Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[Grand Old Partisan]

The History Channel, which I watch often, also had a show praising Jay Winik's ridiculous book "1865", which goes to show that you cannot believe everything you see on television.

[4CJ]

True. Even if he were Wlat, at least he has manners, which is more than can be said for many with his positions.

CK: My sincerest apologies.

[4CJ]

...all involved concluded that the papers were genuine and the orders to assasinate Davis and cabinet eminated from the White House.

But to them, Butler, Sherman [*SPIT*], Grant, Kilpatrick, Dahlgren were all loose cannons - doing what they pleased without regard to Lincolns orders. To them, Lincoln sat in the White House reading while Dahlgren et al planned and conducted the war.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Sometimes I lose my better judgment and take the low road, but after all we are all patriotic Americans who feel strongly about two contrasting positions. If anything, these ACW-related threads illustrate how the debates of the 1850s-60s gave rise to strong passions on both sides.

My motto is "With malice toward none, charity for all" :)

[Colonel Kangaroo]

THE YANKEES ARE IN CHATTANOOGA!

[Heyworth]

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."--James Madison

[Grand Old Partisan]

How dare you quote the principal author of the Constitution to explain its meaning to the neo-Confederates!

[Gianni]

The History Channel, which I watch often, also had a show praising Jay Winik's ridiculous book "1865",

Do you mean, April, 1865, the Month that Saved America, by Winik?

Please, educate us on its flaws. This should be interesting from someone who considers The Reward of Patriotism historically accurate, and Lucy Stewart an authority.

[Gianni]

To them, Lincoln sat in the White House reading while Dahlgren et al planned and conducted the war.

No, no, no... it's always Stanton and Seward who ran the country. For some reason, they believe incompetence a viable defense.

[Gianni]

It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.

Excellent quote, unfortunately, it does not support your position. You and Partisan need to learn the language before you sit at the grown-up table.

[Grand Old Partisan]

A major (and ridiculous) theme of the book is that in April 1865 guerrilla warfare was a viable option for the Confederates, to whom we should all be grateful for surrendering instead.

[Grand Old Partisan]

What Madison is saying, and what a good book on Madison or the Constitution would explain, is that the "violation or abuse" of the compact he is writing about is the secession of a state or states. In other words, a state could be kicked out of the Union by all other states seceding and setting up their own country without that state -- such an action would be a "violation or abuse" of that state.

Here you show yourself to be seriously out of your depth, and not worth any more of my time to debate. Ciao, Gianni!

[Heyworth]

Uh huh. So then you can point to the actual abuse which was so egregious that it was equivalent to the dissolution of the entire constitution.

[4CJ]

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."--James Madison

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."

The quote cited is from a letter to Nicholas P. Trist under date of 15 Feb 1830. This is what he wrote decades earlier: 'Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.' No chains to hold it, no military force to prevent it leaving.

[4CJ]

Dang, you beat me to it. I guess that what I get for preparing to reply, and then waiting before I actually hit post.

I like your style

;o)

[Gianni]

A major (and ridiculous) theme of the book is that in April 1865 guerrilla warfare was a viable option for the Confederates, to whom we should all be grateful for surrendering instead.

That you would disagree is astonishing. The most capable tactical commanders were clearly allied with the confederacy, while the Union had the upper hand on the larger strategy that would later win the war. Given the results of other civil conflicts around the world, there is adequate evidence that our country could have just as easily gone down that path.

Of course, your viewpoint on this provides a nice example of your snobbish & sneering attitude.

[Gianni]

What Madison is saying, and what a good book on Madison or the Constitution would explain, is that the "violation or abuse" of the compact he is writing about is the secession of a state or states.

No. Read the sentence. That's not what he is saying. It could not be more clear.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you seriously believe the people of Virginia took the time to write such a document if they thought it wouldn't be taken seriously.

I can't speak for them, but if they believed that they could legally resume powers granted to the government any time that they wanted then they were wrong. The Constitution doesn't allow for that, and they accepted the Constitution as passed by the convention. That part's in their ratification document, too.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nonsense. Cite the specific clause please.

I can't prove a negative, or show something that isn't there. So you'll have to show the clause that does allow them to resume powers granted to the government whenever they want to.

[Non-Sequitur]

Now you're just lying.

Now you're just being a boob. There was nothing two sided about it. States ratified the Constitution or they didn't, nothing was negotiated. The Constitutional Convention wasn't going to accept changes, go back and make them, and then present them again. The Constitution was there, accept it or not was the state's choice. And Virginia accepted it. Viginia ratified it, in toto, as passed by the convention. And in doing so they made the mistaken claim that they could resume powers granted to the government any time that they wanted to. And in that they were wrong. The Constitution does not allow for that, in any clause, in any section. Virginia, or any other state for that matter, could pad their ratification document with any misconception that they cared to, and some did. But the ratification documents do not trump the Constitution.