room was the legislative chamber. Crossing its gleaming floor, Amy Wright couldn't help recalling family stories of the hated "foragers" who swept through then. "They were just called 'Sherman's men,'" she said in a hushed voice.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln offered the state of Virginia that he would pull troops out of Sumter if VA would drop the idea of secession.

This did not constitute a recognition of secession in any way. He continued to claim that all Union property in the CSA still belonged to the Union. He merely recognized that efforts to reoccupy it would at the moment be unwise.

He also never recognized the legitimacy, legality or constitutionality of secession.

To Lincoln the seceded states never left the Union de jure, however de facto that separation was.

So he was lying to Virginia as well as to the rump confederacy? If he was going to give up Ft. Sumter to placate Virginia, then how was he going to argue he was "just kidding" about permitting the "rump" to secede? What presumably was Virginia to gain to induce it to remain in the Union?

Someone remarked earlier that I should be a member of the trial lawyers association for my bit of analysis regarding Maryland citizens attacking Union troops from Massachusetts, but I think the honor is more befitting of your dissembling in order to justify what Lincoln contemplated versus what he did.

He also never recognized the legitimacy, legality or constitutionality of secession.

Then what sort of "good faith" agreement could he have possibly made with Virginia? What was he trading them of any value? Did he think Virginians were so stupid that they would take some magic beans in exchange for their cow?

What is the matter with you in putting forth such nonsense? You need to face the ugly fact. Lincoln was a very clever manipulator who was willing to compromise on fundamental issues so long as it would maintain power.

[Sherman Logan]

The principle for which Lincoln was fighting was the preservation of the Union, not the continued occupation of Sumter.

That was simply a tactic that became a symbol.

BTW, Lincoln's attempted agreement with VA wouldn't have worked anyway. The CSA, original rump version, would have simply found some other way to precipitate fighting. At which point VA would have seceded, agreement or no.

Just as they waged war against the United States before they had even officially seceded.

FWIW, despite these attacks, the Union did not march its army into Virginian until after they had officially seceded.

By what logical contortion can you argue that pulling troops out of Sumter is not a capitulation to the claim of sovereignty of the CSA?

Because it didn't. A tactical withdrawal in the face of superior force simply does not constitute a recognition that the other side is in the right.

Sumter capitulated after being attacked. That was not a recognition of CSA sovereignty, simply a military defeat. A negotiated withdrawal from a militarily untenable position would have been no different.

[Sherman Logan]

Sorry.

He never permitted the rump to secede. Prior to the start of the war he pursued every approach he could think of to bring the seceded states back into the Union. If that wasn’t possible immediately, he tried to prevent the outbreak of fighting with the hope that reunion could be negotiated eventually.

Seems to me both are quite honorable.

Got to go to work now. May check back in this evening.

[DiogenesLamp]

Let’s say the state of California was taken over by a radical La Raza party and voted to secede. They then began oppression of the Anglo and black minorities in the state.

A sane person would regard the presence of so many non-citizens as tantamount to an invasion. Foreign citizens have no claim to being part of the society which forms a part of this Union, and therefore their opinions one way or the other is immaterial. They cannot vote, so they cannot invoke the right of self determination in a land which is not theirs.

This is a very different thing from people who have owned and lived on the land for generations deciding that their existing government no longer represents their interests. Your analogy is utterly wrong in the most important particulars.

Would the United States have the moral and constitional right to enforce the US Constitution, by force if necessary? Or does a temporary majority in a single state have the right to remove the protections promised by “the people of the United State” to all individuals within each state?

It is not a majority of legal citizens. It is a nonsensical hypothetical no different than suggesting a few Million Chinese visiting New York could pry it out of the Union. In the case of California, it isn't their land, it isn't their society, and they shouldn't even be there, let alone have any determinative power over that state.

BTW, we may be headed towards something very like this in the state of Hawaii.

Good riddance. All it has given us of any significance was Barack Obama, and that was significant only in it's degree of horribleness. You do know that Hawaii only became a state due to Democrat's insistence that they get a Democrat state if Alaska was allowed in the Union?

Hawaii was a compromise deal to get agreement on Alaska. It never should have been a state in the first place.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Things such as the Whiskey Rebellion. Not conditions in which entire states or collections of states want to leave.

