Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason

The Copperhead Chronicles ^ | August 2007 | Al Benson

[rustbucket]

I never claimed the confederacy didn't have a circuit court. I have pointed out, correctly, that they did not have a supreme court. And I have also pointed out, also correctly, that a supreme court was required by their constitution. A circuit court was not.

Here is what I was referring to:

To: rustbucket

Were the Confederate district courts different?

There were no confederate district federal courts, at least no records exist of any decision being handed down by one. There was no confederate supreme court, no confederate judiciary at all other than individual state courts.. I'm not aware of any confederate version of the U.S. Marshal. Absent a federal court system what purpose would they have served?

257 posted on 07/31/2003 8:32 PM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Your post occurred shortly after I had posted a long list of appointments to the Confederate District Courts I found on the web. Then I posted the following and thatdewd followed with a list of Confederate District Court records he found on the web.

To: Non-Sequitur

There were no confederate district federal courts, at least no records exist of any decision being handed down by one. There was no confederate supreme court, no confederate judiciary at all other than individual state courts.

Then how do you explain the following from the November 24, 1864, Daily Picayune?

Our readers have seen the announcement of the sentence of A. W. McKee by a court-marshal in Louisiana, to be shot, and of the decision by Judge Moise, of the Confederate States District Court in Louisiana, that the court marshal had no jurisdiction over McKee [a civilian], and releasing him from their bonds, to answer any civil offense for which he might be prosecuted.

You seem fond of making claims that others would have a hard time disproving. In this case, however, Gotcha!

This supposedly nonexistent 1864 Confederate States District Court seems to have anticipated the 1866 US Supreme Court ruling in ex parte Milligan. Pity the Yankees didn't have courts willing to stand up in wartime for their citizens' rights (Taney's ex parte Merryman ruling excepted).

261 posted on 07/31/2003 9:34 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You graciously acknowledged your error.

To: rustbucket

You seem fond of making claims that others would have a hard time disproving. In this case, however, Gotcha!

That's because in most cases my information is well supported. But in this case I made a quick post based on a single website and I got nailed for my carelessness. You certainly did 'gotchme'.

294 posted on 08/01/2003 5:28 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I'll continue this series of posts again tomorrow. Good night.

[Rabble]

You are correct in your assertion. I realized after I posted my statement that I should have said that "Generally, secession was not thought to be unconstitutional until the concept was challenged by the Lincoln administration.

"Since the US wasn't a tyranny in 1860 unilateral state secession was unconstitutional."

Oh really? Since the Constitution is silent on the matter I don't know how you or anyone can make such a bold statement!

"Buchanan, though, didn't think the federal government could do anything about this unconstitutional act."

That's because it clearly wasn't unconstitutional and was a right reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment within the Bill of Rights!

[Rabble]

I wrote: "Secession was not thought to be unconstitutional until the concept was challenged by the Lincoln administration."

After I posted I realized that what I meant to post was "Generally, secession was not thought to be unconstitutional until the concept was challenged by the Lincoln administration." My bad!

It was thought to be treasonous. "No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. "

One newspaper's opinion is still only one person's opinion, and we all know about opinions, ie - that everyone has one...... I believe that most folks held the opposite opinion.

[Rabble]

"Davis and other secessionists were acting outside and against the law more than Lincoln was."

What did this have to do with our debate? Why should I care what Davis was up to?

[Non-Sequitur]

Wow. I don't know whether to be impressed, amused, flattered, or amazed. Do you save everything I post? I've never claimed to be 100% accurate in everything I post, though I need to be careful in case I did make that claim 7 years ago. I've made mistakes on a number of occasions, but I will point out that when corrected I don't keep claiming that they were, in fact, true. My claim about Botts was corrected, and I acknowledge it. My information about Brownlow was quoted accurately from the book, and as you pointed out the book was incorrect. I admitted my mistake, as you detailed, concerning the circuit courts. But I still don't see where I claimed the river was closed for months prior to the rebellion. Just because Petus removed the militia above Vicksburg doesn't mean commerce flowed to or from the Northern states. You mention traffic passing without knowing where it originated or where it was destined.

