The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

By the way, there’s a difference between a dissolution of the Union done along the lines of the Constitution (basically 3/4 of states amending the Constitution to make it null and void) and unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states. Maybe the distinction escapes you.

[phi11yguy19]

None of which shows an intent to forcibly deport.

How were they to be shipped all across the globe in your pretty world? Smiles and "pretty pleases"? They were aliens to the country, so they'd be DEPORTED under that plan. And definition #1 of deport would be...(drumroll)...

deport [dɪˈpɔːt]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to remove (an alien) forcibly from a country; expel

Wouldn't need $600,000 in 1860s dollars if they were just gonna ask nicely. (And no, before you make something up, they didn't have a fleet of cushioned cruise ships waiting that they bought with that money.)

How, then, do you explain Lincoln's abolition of slavery in DC in 1862 and his support for the 13th Amendment?

How then do you explain his support of the FIRST 13th amendment TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR (i.e. before he waged war), or clarifying AFTER that his only intent of war was to restore the union (with slaves, without, or anywhere in between)? It's called he was as much a two-faced, lying, political scum as any dictator is by nature. Fortunately they all also have swarms of uninformed "useful idiots" (to use Stalin's term) to prop up their PR.

Lincoln sat on the E.P. for over a year because the North was losing nearly every battle and didn't want it to look like a move of desperation. Antietam was the battle that gave him a window to issue it while the PR team cheered that Lee withdrew his first attack on the North, so the war had "turned" in a day (even though the Union once again had many more casualties and dead). Ironically, Lincoln regretted it immediately after and told his cabinet he thought it was his biggest blunders.

And foreign recognition of the confederacy was never as imminent as some would have you believe.

"Foreign relations" existed immediately after secession as British and French envoys met with many Confederates. The British were prepared to test nationhood recognition after Manassas, but pulled it shortly after Antietam for fear they'd be on the wrong side and cripple their trade. But I'm sure that's NOWHERE "as imminent as some would have you believe."

Pretty rich coming from you.SHOOT! It's the "I know you are but what am I" defense...the one argument I haven't found a counter for ever since grade school! You might as well put a period to the end of this debate.

[phi11yguy19]

You didn't provide a link. You cited a book with no page number. Give me a page number and I'll do the rest.

FAIL!

I didn't say that was in the Disunion book. Giddings petition is congressional record, figure it out. The date is gave was that of a NYT article about it...OOPS! is that another clue for the clueless? I guess we've established that either (a) you won't/can't read books, or (b) any book I'd recommend couldn't possibly refute any of your generalizations.

But I am impressed that if someone gives you a book, a page number and a quote, that you could "do the rest". That's all-star scholarship right there.

[phi11yguy19]

By the way, there’s a difference between a dissolution of the Union done along the lines of the Constitution (basically 3/4 of states amending the Constitution to make it null and void) and unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states. Maybe the distinction escapes you.

Whew, another STRAWMAN FAIL!

Your phrase "dissolution of the Union" is not mine, or the term the disunionists used, or the name of the book i referred you to. Northern disunionists agreed the peaceful solution was best, conceded the Southern States should be permitted to leave peacefully, and that the North would be better for it. Those remaining Northern states would still be the United States of America (still more states than when the union formed) - "basically" there would be no "dissolution of the union".

Maybe the distinction escapes you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So really you didn't provide any link at all for your claim, did you?

The date is gave was that of a NYT article about it...

The NYT database shows no such article for 1856.

But I am impressed that if someone gives you a book, a page number and a quote, that you could "do the rest". That's all-star scholarship right there.

Clearly you are easily impressed by even the simplest of things. But at least I'm willing to actually do the work to look at what you cite, which is more than you seem to be capable of.

[Who is John Galt?]

Texas v. White was the first time that secession came before the Supreme Court. The court said that it was illegal.

And now you mention Texas v. White. I must ask: do you concur with the majority's reasoning?

;>)

Allow me to remind you of an earlier inquiry (please see my Post 427): you had offered a rather precise opinion regarding the last section of Mr. Madison’s Federalist No. 43 (see your post 411), and I asked if you agreed with Mr. Madison. You failed to answer.