Oh, so only entire states or collection of states have this right? Why is that? Why is it morally acceptable to you for a state to declare independence leaving the national government no moral recourse, but if some smaller group does the same they are to be put down according to the Consitution?

In any case, I argue that the Declaration is of higher moral and legal authority than is the Constitution.

Ah, then you're a Declarationist, which puts you at odds with Strict Constructionists like Scalia and Bork. Interestingly, Lincoln was also a Declarationist, stating that the "All men are created equal" phrase justified his pre-election position of limiting slavery and wartime efforts to abolish it altogether. Welcome to the yankee side.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A sane person would regard the presence of so many non-citizens as tantamount to an invasion.

This may come as a shock to you, but most of the hispanic residents of California are native-born US citizens.

Foreign citizens have no claim to being part of the society which forms a part of this Union, and therefore their opinions one way or the other is immaterial. They cannot vote, so they cannot invoke the right of self determination in a land which is not theirs.

Why not? Who says whose land is whose? Do not all people have a right to self-determination wherever they may be? Is that not a natural right? Must be consistent now.

[DiogenesLamp]

BTW, Lincoln's attempted agreement with VA wouldn't have worked anyway. The CSA, original rump version, would have simply found some other way to precipitate fighting. At which point VA would have seceded, agreement or no.

Or Virginia would have realized that they were being played like a fiddle and revolted as a result. Such occurrences are not uncommon regarding plots by men who think they are too clever by half. Seriously, how could you expect Virginia to have fallen for such a bad faith bait and switch?

Because it didn't. A tactical withdrawal in the face of superior force simply does not constitute a recognition that the other side is in the right.

If it didn't constitute such after negotiations, then it didn't constitute such before negotiations. What then were the purpose of "negotiations"?

Sumter capitulated after being attacked. That was not a recognition of CSA sovereignty, simply a military defeat. A negotiated withdrawal from a militarily untenable position would have been no different.

Then why was it Virginia being negotiated with? Why wasn't it the CSA? Presumably if Virginia (then still part of the Union) was being Negotiated with, it was Virginia which would gain some benefit from the negotiations. What was Virginia's benefit for a deal that only affected South Carolina?

Again, you are flailing here. You are trying to rationalize a nonsensical position; That Virginia gains nothing, but Ft. Sumter gets given up to South Carolina because it's "militarily expedient." From your assertions, it would all appear to be a "Homer Simpson" sort of event without any purpose.

Homer: Save a guy's life, and what do you get? Nothing! Worse than nothing! Just a big, scary rock!

Bart: Hey, don't knock the head, man.

Marge: Homer, you don't do things like that to be rewarded! The moral of the story is that a good deed is its own reward!

Bart: But we got a reward, the head is cool!

Marge: Well, then maybe the moral is, no good deed goes unrewarded.

Homer: Wait a minute! If I hadn't written that nasty letter we wouldn't have gotten anything.

Marge: Mmmm... then I guess the moral is, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Lisa: Maybe there is no moral, Mom.

Homer: Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened.

Marge: But it certainly was a memorable few days.

Homer: Amen to that.

[the whole family laughs]

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, so only entire states or collection of states have this right? Why is that? Why is it morally acceptable to you for a state to declare independence leaving the national government no moral recourse, but if some smaller group does the same they are to be put down according to the Consitution?

I would say that the threshold is at least collections of states, and I would also say that a single state ought to constitute such a threshold. A greater than 50% majority of one major city probably does not constitute such a threshold, and I would suppose it must depend most on a sufficiently large enough section of land and populace so as to constitute a somewhat self sufficient state.

In order to assert an independence, a populace must be capable of an independence, meaning they have sufficient wherewithal to manage their own affairs as a nation must be capable of.

Does this not sound reasonable to you?

Ah, then you're a Declarationist, which puts you at odds with Strict Constructionists like Scalia and Bork. Interestingly, Lincoln was also a Declarationist, stating that the "All men are created equal" phrase justified his pre-election position of limiting slavery and wartime efforts to abolish it altogether. Welcome to the yankee side.

Recognizing that one authority is derived from another does not make you an explicit advocate for the premier authority. I recognize and acknowledge that the Declaration of Independence, based on the philosophy of natural law, is of higher legal and moral authority than is the US Constitution, which is based on an agreement of a majority of representatives of various states.

I also recognize that despite explicit words to the contrary, the founders had no intention of applying that natural law concept universally. Indeed the very man who wrote the document kept slaves till his death.