I can hardly wait for Sherman and Chambersburg.

[rustbucket]

But I still don't see where I claimed the river was closed for months prior to the rebellion. Just because Petus removed the militia above Vicksburg doesn't mean commerce flowed to or from the Northern states. You mention traffic passing without knowing where it originated or where it was destined.

From one of your quotes I posted above:

After being closed for almost two months was there any traffic left to open it up to?

As far as the origin and destination of traffic on the river goes, I had the same question that you did. I remember looking up some of those boats on the web at the time of those posts. Two or three of them were Northern owned as I remember, or at least their home port was in the North yet they were down in Vicksburg. One of them later became a river boat in the Union navy during the war.

At least, that is what I remember about the boats. I was once accused of having a photographic memory by my MIT classmates, and I used to get hissed when I'd enter the classroom on test days. I've never had a photographic memory, but it used to be much better than it is now. Old age is getting to me.

I save the posts that I make, the posts that I responded to, and any replies to my posts. If I see a noteworthy post containing useful information by someone else, I sometimes will save those too.

I'm glad you are still around because I learn history by responding to your posts. Thank you. I'll respond to the other points in your 722 as time permits today. I have some business to attend to.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I believe that most folks held the opposite opinion.

“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union" so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. – Robert E. Lee, January 21, 1861

[stand watie]

i'll be delighted to do that right AFTER you:

1.ADMIT who you really were before you were PERMANENTLY BANNED "for cause",

2. RESIGN from FR after admitting what you did in detail to get BANNED &

ADMIT all the ARROGANT LIES that you've told about my family, me & everyone else that you've slandered/libeled.

until then, you can expect to have "your nose rubbed in" all of your many LIES on EVERY thread that you INFEST.

free dixie,sw

[rustbucket]

Here's the next.

I have said that [Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown]. And considering some of the claims made around here - every structure burned, every farm field salted, womes stolen, horses raped - it isn't hard to do.

I guess whether damage on civilian items was excessive or overblown depends on your point of view. Every building wasn't burned, everything was not stolen or broken, etc., but the damage was quite extensive. You should have tried your statement out on my now deceased Georgia in-laws, whose parents and grandparents had seen Sherman's troops come through their farms.

Your statement in the following post started a long chain of posts about damage by Northern soldiers. [Link]

To: Wampus SC

There sure were a lot of pictures of the damage alleged to have been done by Sherman's troops. Who faked those pictures? And how? And when?

No, Sherman's army did a great deal of damage to industrial targets like factories, storehouses, railroad facilities, cotton gins, and the like. Items that supported the confederate war effort. What seems to have been badly overblown over the years are claims of damage to purely civilian properties.

387 posted on 01/20/2005 5:12:45 PM CST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

There followed a long series of posts describing documented damage by Federal troops in various places. Here's one focusing mainly on damage by Sherman's troops using the words of Federal commanders in the Official Records. I'll leave the bold red font off in the following two posts since much of the screen would be red.

To: Non-Sequitur

I'll expand on my quote from Jacob Hoke of Chambersburg, PA:

The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted - Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed.

With respect to your post of Sherman's orders, let's look at the actions of some of his soldiers in Georgia and the Carolinas. Union commanders weren't very effective at curbing looting, burning, etc.

Col. Acker, 9th Michigan Cavalry, Dec 19, 1864: "During that day we marched thirty-nine miles and took six prisoners. 20th, Companies B, C, and D, being detached for a scout to Griswold Station in charge of Captain Ladd, meeting the enemy, but keeping them at bay, burned the town, destroying the railroad, cutting the telegraph wire, burned a train of cars."

General Howard (Union) to General Sherman, Dec. 28, 1864: "I regret to say that quite a number of private dwellings which the inhabitants have left, have been destroyed by fire, but without official sanction; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver plate, &c."

