The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

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

[bushpilot1]

Did NS get another zot?

[phi11yguy19]

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

MY understanding of physics and biology says if shells hit troops, then the result is X number of casualties. The story of the next four years tell me both sides were pretty good at killing each other when they wanted to. I guess the most logical answer though is the South just reeeeealy wasn't on their game those first 20 hours and couldn't hit their targets.

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.

Apologies...months after the end of the war.

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.

Well, a legal "attempt" would involve the meeting, planning and codification of resolutions in anticipation of secession. If they actually followed through with it, I no longer think "attempt to secede" would be a very good description.

In case anyone's counting though, we can add Teddy Roosevelt to the list of people you're smarter than since you ignore his conclusion on Hartford. Or maybe that quote's just as imaginary as the NYT piece that's mysteriously become your personal key to unlocking 150 years of truth. We'll probably never know since you're proving your impotence at honest research.

[bushpilot1]

The people who first occupied the works were disguised as civilian workers.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Apologies...months after the end of the war.

Try again. You might want to look at when news of the Treaty of Ghent reached the US, when the Battle of New Orleans took place, and when the treaty was actually ratified, officially ending the war.

Well, a legal "attempt" would involve the meeting, planning and codification of resolutions in anticipation of secession.

I see. So in your mind a group that discusses the idea that secession might become necessary if their request for X, Y and Z isn't met, but who don't actually secession in that request constitutes a "legal attempt" at secession that can actually go before the courts. Yet another of your curious legal theories, I guess. Most laws require someone to actually do something, but just talking about it among yourselves without taking any action constitutes a legal attempt in your book.

Or maybe that quote's just as imaginary as the NYT piece that's mysteriously become your personal key to unlocking 150 years of truth.

No, but it has become the key to understanding just how full of crap you are. Your persistent refusal to back up your claim with a simple link speaks for itself.

Have you figured out the problem in your Sumter chronology yet?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The people who first occupied the works were disguised as civilian workers.

No. They took off their Army coats and covered their muskets, but they were still in uniform.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Correction: "...but who don't actually mention secession in that request constitutes..."

[Red Steel]

Did NS get another zot?

It appears at least 3 times.

Note: to NonSequitur/K-Stater/other Zot.

You can change your IP address, or you can get a dynamic DSL service that changes your IP address every time you sign on which is taken from a pool of IP addresses, BUT these days, the IP addresses are geographically assigned. So you NS better move to a new town. Your flaw NS, is that you will eventually make a mistake giving yourself away to Mojitojoe no matter how many re-treads you do.

We'll be waiting patiently to see your next re-tread zot. Cheers NS ;-)

[mojitojoe]

I didn’t out him either time. I got Freepmail from other astute Freepers that NS was back. Not the sharpest tool in the box, apparently he is determined to give JR the finger and keep coming back. But... NS cannot avoid the CW threads. The hatred for the South and Southerners consumes him and he will be back, on those threads, outing himself again. What a sicko! It must be horrible to be so consumed, Talk about OCD, NS needs a good shrink and some heavy duty meds.... and a real life.

[phi11yguy19]

No, but it has become the key to understanding just how full of cr@p you are. Your persistent refusal to back up your claim with a simple link speaks for itself

(Sigh)

- When Roosevelt writes that the Hardford delegates' resolutions were written "as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events (Madison's response to their concessions) turned out", contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When Congressmen and statesmen repeatedly plead the case to let the South leave peacefully and avoid war, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When there was no legal ruling DELEGATING the right to leave the contract of the Constitution to the common governemnt, but the opposite DID exist - written ratifications and a 10th Amendment reserving the right to the States (or the people of the States of you will), contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When we've all provided countless names, links, books, etc. to support our claims, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

How does that make ME "full of" anything? Because I've tired of providing links for you to ignore? Because the number of Northerners who cried for piece even if it meant disunion doesn't meet your ever-changing quota (we've established 3, 10 and 36 are all too small, even though 3 was your magic number)? Because I've met your "challenges" to provide sources too many times already, only for you to repeatedly ignore them and deflect to a new subject?

You comically like to focus on topics what you won't research yourself (despite providing enough information to find the PDF on google like I did), topics also COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion since you've ignored every other point presented. How does this conversation pivot on whether or not I hand your YET ANOTHER free piece of research you claim doesn't matter anyway? Guess what, it doesn't. You'll dismiss it, since you've proven that to be to be your obtuse expertise, while blaming me for not playing your game anymore.