Care to respond? Do you concur with Mr. Madison’s statements at the conclusion of Federalist No. 43?

I'll post Mr. Madison's concluding paragraph for you (since, if I remember correctly, it was omitted from earlier posts):

The second question [What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?] is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.

Care to respond at this time?

;>)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Your phrase "dissolution of the Union" is not mine, or the term the disunionists used, or the name of the book i referred you to.

Uh, dude. Look at your post #435. I'm not the one who introduced the phrase "dissolution of the union" into the conversation. You did.

You seem to be getting more and more agitated here.

[rockrr]

You seem to be getting more and more agitated here.

To go with the condescension, contradiction, and convolution.

[phi11yguy19]

Is this all part of your strategy to deflect every time someone gives you EXACTLY what you ask for? You challenged to produce THREE names of Republican leaders - why you picked the magic number of 3 to prove the point that secessionist sentiment was on both sides of the fences, but taxes trumped sentiment in the north, is unknown - and I gave you them. Then I gave you 7 more. Then I gave you the 26 from the generation prior.

Now if you claim this NYT article I’m reading doesn’t exist, so be it (I thought I pulled the ‘ol fake NYT article / congressional record gag on ya, but you got me!) - what about the 3, or the 10 or the 36 specific names I mentioned?

For comic relief, please discredit each one until we’re back below 3, at which point your challenge stands unrefuted, and I’ll go put more than 5 minutes into finding more names for your challenge.

If you can’t, just send me a mailing address so I send you a shovel for all the manure you’re piling on your credibility.

[phi11yguy19]

That was a direct quote from the petition (from the NYT article that doesn’t exist, mind you), and the context was the peaceful dissolution of the union i.e. allowing those states who want to leave do so without war. Which is exactly what the Southern States did, not completely dissolving the U.S.A. which is what you implied.

On a personal note, what do you think is so great about preserving the exact size of a “Union” by force? Are political boundaries and taxes a cause worthy enough that 600,000 lives to bring them back in line was justified?

Are we also to believe the States most skeptical of such a mindset, who explicitly declared in their Constitutional ratifications that they reserved the right to withdraw upon abuses (VA, NY), actually had all such power voided by Lincoln’s executive decree? If they never had it at all, then were their ratifications therefore null and void, in which case Lincoln attacked THREE (or 2 if the CSA “never existed”) independent sovereignties?

When Norway peacefully seceded from the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway ~40 years after our war, was that rebellious or righteous? Are we all here to believe that there was no means for any of our States to secede from the United States of America without war? (Maybe the UKSN king learned from the atrocities under our monarch that war wasn’t all it was cooked up to be.)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You know, providing an actual link to things isn't that hard, and I'm not going off on another snipe hunt to see what the hell you're talking about. If you can provide evidence of this petition signed by 300-some northern state legislators calling for secession, do it. Otherwise, I'll put it down with the rest of the myths that you've repeated here.

If you can’t, just send me a mailing address so I send you a shovel for all the manure you’re piling on your credibility.

Clearly you're busy using it yourself.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

That was a direct quote from the petition (from the NYT article that doesn’t exist, mind you), and the context was the peaceful dissolution of the union i.e. allowing those states who want to leave do so without war. Which is exactly what the Southern States did, not completely dissolving the U.S.A. which is what you implied.

None of which changes the points that you're the one who introduced the phrase into this discussion, and that dissolution of the Union and unilateral secession are two different things.

On a personal note, what do you think is so great about preserving the exact size of a “Union” by force? Are political boundaries and taxes a cause worthy enough that 600,000 lives to bring them back in line was justified?

What do you think is so great about a group of states breaking up the United States in order to create their own nation whose cornerstone was slavery (in the words of it's vice president) that makes it worthy enough that 600,000 lives were lost before it went down to defeat?

But the answer to your question is Yes, I do think that the cause of keeping the United States united was worth fighting for. That it ended up costing 600,000 lives is as much on the south's head as the United States' head.