I attribute his usage of this statement as an effort to dress up and make more noble sounding a document which never had any intention of doing what it's words claimed.

It was lofty rhetoric of no actual validity. Nor could it have been agreed to had the people who signed it believed that it would have applied to slaves. They took the flowery language as symbolic and applying only to themselves, not as an actual legal agreement to abolish slavery.

Lincoln did not actually believe the Declaration of Independence applied to slaves. The conduct of the founders demonstrates this conclusively, yet Lincoln merely used the words as a justification for an extreme liberal interpretation of the document to mean something far beyond that which was actually intended by those who wrote and ratified it. It is the same sort of "living document" crap that Liberals have been doing all of the last century.

Wringing out new, unintended meaning from written words is an old tool from the Liberal tool kit.

[DiogenesLamp]

This may come as a shock to you, but most of the hispanic residents of California are native-born US citizens.

You and I have argued about this in the past. Your assertion is but one more bit of fruit from the poisoned tree of asserting a jus soli claim to citizenship. I do not believe jus soli was ever legally valid in this nation, despite the misinformed people throughout history who have claimed otherwise.

The consequences of recognizing a jus soli claim to citizenship is just such a fiasco as is occurring in California, though I think their population of actual illegals is a significant portion of the vote there.

Jus soli is a rational position if you are a Monarch asserting any and every claim of subjectude over anyone you can, but it is a nonsensical and foolish position for any sort of Republic which bestows benefits on it's citizens. The US is one of the few places left in the world that follows this nonsense, and even Britain, upon which it is asserted our laws are based, has abandoned this horribly foolish idea.

Why not? Who says whose land is whose? Do not all people have a right to self-determination wherever they may be? Is that not a natural right? Must be consistent now.

Sure, they have a right to self determination, but not with property that does not belong to them. Back in their home country where they are citizens, they have the right to create whatever sort of government they prefer. That *is* consistent.

In your house, you have the final say about what transpires. The fact that guests may be present does not give them the right to override your will.

Your assertion is that guests (or even intruders) can assert dominance in your own house. It is nonsense and you know it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on Union deaths at Fort Sumter: "As an accident, and by their own side.
I have long wondered whether or not that accidental explosion was a Godsend for Lincoln, because I'm not certain he would have been able to rally the North to the cause were he not able to say any men had died.
Bloodshed will move passions faster than damage to property."

In fact, Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter said nothing specific about it, but called for 75,000 troops to

"re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country."

This at a time when the entire US Army totaled around 16,000 troops.
The Confederate response to Lincoln was to formally declare war, and increase their Army from 100,000 to 500,000 troops.

DiogenesLamp on 1775 British moves at Lexington: "And that is in some dispute.
What the British were doing was perfectly within their legal mandate at the time.
Their is no legal or moral difference between the British Marching to Lexington than there was for the garrison at Ft. Sumter to maintain their posts."

Sorry, but every British action in Massachusetts became illegal and illegitimate on May 20, 1774, when Parliament unilaterally revoked its 83 year-old, 1691 Massachusetts Charter, and imposed dictatorial government.
At that point Massachusetts citizens had every right to continue governing themselves under their original constitution, including a long-established militia, and so they did.

Similarly, in 1860 the Confederacy unilaterally revoked its 84 year-old compact, the US Constitution, and attempted to impose military rule over Union property.

DiogenesLamp: "The British saw those cities as falling under their legal authority, and the colonists disagreed, and there are reports that the colonists fired first."

Brits lost their legal legitimacy when they unilaterally revoked the 83 year-old compact with Massachusetts colonists.
So their military actions in assaulting Lexington & Concord represented a foreign invasion, which colonists had every duty to resist.

Similarly, Confederates lost their legal legitimacy when they unilaterally revoked the 84 year-old compact with the United States -- the Constitution.
So Confederate military actions in assaulting many Federal forts & other properties represented rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, etc., which the Union had a duty to resist.

DiogenesLamp: "...it cannot be denied that if the colonists hadn't assembled armed and en masse to confront the British, a war would not have started there."

Of course it can be, because that war began with British military actions against legitimate colonial government & militia, whether colonists chose to resist aggression or not.
Like Confederates in 1861, Brits revoked their compact, and started war with us.

