The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

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

[Davy Buck]

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

[phi11yguy19]

Treason? ... I don't remember that anyone was prosecuted for treason following the war, for supporting State secession.

That's because you're correct. A few radicals tried charging Davis and Lee, but Johnson threw out the charges. But there's more...

Article III.3 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Seems like more than a few people were concerned about proving who was "levying War against" whom in a court of law, including most justices. Here's a fun read, with some things I hadn't realized about the Pope at the time (but then again, where does the Pope have any moral authority over the likes of Bubba and rockrr?)

The sad truth (as pointed out in the link above) is it was a war between TWO SLAVE-OWNING NATIONS, yet these Bubs & co. won't stop insisting the war was fought to end slavery. Even U.S. Grant said he'd have dropped his sword and fought for the other side if he thought that was the cause.

So then the rockrr's of the world change their tune and say it was over secession. Yet there was no legal precedent to support such a claim, as there was STILL no legal precedent after the war to win a few "slam-dunk" treason convictions. Only after a newly packed court threw out a case to justify the legality, then made it's TX ruling (link has some fun reading on that farce) to oppose it year after the war, was there any court involvement. 80 years of justices rightfully didn't touch the issue as it wasn't their domain to interfere.

Now Bubs and rockrr just they throw their hands in the air at the "LCers" and say that morally speaking, the ends justified the means. Yet even the Pope disagreed.



You know, there are waaaays to tell if she's a witch...

[Who is John Galt?]

...these Bubs & co. won't stop insisting the war was fought to end slavery.

As I noted in my post #405:

The constitutionality of State secession is the critical issue... Which is no doubt why some of the Union's more vociferous supporters here spend so much time focusing on slavery...

It is a shame that, even after repeated requests, our friend BHT refuses to tell us whether or not he agrees with Mr. Madison's comments at the conclusion of Federalist No. 43, or the rationale adopted by the majority in Texas v. White. Strangely enough, he seems to be quite sensitive, when it comes to certain historical facts.

(And our friend rockrr just hasn't seemed the same since Non-Sequitur left. N-S tended to look after him, and I think he's at a bit of a loss now, which may be why he tags along after BHT... ;>)

[phi11yguy19]

LOL, i couldn't believe how quickly K-state ran away once you guys started calling him out as N-S!

Funny because I finally realized N-S popped up in a thread i started over a year ago:
N.C High Schools to Remove Pre-1877 U.S. History?
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:32:02 PM · 20 of 122
Non-Sequitur to phi11yguy19
Well I can understand why North Carolina wouldn’t want to dwell on the 1861-76 time frame...

And now they've all seemed to scramble. But I'm sure it's not because they've run out of defenseless talking points - it's probably it's just "not worth their time" to argue these baseless "LCer" arguments anymore. Lincoln was the latest Prophet and LCers are a bunch of heretics.

[mojitojoe]

Bye bye, Non-Sequitur #3.... that's 3 zots,(that we know of) 1 original, 2 re-treads. You seriously underestimate the ability of JR and mods to sniff out liberal trolls and retreads.

[mojitojoe]

LOL!!!

[mojitojoe]

LOL, i couldn’t believe how quickly K-state ran away once you guys started calling him out as N-S!
_______________
They scrambled and probably took it to email to decide what NS’s next name will be since JR zotted k-stater. That’s 3 zots for NS that we know of. Wonder what other names NS has been slow cooking. I can assure you NS will be back and I can assure you NS will be outed again. Why? Because NS is being eaten alive with his hatred of the South and NS cannot stay off these threads. Therefore, NS will always be easy to spot.

[phi11yguy19]

i just don’t understand the motivation.

If he’s even remotely honest with himself, he’ll take what he can learn on here and challenge some of his preconceptions. Even if he doesn’t like what he sees, he could at least humble himself enough to realize that maaaaaaaybe things aren’t exactly the way he convinced himself they were.

To continue to rant and rave with absolute hysteria in the face of the mountain of evidence in front of him seriously points to some sort of disconnect or disorder.

...Unless it’s just as simple as what you said, something I really don’t have the time to understand - hate.

