Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
OK PeeWee. I know you are but what about me?
True. But that doesn't legally end the marriage or magically transfer ownership of joint property to her alone.
Firstly, it is the *WIFE* that paid for the bulk of everything...
And your argument falls apart right there with that blatant untruth. But say for the sake of argument it was true, the wife still helped run up the credit cards and then left the debt to the husband to pay alone.
...Secondly, all the property in question was stuff any reasonable person would acknowledge would be her stuff after the divorce...
Perhaps. But that would be for a third party to decide or for the two parties to agree on through negotiations. Instead the wife left with everything not nailed down.
...thirdly your claim that she "fired shots at the husband" means she used lethal force that could have killed him, (presumably referring to Ft. Sumter Union) is a ridiculous over reaction to an event that in no way threatened the continuation of the Union.
And blasting away at her husband on her way out the door will not end the institution of marriage. But it does put a crimp in the marriage in question and is pretty much guaranteed that the resulting divorce would be acrimonious. Which is what the wife wanted to begin with.
It does not matter if you or I think a particular law is valid.
It is the law that is enforced. Violate that law at your own peril.
There is an interesting article entitled, “The “Domestic Insurrections” of the Declaration of Independence” by Sidney Kaplan in “The Journal of Negro History”, Vol. 61, No. 3 (July 1976), pp 243-255, which I highly recommend to you. I will quote a few sentences from the article, which can be accessed through JSTOR.
“It is now time to repeat the opening question: What did Congress mean by “domestic Insurrections”? The answer: slave revolt.”
The article quotes from a number of sources considering slave revolts and other possible interpretations of “domestic insurrections” including insurrections by Tories counter to the revolution. The article notes that an argument could be made from Jefferson’s original draft that “treasonable insurrections in our fellow-citizens” must refer to Tories as slaves were not fellow citizens and thus not treasonous. However, a footnote states that
“a reasonable case might be made from Jefferson’s writings that the dominant note in his thinking about Blacks was his fear of “domestic insurrections” …
Another footnote states:
Boyd, I, 212. The word “domestic,” in connection with slave resistance, had earlier and later usage. Of South Carolina, during the winter of 1766, Pauline Maier writes: “The most serious menace came from the slaves, whom Bull called a ‘numerous domestic Enemy’
Yet another footnote states:
In their efforts to win France to an alliance, the American negotiators, including Benjamin Franklin, repeated the twenty-seventh charge against George III (spelling out “domestic insurrections") “of exciting slaves to rise against their Masters, and Savages to assassinate and massacre …” (American Commissioners to the Count de Vergennes, Jan. 5, 1777 …)
I was not aware the U.S. imported cotton in those days, Joey. We had cotton running out our ears; and our cotton exports dominated the world. The U.S. Historical Statistics for 1790-1957 doesn't even list raw cotton as an import. Open this link and scroll down to p.548:
Maybe I am missing something, or perhaps you are confusing raw cotton with cotton textiles. There were tariffs on textile imports to protect the New England textile manufacturers from European manufacturers.
I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like to see a reliable source for your data. The Civil War Talk forum you linked is loaded with misinformation and poor sourcing.
Mr. Kalamata
My wife and and I have been strong supporters of Donald Trump, since long before he came down the elevator. While Joey was kissing up to RINO's, the ACLU, and anti-Christian bigots, we were listening to political interviews like this one:
****************
>>BroJoeK, the Big-Government Progressive, wrote: "so our old-time Pro-Confederate Democrats hope to re-assassinate President Lincoln with words like "tyrant" and "crony capitalist".
If we could get a second chance, I would hope we would treat him like other gangsters and war criminals, by stringing him up!
Mr. Kalamata
True. I am a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, as well as a U.S. military veteran. Confederate Army and Navy veterans are also U.S. military veterans, according to U.S. Public Law:
"(3)(e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term 'veteran' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term 'active, military or naval service' includes active service in such forces." [Public Law 85-425, in "U.S. Code on Confederate War Veterans." 1958]
You can argue that citizens of the Confederacy were not U.S. citizens at that time; but that would insinuate that Lincoln attacked a foreign nation (which he did.) You cannot have it both ways; at least, not with me.
Mr. Kalamata
OIFVeteran wrote: “The founding fathers disagree with you.”
They had a different definition of revolution than Black’s Law Dictionary. A revolution would have deposed the King.
But when I really think about it, perhaps they and you are correct. The states were not sovereign until they were recognized as sovereign by the British; but the states were sovereign when they were invaded by Lincoln.
Therefore, I concede that the former was a revolution by a portion of a sovereign nation, but the second was a secession of sovereign states.