Well, congrats, no one here enjoys your "game" anymore. Honest Americans take their history seriously, not as a game, but you haven't matured to that point yet. If you'd like start addressing the dozens of points you've read but couldn't find anything to refute so you dismissed, then we can get back to talking like grown-ups.

Or you can go back to being "too cool" to address anything, since it is a Monday night after all and the cool kids are all too busy for the internet.

[cowboyway]

No. They took off their Army coats and covered their muskets, but they were still in uniform.

Cute. Do you work for 0bama?

[cowboyway]

NS needs a good shrink and some heavy duty meds.... and a real life.

Actually, I believe that he lives in a mental facility in Kansas and his membership on FR and DU and HuffPo is part of his 'therapy'. I'm sure that the staff at this facility is mostly responsible for his ability to sustain multiple zots and they merrily continue to register new user accounts for him in order to continue his 'therapy'.

Can you imagine the relief that the staff at his mental facility must get when NS/K-stater/Drennen Whyte is posting on FR and other sites and not berating them with his endless yankee mythology and Southern demons?

[bushpilot1]

No...they entered the works..as civilians not soldiers. It is documented. The vessel transporting the soldiers was stopped by a Confederate patrol in a small boat. The occupants (Union soldiers) claimed to be civilian workers at the works.

They were allowed to proceed to the fort. The Union soldiers on the orders of slave owner Anderson...dressed as civilians to enter the fort.

Who ordered Anderson to do this?

[bushpilot1]

[phi11yguy19]

Dare you challenge an authority such as Bubba? You realize he has spoken, therefore it was as it was spoken? Bubba doesn't need to support his words, but I expect now that you've said "It is documented.", you'll be demanded to provide at least THREE examples to prove your case, otherwise you're making it up. And now that you've posed a question, you'll have to answer a counter-question such as "Who do YOU think ordered Anderson to do this." Don't think about answering unless you have sworn testimony to support your case (unless it was under Taney, in which case it doesn't count).

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I guess you're dropping you claim that the Hartford Convention Report and Resolutions was issued years (or months) after the end of the war, huh? How many facts have you conceded so far?

- When Roosevelt writes that the Hardford delegates' resolutions were written "as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events (Madison's response to their concessions) turned out", contrary to your assertion otherwise;

Sorry, pal. A resolution justifying something that you might do in the future is not the same as legally attempting to do it. Again, you seem to have a problem telling talking about doing something from actually attempting to do it.

- When Congressmen and statesmen repeatedly plead the case to let the South leave peacefully and avoid war, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

When did I assert that there weren't people who wanted to let the south go?

- When there was no legal ruling DELEGATING the right to leave the contract of the Constitution to the common governemnt, but the opposite DID exist - written ratifications and a 10th Amendment reserving the right to the States (or the people of the States of you will), contrary to your assertion otherwise;

And yet a Supreme Court decision (issued after unilateral secession was actually attempted) found differently.

- When we've all provided countless names, links, books, etc. to support our claims, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

Still waiting for a link to that New York Times article, though.

Because I've tired of providing links for you to ignore?

I don't recall you providing a link to a single thing. Maybe you can tell me in which post on this thread you've done that.

You comically like to focus on topics what you won't research yourself (despite providing enough information to find the PDF on google like I did), topics also COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion since you've ignored every other point presented. How does this conversation pivot on whether or not I hand your YET ANOTHER free piece of research you claim doesn't matter anyway? Guess what, it doesn't. You'll dismiss it, since you've proven that to be to be your obtuse expertise, while blaming me for not playing your game anymore.

My, my. All put upon, are we? I don't blame you for getting frustrated after I've shown your facts to be wrong time after time. Give up yet on your Sumter chronology's problem?

So far, you've shown an ignorance of when the Hartford Convention issued it's report, the sequence of events around Ft. Sumter, the effect of the cotton gin on slavery, the price of slaves in the first half of the 19th Century, when the US instituted conscription, the difference between the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts and where those two million slaves that appeared in the US between the end of the slave trade and the 1860 came from. And yet to you I'm apparently the one who isn't serious about my history.

[phi11yguy19]

OK, so whatever happened at Hartford was merely some "muttering". Madison, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt were likewise "muttering".

When I said
"Giddings by the way presented a list of 329 Northern representatives to Congress in 1856 "praying for a dissolution of the Union". Might be a couple in there"
you can distort that into meaning I said ALL 329 in the petition qualified against your "three will do" requirement. Forget the fact you're ignoring the other 36 names who dispute your claim I couldn't provide 3, forget the fact that I said "maybe a couple", and forget the fact you still can't find a simple publication by yourself, in which 2 names were mentioned directly (Giddings & Fremont), so you only need to find 1 of 329 to meet your challenge (assuming the other 36 not named weren't good enough, which i haven't heard why).