[mojitojoe]

Unless it’s just as simple as what you said, something I really don’t have the time to understand - hate.
____________________
That IS it and there are 10 years of past posts to prove it. NS HATES the South and Southerner and anything that has to do with the South. HATES with every fiber of his being. I could slap his past posts on here to prove it as I, and others have done many times in the past, but I won’t waste FR bandwidth to once again show his despicable hatred.

NS is also a liberal, pro DADT, that is what caused the zot of his 10 year old handle.

[cowboyway]

Did K-stater/non-sequitur/drennen whyte get another Zot?

[onyx]

^5

[central_va]

Why? Because NS is being eaten alive with his hatred of the South and NS cannot stay off these threads. Therefore, NS will always be easy to spot.

Proving how radical these thugs are today and were in the 19th century.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

Which is basically saying that nothing is worth actually fighting for.

Here's the sequence of events:

You might want to look at that sequence again. Maybe you can figure out what you got wrong in your own (slanted) chronology. (Hint: something you have as an early item actually came after everything else you list).

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

First off, learn to spell it. It's "Sumter," not "Sumpter." No one died in the shelling, but it wasn't for lack of southerners trying. I suppose if no one had died at Pearl Harbor, but all the ships were sunk, that would have been no big deal to you, either.

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?

Maybe in your extensive readings you've come across this notion, but I'll refresh your memory: The Supreme Court doesn't rule on things that haven't actually come before it. Secession was never legally attempted prior to the War of the Rebellion, so there's no way the court could ever rule on it. (Do you favor the idea of a court that just chooses to speak on issues that interest it, without any actual case?)

What I'll throw back at you is the question of why the south didn't try to use a judicial route. You ask about "disputes under the law," but it's the south that refused that option.

[phi11yguy19]

wow, so after nearly 72 hours of digesting all of the posts and formulating a response, we get this from bubba.

Which is basically saying that nothing is worth actually fighting for.

The depth of your wisdom has no bounds. I believe what you call "nothing" would include self-defense or stopping a greater evil (of which there are few when it comes to war) to the rest of us. I don't believe political boundaries (i.e. "preserving the union") or other such wars of agression falls under those exceptions, but at least we know where you stand.

Thanks for "correcting" my chronology by not correcting anything at all. Instead of hiding in or beating around the bushes, why not try saying whatever it is you want to say. That's how "scholarly" discussions work, as you know.

wait, were you trying to be clever with the chronology of secession (as in they began seceding after lincoln's election, but under buchanan)? in all your learning, did you not realize that presidents get inaugurated months after the election results, during which time the predecessor retains the seat? or is there some other "gotcha" you were going for? It's so difficult to know since you're so smart and cryptic with your hints.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

wow, so after nearly 72 hours of digesting all of the posts and formulating a response, we get this from bubba.

I know you think my world revolves around you, but as it turns out I like to do other things with my weekend than spend it arguing on the internet.

Thanks for "correcting" my chronology by not correcting anything at all. Instead of hiding in or beating around the bushes, why not try saying whatever it is you want to say. That's how "scholarly" discussions work, as you know.

How about this: When you provide a link to that New York Times article, I'll tell you the huge error in your chronology.

[phi11yguy19]

First off, learn to spell it. It's "Sumter," not "Sumpter."

Well there it is. Bubba's managed to evade all the serious issues, but by calling out my typo, he's shown all my points to be pure fallacy! I'd love to list all of Bubba's previous typos to show his points are obviously therefore wrong as well, but I'll grant him for now that he's human and can also make a few keyboard mistakes now and then.

I didn't realize Pearl Harbor was a base on the island of Japan, just as SUMTER was located in the CSA. I also didn't realize that the Japanese had sent delegates to the White House and asked us when we were leaving, and that FDR repeatedly assured their delegates and government that we were on good terms and it would be evacuated asap (all the while getting an army together in anticipation of that "first strike"). Other than that, thanks for yet another mind-blowing, eye-opening analogy!

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on things that haven't actually come before it....

The Supreme Court also doesn't rule on state income tax rates, unicorn permits or lollipop flavors. Ignoring (as you have once again) the fact that secession had been brought to votes in 1812 (which would count as a "legal attempt" though never executed thanks to the ending of the war), I must say I'm very proud of you...