Mr. Kalamata
The law does not say that. The law only says that Confederate veterans (of which there were in 1958, wait, let me check, zero) will receive the same pension as United States veterans.
OIFVeteran quoted, “He gives two ways the constitution can be dissolved. By agreement of all the people or by usurpations or abuses.”
That is correct. That was the consistent definition and understanding, until the Hamiltonites began to dominate the narrative.
****************
OIFVeteran quoted, “Now luckily the founding fathers gave us an example of what usurpations and abuses rise to the level of invoking the natural right to revolution, the revolutionary war. The stamp act was passed in 1765 and it wasn’t until 11 years later, after a long string of these usurpations and abuses, and the founding fathers pleading with England to recognize their rights as Englishman, in a government where they had no representation or voice, before they declared their independence and appealed to the force of arms.”
The Southern states would have been more than happy with those tax rates.
****************
OIFVeteran quoted, “Compare that to the southern rebels who rebelled because a party they disagreed with lost an election in a constitutional republic with a strong set of checks and balances.”
I don’t see how we can communicate if you make nonsensical statements like that. The South had been abused by protective tariffs since 1824, with far greater economic damage than the colonists were subjected to by the British.
****************
OIFVeteran quoted, “I think it’s safe to say that the founding fathers would have laughed at the southern rebels use of the right to revolution. Then George Washington himself would have taken charge of the United States Army and lead it into suppressing the rebellion. And good old George had a tendency to hang rebels, see Shay’s rebellion.”
Shay’s rebellion was a rebellion; not a secession of a sovereign state.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata: “Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics. This is another article from those trying times:”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Sadly, our Danny-child thinks he knows vastly more than he really does. In this case he first claimed that Confederate “free trade” threatened Union economics. I pointed out that’s absurd, since there was no “free trade” ever contemplated by Confederates.”
Is Joey really that ignorant, or is he simply being his usual jackass self?
The term “free trade” was used loosely to mean “fair trade.” The Confederate Constitution (which I wish our nation would adopt, except for the part about slavery,) forbids favoring one industry over another: it prohibited crony capitalism. Lincoln would have went to war over the adoption of a Constitution like that — almost forgot: HE DID!
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “So now Dan-bo changes the subject to high Confederate import tariffs on Union “exports”.
Are you off your meds?
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata quoting supposed Philadelphia press: “But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... “”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Right, in 1860 “the South” imported about $200 million in goods from “the North”. That roughly equaled the value of cotton Southerners exported in 1860. Confederates in 1861 hoped to tariff Union goods and return about $20 million per year to the Confederate treasury. In fact nothing like that happened and I’ve seen no numbers on actual commerce, if any, between Union & Confederacy. What we know for certain is that Confederate tariff revenues for the entire war were in the range of $3 million, total.”
According to Joey, the Philadephia press didn’t know what was going on in that day. Too bad you cannot go back in time and “straighten them out,” Joey.
Mr. Kalamata
Sorry, OIFVeteran. I sent this to you, rather than to Joey.
*************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics. This is another article from those trying times:”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Sadly, our Danny-child thinks he knows vastly more than he really does. In this case he first claimed that Confederate “free trade” threatened Union economics. I pointed out that’s absurd, since there was no “free trade” ever contemplated by Confederates.”
Is Joey really that ignorant, or is he simply being his usual jackass self?
The term “free trade” was used loosely to mean “fair trade.” The Confederate Constitution (which I wish our nation would adopt, except for the part about slavery,) forbids favoring one industry over another: it prohibited crony capitalism. Lincoln would have went to war over the adoption of a Constitution like that — almost forgot: HE DID!
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “So now Dan-bo changes the subject to high Confederate import tariffs on Union “exports”.
Are you off your meds?
Mr. Kalamata
184 PUBLIC LAW 85-426-MAY 27, 1958
CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS
“SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served
in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America
during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and
subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such.
person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service
in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the
United States.”
What you cited was the definition of a Confederate Veteran.
a section of the same law applies the term “Confederate Forces Veteran”
Congress in no way made Veterans of the Confederate Army and Navy into Veterans of the United states Armed Forces
Well that isn't what Lincoln said. He said nothing about responding to an attack. In his April 15 proclamation that initiated war it was all about forcibly maintaining the National Union.
He called up 75,000 soldiers for the purpose of suppressing the "combinations" that were in control of several states and that had the audacity to leave the union and form their own nation.
Like King George before him, he wasn't going to sit idly by and watch his territory leave. George's 1775 proclamation to Parliament reads remarkably like Lincoln's proclamation 90 years later.