In the same way, Confederates were at war against the Union from the beginning, in December 1860, when they started seizing Federal properties, threatening and firing at Union officials.
The fact that for six months the Union did not respond militarily does not negate the Confederacy's war.

For comparison, consider that WWII did not begin for the US when Congress declared war on Japan, but rather, according to President Roosevelt, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

DL quoting BJK: "In short, the Confederacy presented an existential military threat to the Unite States, which had to be defeated for the USA to survive."

DiogenesLamp: "If this were the criteria, then we should have attacked the Canadians long before.
They and the British had came down and burned our Capital once already.
I dare say they had demonstrated themselves to be as much or more of a threat than had the Confederates."

That's more than ridiculous, it's laughable.
In 1812 the United States seriously and officially declared war on Brits, then immediately invaded Canada, wrecking havoc and burning down its capital, Toronto, in 1813.
In response, Brits burned down our capital, Washington DC, and assaulted Baltimore, after which we learned that our Star Spangled Banner still waves, o'r the land of the Free and the home of the Brave!
The end result was a peace treaty which amounted to nothing more than each side saying, "Oh, well, sorry about that, old chap."

Unlike Confederates, friendly Canadians never tried to take states or territories away from us, and that despite our ambitions against them!

Contrast: in 1861 the Confederacy seriously and officially declared war on the United States, sending its forces into Union states & territories, wrecking havoc and even burning down some cities.
In response the United States defeated & destroyed the Confederacy, then allowing those states to again elect representatives to Congress.

DiogenesLamp referring to lack of major atrocities in US Civil War: "That it didn't happen is not the point.
That the argument offered above would justify such a result, *IS* the point.
I used that example as a way of demonstrating the falsity of such a claim, 'that whatever happened, the South deserved it.'
No, there are limits to what a group of people deserves, and it isn't open ended."

Obviously, you're confusing me with someone else.
I never made such a claim, indeed I've never seen such a crude claim made on these threads.

But certainly what the Confederate South did deserve, as the Constitution guarantees them, was total defeat of the military force which first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, sending military aid to Confederates in Union states and territories.
Once the Confederacy was destroyed, those states were again allowed to elect and send representatives to Congress.

DiogenesLamp: "That is merely a reiteration of your opinion, and does not constitute objective proof."

No no, no "opinion" to it, just the facts, sir, which bear repeating:

"Lincoln waited patiently until the Confederacy had fully provoked, started and declared war on the United States before he sent any Union forces to battle any Confederates anywhere."

Of course, you may not like the facts, but they are facts nonetheless.

DiogenesLamp: "You aren't grasping this analogy stuff.
If the Union is like a Husband, and the South is like a wife, than a non bloodshed causing attack on Ft. Sumter is the equivalent of the wife throwing a plate at the husband and missing, or perhaps slapping his hand when he touched her.
The "injury" to the union is inconsequential and of no real importance, but the Humiliation was grave."

Sorry sir, but it's not me who's confused, it's you.
Your stupid analogy only works if we say the "Husband" one day arrived near home and the "Wife" began shooting at him from a window, taking possession of not just one house, but every house in the neighborhood, and demanding all other common property suddenly belonged to her -- no lawful divorce, no negotiated settlement, what's hers was hers, what's his negotiable.
The "Wife" next rounds up her family and physically assaults every joint property they can reach, including some far removed from her home town (i.e., Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky).

At first, for months, the "Husband" does nothing -- too shocked to respond.
Finally he figures out that he's facing a deadly military threat, too large for normal courts & police to deal with, so he gathers up his family, and retakes what the "Wife" stole.

DiogenesLamp: "The Union response would be similar to a Husband repeatedly punching and beating the wife to unconsciousness.
Again, he wasn't hurt, but for his pride."

Sorry sir, but all that "punching and beating" began with the "Wife's" army assaulting Federal properties, firing on Union officials and formally declaring war on the United States.

You know, we don't do "declarations of war" so much these days, but they used to be pretty serious matters, and when the Confederacy declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861 they also increased their Army from 100,000 to 500,000 troops.
At the time, the Union Army was a scattered 16,000 requested by Lincoln to increase to 90,000.
So, the Confederacy expected and prepared for a major war, which they intended to win, quickly.
And all this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.