When did I assert that there weren't people who wanted to let the south go?

When you challenged me to name 3 Republican leaders who wanted to let the south go (aka "secede", aka in favor of their "disunion"), and i named 36 plus a potential 326 more, but definitely gave you your 3 which you still ignore.

And yet a Supreme Court decision (issued after unilateral secession was actually attempted) found differently.

And thus the crux of your defense. A ruling AFTER a president unconstitutionally acts without precedent validates any actions prior. How you consider that ruling to be "law", and how such a law is not ex post facto - such laws being explicitly unconstitutional per I.9 is stupefying.

I don't recall you providing a link to a single thing. Maybe you can tell me in which post on this thread you've done that.

Direct links in posts #64, 68, 292, 325 and 481 (at least). Citations in at least a dozen others (sorry, you actually have to type those into google like NYT article or pick up a book). Now that i see how poor you are at researching even this thread, I understand the hopelessness on you ever reading anything else we've pointed out.

So far, you've shown an ignorance of when the Hartford Convention issued it's report, the sequence of events around Ft. Sumter, the effect of the cotton gin on slavery, the price of slaves in the first half of the 19th Century, when the US instituted conscription, the difference between the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts and where those two million slaves that appeared in the US between the end of the slave trade and the 1860 came from. And yet to you I'm apparently the one who isn't serious about my history.

Nice list. But the report was released after the war ended. Apparently you counter that by saying people "didn't know" because it "took time" for news of Ghent to get across the seas...like several months in your book. And also, that I'm as ignorant as Teddy Roosevelt for saying it was clearly about secession.

Sumter events? I feel so silly since i have no idea what you're referring to...or how that would actually impact the events as they happened. I asked to correct me if I was worng, but that's too much to ask of too-busy-on-the-weekends Bubba? So sorry.

I can't help you any more with slaves. If you can't look up how the British et al across the world had been harvesting our biggest crops (including cotton) MUCH cheaper than the South, then I guess it really was expanding at unprecedented rates here and destined for a global monopoly. What's more curious is how you know for sure when you refuse to read? Perhaps you care more about being "right" than confirming the truth one way or the other?

Feel free to quote me when I gave a date for conscription. I simply pointed out Union forces weren't joining because of warm feelings but because of bayonets, in response to you proposing it was a Davis-only legislation. Guess Lincoln never did that either.

How did I confuse the militia acts again? i believe it was you who claimed Lincoln was justified by one or the other even though he was never granted the powers by the act.

And again with the slave population. Another broken record. Even though I gave a handful of reasons adding to the concentration in the south, you again fail at context, again assume incorrectly (despite clarification), again fail to read, and assert it was solely a matter of forced (by the Southerners) breeding, since trade was stopped because the law said it stopped.

Is there anything else you need to mis-characterize of others to build your own credibility? If not, congrats because you've mastered the art of ad hominem while failing completely to make a credible defense of any of your positions. (Add that to my "link count"!)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

(assuming the other 36 not named weren't good enough, which i haven't heard why).

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence beyond your say-so for any of them.

Direct links in posts #64, 68, 292, 325 and 481 (at least). Citations in at least a dozen others (sorry, you actually have to type those into google like NYT article or pick up a book). Now that i see how poor you are at researching even this thread, I understand the hopelessness on you ever reading anything else we've pointed out.

Okay, in #64 you link to Durand's site, except you don't actually cite anything from him. In #68 you again link to Durand's site. In #292, you cite a PBS website the proves that a Rhode Island family was involved in the slave trade. In #325 you cite a 1927 apologia for secession, and in #481 you cite a blog post. I am humbled before your scholarship and your wealth of original sources.

And thus the crux of your defense. A ruling AFTER a president unconstitutionally acts without precedent validates any actions prior. How you consider that ruling to be "law", and how such a law is not ex post facto - such laws being explicitly unconstitutional per I.9 is stupefying.

How you think the Supreme Court rules on things that haven't haven't happened yet is even more stupefying.

But the report was released after the war ended.

You just can't get it right, can you? The war ended when the treaty was ratified by congress on February 18, 1815. That's several weeks after the Hartford Convention published its report.

I asked to correct me if I was worng, but that's too much to ask of too-busy-on-the-weekends Bubba? So sorry.

And I'm sorry that you don't have better things to do on the weekends. But since you ask so nicely now (and did you ask earlier?), Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops occurred after the shelling of Sumter , not before. Other problems with your chronology: Lincoln never promised to evacuate the forts. In fact, in his inaugural address he said the exact opposite. You also claim that the south saw "their peace treaties violated." There were no treaties. You say that the south bombarded "remaining foreign forts," but in fact only one fort was shelled.