When Norway peacefully seceded from the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway ~40 years after our war, was that rebellious or righteous?

Since they peacefully negotiated an agreement with Sweden before declaring themselve independent, and they went through certain formalities (like a plebiscite) that Sweden asked for, and they didn't simply announce themselves independent and start shelling Swedish troops, I'd say it wasn't rebellious.

Are we all here to believe that there was no means for any of our States to secede from the United States of America without war?

No, there's a way. States desiring to leave the Union can go through a process similar to that of a state joining the union. I'll quote the Virginia writer responding to the Hartford Convention again:

"No man, no association of men, no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes.

[phi11yguy19]

I do think that the cause of keeping the United States united was worth fighting for - Explain "why", without saying slavery since we've pretty well established that wasn't the reason the Republicans and Lincoln refused to acknowledge the South's right to secede. What is so great about keep X amount of states under a central government with blood when you can have Y with peace?

Since they peacefully negotiated an agreement with Sweden before declaring themselve independent, and they went through certain formalities (like a plebiscite) that Sweden asked for, and they didn't simply announce themselves independent and start shelling Swedish troops, I'd say it wasn't rebellious.

The UKSN was anything but "peacefully negotiated" at first and had plenty of people calling for war just like it was in the US. They avoided it. If we equate the seceding Norway with the South and Sweden with the North, when did the North offer anything such as a plebiscite? Did Sweden simply refuse to acknowledge Norway's delegates because the only way they'd compromise is if Norway didn't secede (which is no compromise at all)? Did they allow them to leave the halls of UKSN government, only to pass resolutions and amendments unlawfully in their absence to punish them for their efforts? It was peaceful because they allowed it to be.

Back to the "shelling" again with you. I have a challenge for you. Name me 3 Northern casualties who were "shelled" by Southern artillery at Sumpter.

And you once again give your quote, while again ignoring all those we gave you with statesmen saying the exact opposite. When there are differing opinions of a law, it goes to the supreme court. Opinions of statement follow the old saying "opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one and they all stink".

I challenge you again, name me the supreme court ruling validating your claim prior to lincoln declaring his absolute ruling over the matter and waging war? What part of our government structure says disputes over the law can circumvent the judicial process by executive or legislative decree?

[phi11yguy19]

final thoughts...

I do think that the cause of keeping the United States united was worth fighting for. That it ended up costing 600,000 lives is as much on the south's head as the United States' head.

So the essence of your defense of lincoln, the north, and the war is (with no legal or even practical defense in your favor) that the theory of the "union" was sacred, and the immoral "ends justify the means" approach to preserving it was and is worth veneration.

unfortunately, in a "moral" sense of sacred, the ends NEVER justify the means. the only reason the phrase is invoked is to defend morally evil actions to defend subjectively, morally "good" results.

in the legally "sacred" spectrum, if someone seriously, grotesquely harms someone close to me, and i make an effort to seek them out and exact retribution, well guess what happens to me...no matter how the passions of the day are running, i go to jail. moral relativism doesn't trump the rule of law either. if it did, then our military today could horribly torture, raze villiages and cities, etc. - since the "end" of conquering to preserve a fictitious "union" is worth it (see "sherman" for more examples of what this would look like).

Then there's the aggressor angle, which you're still confused about re: Sumter. Here's the sequence of events:

- north feels ideology of permanent union (tax base) trumps states right to secede. later they play up the emotionally charged justification of abolition/emancipation to justify the war

- southern states plead to act within existing laws, but north persists that laws are secondary to their new "morals".

- per lincoln's election, southern states secede (under buchanan. president buchanan states "the power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union" was not among the "enumerated powers granted to Congress" and allows them to leave peacefully.

- lincoln illegally, immediately raises 75,000 militia (no justification per militia act since no state requested assistance).

- lincoln tells southern delegates he'll remove remaining forts on their foreign soil immediately and peacefully, while covertly arming multiple forts and seaports.