DiogenesLamp: "You are drawing a conclusion from an array of contrary facts.
No one *was* killed.
24 hours of bombardment consisting of something like 4,000 shells, and no one was killed?
How do you do that if you are trying to kill someone?
A man can easily aim to the side if your intent is to scare, but you cannot miss that many times if your intent is to kill."

Seriously, here you are endlessly making ridiculous arguments without knowing any historical facts, what's up with that?

The reason nobody was killed in Fort Sumter is not that all 4,000 (or whatever) rounds fired at it missed, they didn't.
The reason was that Major Anderson, Sumter's commander, kept his forces well protected, down in the fortress' basement.
And that's the same tactic Confederates in Fort Sumter used for years to prevent Union forces from retaking it.
Really, sir, you need to crack a book or two and learn something before you go around broadcasting blithering nonsense!

DiogenesLamp speaking of Washington & Jefferson: "And yet both continued to own slaves for the rest of their lives.
Nothing better illustrates that they had no intention of applying the principles of the Declaration of Independence universally.
Their behavior demonstrates conclusively that they intended for those ideas to only apply to the communities of which they were a part, and not to slaves, though they eventually noticed their own hypocrisy in this regard, but their own moral proddings never became sufficient to provoke them to act against their own interests."

No, in fact, both Washington and Jefferson acknowledged in word and deed that slavery was incompatible with American ideals.
Washington said that if faced with a choice between slavery and Union, he would chose Union, and did finally free his own slaves.
Jefferson made efforts to find peaceful ways for gradually abolishing slavery in the South, by plans to purchase freedom and support colonies in Africa for them.
He also outlawed future importations of slaves, in 1807.

So, both Virginia-born presidents considered slavery, at best, a necessary evil and one which should be gradually eradicated.
But theirs was the last generation of Southern leaders to feel that way -- after them came generations which believed slavery not only necessary, but morally justifiable, sanctioned by the Bible, and certainly not, under any circumstances to be abolished.
Indeed, it came to be understood that slavery must constantly expand to remain highly profitable, and that was the immediate issue of the 1860 election.

DiogenesLamp: "Raising taxes on Imports and Exports would have no doubt been opposed by Boston and New York."

Again, you don't know your history, sir.
In fact, increased tariffs were not always supported by all Northerners, and not always opposed by all Southerners, and visa versa.
Then as now the US political map was highly complex and not always predictable -- hence, for example, we find Vice President Calhoun from South Carolina sponsoring what came to called, "the tariff of abominations".

DiogenesLamp: "It would appear that many northern states were okay with slavery until it eventually became unprofitable for them, and they could then afford the morality of condemning that which no longer served their interests."

No, that's a false accusation.
In fact, the abolitionist movement in the North began as early 1775 (in Pennsylvania) and slowly, gradually outlawed slavery beginning in 1777 (Vermont), for reasons having nothing to do with economics and everything with moral principles.
Abolition was gradual, and by 1860 there were still a few hundred old slaves in New Jersey, a few dozen in New York, and possibly a few others here or there.

DiogenesLamp: "Slavery was evil, and it would have been better to have never let it get started on this continent, but having done so, it was not reasonable to object to it after you had reaped the profit from it, merely because others continued to do so, especially since they had fewer still other methods for producing an income."

Once again, sir, you don't know your history.
In fact very few Northerners in 1860, and no major politician -- none -- proposed abolishing slavery in the South.
The election issue was whether slavery should be expanded first into western territories and eventually (i.e., Dred Scott) into every state of the Union.
Northerners said, resoundingly, NO!
So Southern Fire Eaters said: We secede!

DiogenesLamp: "The big lie is the constant distraction from the point that by the standards of this nation's founding, the forming of a new government to suit them was well within their rights."

But by no standard, by any people at any time in human history, is a formal declaration of war against the United States to be treated as some kind of "right".
THAT'S the Big Lie you pro-Confederates constantly tell.
Nor does any law anywhere in the known-Universe allow unilateral unprovoked abrogation of national compacts.
Indeed, by definition, compacts which do allow such abrogations are not classified as "nations".

DiogenesLamp: "You and others simply want the discussion focused anywhere but on this essential point; That populations have a right to self determination, that in the words of the Declaration of Independence..."

But that is NOT the point, never was, never will be, all your Big Lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
No, our Founders considered that their national-compact was a contract which could not be unilaterally abrogated unless by "mutual consent" (Congress) or through material breech ("oppression"), and neither condition existed in 1860.