I guess you're never going to come up with that New York Times article, are you?

I can't help you any more with slaves. If you can't look up how the British et al across the world had been harvesting our biggest crops (including cotton) MUCH cheaper than the South, then I guess it really was expanding at unprecedented rates here and destined for a global monopoly.

You still can't explain why slave prices were rising, can you? American cotton was 75% of world production before the war. During the war, there was a boom in Egyptian cotton. This ended as soon as the war was over and the Egyptian cotton business crashed as the cotton buyers returned to the US for their supply.

Feel free to quote me when I gave a date for conscription. I simply pointed out Union forces weren't joining because of warm feelings but because of bayonets, in response to you proposing it was a Davis-only legislation. Guess Lincoln never did that either.

What you said was that many men left the US army when their enlistments were up because of the Emancipation Proclamation. I pointed out that their enlistments were up and that, unlike the south, US soldiers were not held after their original enlistments were over. I also pointed out that more than half of soldiers did re-enlist, a rate roughly equivalent to current army retention. Your response was to say, "all those men fighting in the "noble war" ran as soon as their CONSCRIPTIONS were up!" I pointed out that conscription didn't begin until after the Emancipation Proclamation and that the men who were conscripted served until war's end--less than two years later.

And again with the slave population. Another broken record. Even though I gave a handful of reasons adding to the concentration in the south, you again fail at context, again assume incorrectly (despite clarification), again fail to read, and assert it was solely a matter of forced (by the Southerners) breeding, since trade was stopped because the law said it stopped.

What you said was "There's no way to increase the slave population (aka "expansion") except by bringing more into the country." This whole "forced breeding" thing is your weird obsession. I never said any such thing. Apparently the notion that slaves could actually procreate on their own, without being forced, is inconceivable to you.

How did I confuse the militia acts again? i believe it was you who claimed Lincoln was justified by one or the other even though he was never granted the powers by the act.

So you didn't actually read the two? I'm shocked. I told you the difference; the 1795 act removed the requirement that the president be officially notified. This was done at George Washington's request after the experience of the Whiskey Rebellion.

[phi11yguy19]

he war ended when the treaty was ratified by congress on February 18, 1815.

Ghent was signed on Christmas Eve, 1814 ending all hostilities.

Let me guess, you're a history teacher in the same school as K-S/N-S?

Slave prices - again, a critical constitutional issue pivotal to this discussion. (/sarc) Don't prices usually rise per the economics of supply and demand? Were they not low when slave trade (supply) was booming internationally in the early 19th century, only to rise steeply when international trade was banned, only to drop again in the 1840s and rise sharply again in the 1850s per trends in cotton and the explosion of Southern railroads (demand)? Are you bringing that up because it was one of the issues for secession in Hartford, too?

Ok, so if I rephrase that around 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted (many because of the Proclamation as confirmed by Hooker, Burnside, Grant and other officers), or didn't re-enlist when their terms were up, and enlistments similarly dropped sharply after the Proclamation, despite more financial incentives to join - at which point Lincoln turned to conscription to continue forcing his war on South - does that work for you? How many then ran after being conscripted in, or just didn't fight? I know you'll knit pick everything I say, correct typos, and keep deflecting, since it's the only thing you have to defend your hero, so don't worry if you can't answer.

We've been through the militia act already, yet you distort again. In the 1795 version, the requirement is still:
whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act

So again, which judicial proceedings or marshal efforts proved futile to warrant invoking this? I'm sure you know the act was to allow the raising of the U.S. militia for events a single State militia couldn't handle. You haven't shown the law outlawing secession, so if that's legal, Sumter was in foreign territory. After it was abandoned without casualties, did the South then proceed to attak North, thus warranting the militia? I asked for the specific justification many many posts ago - just another point you want to ignore, despite it being the THE justification you used for Lincoln's war powers.

If you want to keep putting words in my mouth to create your strawmen, so be it, but like I said, it's tiring. You can't even admit to yourself the possibility "your" version of history is as open-and-shut as you think it is. Pure arrogance, which again makes me think you must be a teacher.

[mac_truck]

And yet a Supreme Court decision (issued after unilateral secession was actually attempted) found differently.

The Texas v. White decision has recently been cited as legal precedent in a case involving an attempt to change the Alaska State Consitution.

Neo-secessionist heads exploded.

[phi11yguy19]

wow, so our judical and legal system has changed from constitutional law to case law? i had no idea. pass me the duct tape.