Without realizing it, you just admitted either (a) the S.C. had no business in the issue (explaining why they hadn't heard it before), or (b) that the issue SHOULD HAVE been heard prior to the executive unilaterally waging war over it - BOTH options making Lincoln's acts unconstitutional.

why the south didn't try to use a judicial route

The South acted as they believed it their right per the laws of the land. I guess using your logic, they should've asked Taney if they were allowed to wipe their own a$$es or if that was Lincoln's job too, but I regress. The problem with you're repeated counter-questions instead of answering those posed to you is this:

The Constitution delegated the federal government a list of responsibilities and duties the States voluntarily sacrificed. To make those powers even more clear, they included a 10th Amendment to clarify any power NOT explicitly granted was reserved to the states or the people. To make it even MORE clear, some states reserved the right to break the compact directly in their ratification.

So when the Southern States seceded, they had no reason to doubt their choice was anything but a right reserved by the states or the people (same as slavery at the time). When Lincoln disagreed, it would therefore be his obligation or ANY of the Northern State governors to file charges. Maybe I missed the part where he exhausted that option before opening the gates of hell on the whole country in my sequence a few posts ago, but feel free to insert it where it belongs.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Well there it is. Bubba's managed to evade all the serious issues, but by calling out my typo, he's shown all my points to be pure fallacy!

I'm merely pointing out your carelessness, which extends to other aspects of your arguments as well.

Other than that, thanks for yet another mind-blowing, eye-opening analogy!

Your argument was a minimization of the importance of the shelling of Sumter on the basis that no one was hurt.

Ignoring (as you have once again) the fact that secession had been brought to votes in 1812 (which would count as a "legal attempt" though never executed thanks to the ending of the war), I must say I'm very proud of you...

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The Hartford Convention wasn't "a vote" or "a legal attempt" at secession. It was a conference of four New England states. There had been some muttering about secession beforehand, but it never appeared in the final report of the Convention, which was just a document that they published, not some official act of government. And that was it. For you to claim that it was a legal attempt at secession is simply incorrect.

[phi11yguy19]

Your argument was a minimization of the importance of the shelling of Sumter on the basis that no one was hurt.

Nope, I merely pointed out your "hyperbole" was false when you said:

Lincoln went to war...after the south shelled US forces at Ft. Sumter
, and

they didn't simply announce themselves independent and start shelling Swedish troops(like the South did)

Did you forget your exaggerations (which were of course exaggerations worthy of a declaration of war), or was that simply "carelessness" on your part?

As for Hartford, keep reading (or whatever it is you do to gain your "knowledge"). Ever hear of the "flag of five stripes"? I'm sure that was a purely "Union" thing and had nothing to do with those 5 states wanting secession and actually designing a new flag. Convention records weren't kept, but there resolutions were written since they were prepared to deliver them to Madison.

The resolutions included such radical ideas as a State's right of "interposition" against the Federal government, and "Were so framed as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events turned out." (That is, if you believe Teddy Roosevelt as much as you do Lincoln.) But you got me again with the general "final report" issued years after the war ended that didn't have the word secession in it.

Anyone not trying to deceive themselves and others (like you so passionately are) knew that secession was the agenda if they couldn't toss Madison.

[Hoodat]

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Nope, I merely pointed out your "hyperbole" was false when you said...

What are you saying, that US forces WEREN'T shelled at fort Sumter, only the fort?

Did you forget your exaggerations (which were of course exaggerations worthy of a declaration of war)

Wait, are you declaring war on me now?

As for Hartford, keep reading...

I've read a lot about Hartford, and what I have yet to see is anything coming out of the convention that would constitute a legal attempt at secession. Talking about a flag and sending a report to the president requesting certain amendments is not the same as announcing yourself no be no longer part of the United States. Apparently that distinction escapes you, though.

But you got me again with the general "final report" issued years after the war ended that didn't have the word secession in it.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself here. The "Report and Resolutions of the Hartford Convention" was published the day after the convention closed, on January 5, 1815.

Oh, and any progress on finding that New York Times article?