Regardless, I'll repeat the facts that: declarations of secession did not cause Civil War, formation of a Confederacy did not start Civil War, but the Confederacy's military assault of Union military troops at Fort Sumter, followed by Confederates' formal declaration of war on the United States -- those did launch Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "Of course you don't want to discuss this point, because you do not have a moral leg to stand on when this point is put forth."

But of course I do, because all you're doing is blathering endless nonsense, sir.

DiogenesLamp: "And where was "Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt & Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson" from? If you guessed New Jersey, New York, and Illinois..."

Actually, Wilson was a racist-Virginian, but here is the important point: no section of the country -- East, North or West -- ever voted more strongly & consistently for any candidates than the Solid Deep South voted for generations of Progressive-Liberal Democrats, including Wilson, FDR and even Illinoisan Adlai Stevenson!

Southern Democrats didn't care a whit for protecting conservative political values, just so long as they got "their share" from the Federal redistribution trough!

Democrat Wilson (blue) elected in 1912, by county:

Democrat FDR (blue) elected in 1932, by county:

Republican Eisenhower (red) elected in 1952 (Democrat Adlai Stevenson in blue!):

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "That the "rump" isn't economically viable is of no interest to the concept of an inviolable principle.
If "Preserving the Union" is the cause for which it was appropriate to force 600,000 men to die, than any tolerance for leaving the Union paints that assertion as a bald faced lie."

Seems to me you work hard to distort & distract, and I'll admit, you're pretty good at it.
But the facts are still the facts.

The fact is that neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln ever agreed that unilateral declarations of secession were lawful.
And both were willing to abandon Federal properties, to prevent bloodshed.
Lincoln was also willing to abandon Fort Sumter, if he could get something of major value for it: a pledge by Virginia not to secede.
Such a pledge from Virginia was essential for Lincoln to begin any actions directed at restoring or preserving the Union.

Why is that not clear to you?

DiogenesLamp: "I have to say I was not aware that Lincoln was willing to negotiate away part of the Union in exchange for an important state like Virginia."

I never said such a thing!
We are talking only about Fort Sumter, not the entire Confederacy!
Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln ever admitted the principle of unilateral unprovoked declarations of secession.

DiogenesLamp: "Do you think anyone in congress was unaware of the South's intention to secede?
Do you really think not going through the formal pomp and circumstance is sufficient reason to deny the right of self determination to a populace?"

From Day One the United States has been a nation of laws with a Constitution spelling out lawful procedures.
Logically, and by our Founders intent, secession should require the same process in reverse as joining the Union -- legislatures apply to and receive approval by Congress.
Had secessionists in 1861 followed such a process, President Lincoln would have abided by whatever Congress instructed him.

DiogenesLamp: "...the notion that he [Lincoln] was willing to allow a secession if he could just get a big enough piece of the pie puts the lie to that claim."

Absolute distortion of my words, or anybody elses!
Lincoln was willing to consider, and did consider, removing Union troops from Fort Sumter -- PERIOD!
He was never willing to concede that either secession or the Confederacy itself was legitimate.

Now you've had your fun at Lincoln's expense, time to get over it -- indeed, it's time to grow up, pal.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I do not believe jus soli was ever legally valid in this nation, despite the misinformed people throughout history who have claimed otherwise.

Like the courts and congress.

Sure, they have a right to self determination, but not with property that does not belong to them. Back in their home country where they are citizens, they have the right to create whatever sort of government they prefer. That *is* consistent.

So fundamental, God-given natural rights can only be exerted in certain, arbitrarily-constructed places and not in others. How many generations of ancestors does one need to have someplace before they can exert their natural rights of self-determination without having to return to some ancestral homeland to do so?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Sherman Logan: "If he is not recognizing the CSA then to whom is he trading Ft. Sumter?
Your response is nonsensical."

Sorry, but we forget how totally ignorant of real history you are, DL.

Lincoln's conversations on secession of Virginia were with leaders of the Virginia secession convention, period.
There were no negotiations -- none -- over the future of Fort Sumter, and Major Anderson's force there.
Instead, there were numerous demands by various secessionist officials that first Buchanan and then Lincoln must abandon Fort Sumter.
Lincoln never acknowledged those demands, but he did consider that a pledge by Virginia not to secede might make the loss of one more fort (out of dozens already seized) Fort Sumter, acceptable.