- south sees their peace treaties violated and war eminent from northern aggressors, and bombard remaining foreign forts. not only were there no casualties, but they even granted the union generals the honor of flag ceremony before abandoning the fort.

- day after sumter battle, there are no casualties, no union forts in the south, and no reason to start massive bloodshed. - lincoln mobilizes his illegally drawn forces into the south and commences attacks. - south defends their citizens against months of bloodshed before considering making a FIRST attack direct on northern soil

so, did i miss anything here? if not, can you or your penpals point out the point where the south the "aggressor"?

[mac_truck]

Philly: Giddings by the way presented a list of 329 Northern representatives to Congress in 1856 "praying for a dissolution of the Union"

Bubba: This is very impressive, considering that in 1856 there were only 234 representatives in the entire Congress.

Hmmm...

[mac_truck]

Bubba: I'm very curious to see where you can find Charles Francis Adams supporting secession.

Philly: if you ask for 3 names, and i give you around 345 (in a few minutes research), all you have to do is simply disagree with ONE of those names, and that name and ALL the others magically disappear from history!

..or maybe its just your grasp on the subject matter is so tenuous that a single follow up question topples your entire supposition. It wouldn't be the first time an LCer folded under the..pressure..of having to actually support their remarks.

[rockrr]

More likely he could be called the “strawman” for all the false narratives, faulty analogies, and flaky conclusions he offers.

[rockrr]

More likely he could be called the “strawman” for all the false narratives, faulty analogies, and flaky conclusions he offers.

[phi11yguy19]

thanks, mac, but i already told bubba to ignore the son of the president who said "far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint."

I'm not sure how debating what extent of that wisdom passed on to Charles Francis Adams (who pushed for Crittenden) has to do anything discussed here.

Bubba asked me to support my remarks with 3 examples, and I responded ten-fold. If you don't agree with CFA, that's fine, move on to the next example. (Of course, if Bubba can dispute examples he provided himself and conceded make the case, and you both can ignore all the other examples provided, and you both can refuse to do your own research, then it's going to be a long road.)

The case of CFA does not make or break the facts of history, but if that's your "entire supposition" then feel free to declare that history has been written decided in your favor.

[Who is John Galt?]

"No man, no association of men, no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes."

An interesting quote. Let’s start at the beginning:

No man, no association of men… has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord.

Now, that statement is so obviously untrue as to be humorous. Using that line of reasoning to suggest that “no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord” merely weakens (or destroys) the argument. But let’s continue:

"The same power which knit us together can only unknit... The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it."

An interesting thought. The union formed under the self-styled Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union allowed no alterations of any sort (and certainly not State secession) unless approved by "every State" - not just a "majority of States". The power which "knit... together" the member States was apparently unanimous consent. Nevertheless, the first nine States to ratify the Constitution established that new compact between themselves, seceding from the union formed under the articles in the process. And the new compact nowhere claimed to be "perpetual," nor did it specify any mechanism for refusing entry to any of the first nine States to ratify (or for refusing the future departure of any unsatisfied member). Which suggests that the power which "knit... together" the constitutional union was the power of individual States to determine their own course.

"Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes."

“Treason?” I must admit, some Union enthusiasts remind me of the witch-burning mob in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Speaking of treason, and of post-war federal court cases (since you mentioned Texas v. White in an earlier post), I don't remember that anyone was prosecuted for treason following the war, for supporting State secession.

And speaking of Texas v. White, you still have not advised us whether you agree or disagree with the reasoning of the majority in that case. I guess it must be a sensitive subject for you, for some reason. A shame, because (as you observed in your post #442), the case "was the first time that secession came before the Supreme Court." One would think that because "[t]he court said that [secession] was illegal," that you would be willing to tell us whether or not you agreed with the rationale for the majority opinion. Perhaps it is an emotional issue for you...

(By the way, rockrr, you’ll want to be a little more careful about including folks on the address line when you post. For example, you accidentally omitted phi11yguy19 on your post #468. I’m sure you don’t want to be mistaken for Dwight Frye, to BHT’s Lugosi… ;>)