Lincoln's Proclamation April, 15, 1861:
A Proclamation by the President of the United States, April 15, 1861
George's Proclamation August 23, 1775:
That was King George III's position in a nutshell.
Imagine if instead of forcing states to give up slaves the federal government forced them to do something else... like buy health insurance.
Yeah. It's even worse when you consider the fact that the Federal government had absolutely no intention of making them give up slaves at all.
All the Federal government wanted was to control them and control their money so they could keep money flowing through the pockets of people with government connections.
Thank you for having opened up a new subject to research, "domestic insurrections." I did some more searching and came up with some 1775 documents that refer to domestic insurrections in response to Lord Dunmore's Proclamation:
From the following 1835 book: The Military and Naval Magazine of the United States, Volume 5, pages 323 to 326. The book cites a 1775 letter written after Lord Dumore's Proclamation. I excerpt the following from the letter:
”But enough of this. Independent of these arguments, we may urge, that we have a right to take up arms in self-defense, since we have been threatened with an invasion of savages, and insurrection of slaves, and have had our negroes and stocks piratically taken from us. The laws of God and nature, and the principles of the Constitution [rb: i.e., the British Constitution], justify it; and at present, all the feelings of humanity – every suggestion of policy – and the cries of our insulted and imprisoned countrymen, loudly call TO ARMS.”
The book continued with
The proclamation [rb: Dunmore's] was also noticed and answered by the Convention. Their declaration, (published after the battle at the Great Bridge,) is in the following words:
Virginia, December 13, 1775 Whereas Lord Dunmore, by his proclamation, dated on Board the ship William, the 7th of November, 1775, hath presumed, in direct violation of the Constitution [rb: the British Constitution] and laws of the country, to declare martial law in force, and to be executed throughout this Colony, whereby our lives, our liberty, and property, are arbitrarily subjected to his power and direction : And whereas the said Lord Dunmore, assuming powers which the King himself cannot exercise, to intimidate the good people of this Colony into compliance with his arbitrary will, hath declared those who do not immediately repair to his standard, to be in actual rebellion, and submit in all things to a government not warranted to the Constitution, [rb: the British Constitution again] to be in actual rebellion, and thereby to have incurred the penalties inflicted by the laws for such offenses; and hath offered freedom to the servants and slaves of those he is pleased to term REBELS, arming them against their masters, and destroying the peace and happiness of his Majesty’s good and faithful subjects, whose property is rendered insecure, and whose lives are exposed to the dangers of a general insurrection: …
By the Representatives of the people of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, assembled in General Convention:
A DECLARATION.
…
EDMUND PENDLETON, President
For the purpose of evaluating Brother Joe's offering, let's stipulate that the King's representative, Lord Dunmore, never used the term slave revolts in his proclamation.
It follows then - using BJO (Brother Joe Orthodoxy) - that it is wrong for anyone to accuse Lord Dunmore of doing something that he never said he would do.
Brother Joe rejects Jefferson's unambiguous claim in the rough draft of the DOI: “he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them.”
I have to wonder what Brother Joe thinks of Jefferson's other charges: “For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States”
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.”
“He has abdicated Government here . . .”
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts . . .”
Where, Brother Joe asks, did the King ever say he would protect murderers? Where did the King say he would try people for pretend offences? Where did the King say he would abdicate government? Where did he say he would plunder our seas? Where did the King actually say he was a Tyrant unfit to be the ruler of a free people?
If he didn't say it, Brother Joe reasons, it didn't happen and can't be claimed to have happened.
Question: who has pressured Brother Joe, once levelheaded, to adopt and advocate positions that are not supportable?
Mostly I just blame myself.
We must be reading a different law, or perhaps you believe dead veterans are no longer veterans. Let me post the changes to the law, in context, so the readers will know what we are referencing:
"AN ACT: To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."
"Be it enacted By the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56) is amended:"
"(3)(e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term 'veteran' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term 'active, military or naval service' includes active service in such forces."
[Public Law 85-425, in "U.S. Code on Confederate War Veterans." 1958]
I interpret that law to define a U.S. military or naval veteran to include those who actively served in the Confederate military or naval services. Perhaps you were unintentionally misdirected by the terms "pension" and "widow."
Mr. Kalamata
>>Bull Snipe wrote: “What you cited was the definition of a Confederate Veteran. A section of the same law applies the term “Confederate Forces Veteran” Congress in no way made Veterans of the Confederate Army and Navy into Veterans of the United states Armed Forces.”
Those are your words, not mine. I believe the laws says they are to be considered U.S. Military Veterans, which is what I wrote.
Mr. Kalamata
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.