That's what Lincoln told negotiators from Virginia, but it did not persuade them to pledge loyalty to the Union.

So, I'll say it again: you've had a lot of fun, sir, distorting and mocking real history, but it's time to get over that, and deal with facts.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I would say that the threshold is at least collections of states, and I would also say that a single state ought to constitute such a threshold. A greater than 50% majority of one major city probably does not constitute such a threshold, and I would suppose it must depend most on a sufficiently large enough section of land and populace so as to constitute a somewhat self sufficient state.

Lots of counties could feed and support themselves. Do they have a natural right of self-determination? At the same time, I doubt, say, Rhode Island could support itself. Do they not have the right?

[DiogenesLamp]

Like the courts and congress.

You anthropomorphize them as if they are living beings of one consistent mind. They are not. Those people who were in a position to know and understand best what was meant by "natural born citizen" and the 14th amendment do not agree with the jus soli theory of citizenship. Again, John Bingham, Chief architect of the 14th amendment specifically stated it was not intended to apply to the US born children of foreigners.

The Wong court deliberately ignored his clear and precise explanation that these people were not covered by the 14th amendment, and the Acolytes of legal dogma have been trumpeting this phony precedent ever since.

So fundamental, God-given natural rights can only be exerted in certain, arbitrarily-constructed places and not in others.

There is nothing arbitrary about the border. In your own land, you have a say. In our land, you do not.

How many generations of ancestors does one need to have someplace before they can exert their natural rights of self-determination without having to return to some ancestral homeland to do so?

You appear to be intentionally ignoring the point. If you are a citizen, then you have a say, and children born to citizens are also citizens and they also have a say. There is no issue of "generations".

People who have no legal rights to citizenship are not citizens, nor are their children citizens of any but their parent's country.

Invaders and guests do not have a say in how the household is ran. Family does. If you want a say, join the family. Don't sneak into our house and pretend you are a member.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "As I pointed out in my previous reply, do you have any idea how nonsensical that sounds?
How can he "abandon Fort Sumter" if there is no one to abandon it to?
Was he to pull out of it and let nature take it?
Let it be overgrown with trees and bushes or something? "

Again, I admit to underestimating how utterly ignorant of real history you are, and how eager to distort and mock it.

So I'll briefly repeat my post above: Lincoln met & discussed with representatives from Virginia's secession convention, at one point suggesting to them that a Virginia pledge of loyalty to the Union could be enough to allow Lincoln to abandon Fort Sumter.

But the importance of Virginia's pledge was in-no-way to recognize the Confederacy, but rather to free Lincoln's hands, without threat of further secessions, to take such actions as Lincoln deemed necessary & proper to restore the Union!

[DiogenesLamp]

Lots of counties could feed and support themselves. Do they have a natural right of self-determination? At the same time, I doubt, say, Rhode Island could support itself. Do they not have the right?

Rhode Island shouldn't even be a state. It is due to great kindness that anyone ever suggested it be regarded as such. There are many *cities* with larger populations.

As for counties becoming independent states? Sure, why not? If they can handle it, and if they think it would be in their best interest, I say go for it. From what I hear there are several efforts along these lines already.

Berkshire county Massachusetts is already printing their own currency.

Why the feds haven't cracked down on them I just don't know. Perhaps it's because it's a liberal section of the country.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, I admit to underestimating how utterly ignorant of real history you are, and how eager to distort and mock it.

I'm getting less interested in responding to you. You are trying to sell the idea that abandoning Ft. Sumter was a good negotiating tactic on the one hand, but a Rubicon on the other. "Principles" as I understand the word, are not so flexible. When they are so flexible, they are not principles.

From my perspective, you seem to be flailing and pinwheeling, and I think i'm just as well off to get out of the way and let you. :)

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "I'm not sure where you get the idea that Congress has the constitutional authority to allow a state to leave the Union.
It has the power to admit states, and (with agreement by the state's legislature) to split up a state."

As in all matters Constitutional, you have to start with James Madison, and that's whose words I try hard to summarize accurately.
Madison's key words were:

"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

I take Madison's "consent of the other parties" to mean Congress.
And not just me, that was also Lincoln's opinion, and not just Lincoln, but all five of the US Presidents still living in 1860!

[DiogenesLamp]

Figured i'd ping you to this thread. It seems appropriate for the turn this discussion has taken. :)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3235473/posts