Brevet Major General Williams (Union) to the Twentieth Corps, Robertsville, SC, Jan. 31, 1865: "The indiscriminate pillage of houses is disgraceful and demoralizing to this Army. The houses in this vicinity, of free negroes even, have been stripped of the necessary bedclothes and of family apparel. Brigade commanders will at once take measures to put a stop to these infamous practices. ... The brevet Major-general commanding the corps expects the hearty co-operation of all officers to put a stop to practices disgraceful to our arms and shocking to humanity."

General Sherman, Feb 1865: "Vacant houses being of no use to anybody, I care little about, as the owners have thought them of no use to themselves. I don't want them destroyed, but do not take much care to preserve them."

Gen. Howard (Union), Feb. 9, 1865, General Field Orders No. 9, issued near Binnaker's Bridge, SC: "The attention of the general commanding has been called by officers of our own army to the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of private property, burning of dwelling houses, plundering and pillaging the houses of the few poor people who have remained at home ..."

453 posted on 01/21/2005 2:16:13 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


To: Non-Sequitur

Thaddeus Stevens' iron mill was a legitimate military target as were any supplies in it. As far as the looting of mill worker homes, if it occurred as you say it did, it shouldn't have happened. I gather such looting was not widespread, unlike the looting and burning by Northern troops in the South that I've been documenting in these posts to you.

Here are some more instances of the behavior of Northern soldiers:

Major General Gillmore (Union) to General Hatch (Union), South Carolina, Mar. 1, 1865: "I hear from all sides very discouraging accounts of the state of affairs in Charleston; that no restraint is put upon the soldiers; that they pilfer and rob houses at pleasure; that large quantities of valuable furniture, pictures, statuary, mirrors, &c., have mysteriously disappeared ..."

General Howard (Union), Brightsville, SC, to General Logan (Union), Mar. 7, 1865: "General Blair reports that every house in his line of march to-day was pillaged, trunks broken open, jewelry, silver, &c., taken."

General Logan (Union) to General Howard (Union), January 7 - March 31, 1865 report: "In accordance with your Field Order, Numbers 29, I moved the corps from McPhersonville to Hickory Hill, breaking camp at 7 a.m. Before the rear of my column passed through McPhersonville I regret to inform you that the village was in flames. This was doubtlessly induced by the desertion of their houses by the entire population, for on our entrance into the village not a human being was to be found."

General Howard (Union), Field Orders No. 175, November 22, 1864: "The crime of robbery and arson have become frequent throughout this army."

Your turn.

468 posted on 01/21/2005 4:32:44 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You correctly pointed out to me once that the Charleston looting wasn't done by Sherman's troops. You were right. They were General Gilmore's troops (Union).

I recently made a copy from the old newspapers of an extensive report by Louisiana officials after the war documenting pillage, robbery, etc, by Federal troops there. It took many issues of the paper to cover it. Each issue usually had two to three 30-inch long columns of small print about this barbarity, some of it by officers. Even I was amazed. Much of it probably came about from the opportunity for mischief afforded army troops who were staying in enemy territory, but unfortunately it really appeared to be a systemic problem with the Union army.

[Maelstrom]

Tyrannies are often based upon good intentions.

Lincoln, much like today’s liberal Democrats, was perfectly willing to deeply engage in Tyranny...for your own good.

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess whether damage on civilian items was excessive or overblown depends on your point of view.

I was wondering how you were going to spin this one. Yes, it depends on your point of view. To the civilian who had his gin burned and his larder emptied then no doubt Sherman's men were the second coming of the Huns. And I am sure that you can come up with any number of individual accounts of damage. What will that prove? The complete truth no doubt lies somewhere between your claim of mass destruction and my belief that Sherman's men targeted primarily military, government, industrial, or transportation targets. So what do we do now?

[Maelstrom]

I guess whether damage on civilian items was excessive or overblown depends on your point of view. Every building wasn't burned, everything was not stolen or broken, etc.,

Not for lack of trying.

...and that was the point...

It was pure terrorism.

[Maelstrom]

What is the basis of your beliefs?

[Non-Sequitur]

Not for lack of trying...and that was the point...

As Southron myth would have us believe.

[Non-Sequitur]

Reading.

[archy]

Do you, as a reader, know where you are and what is about to happen?

Since it's an alternative history novel, I'd reckon that a nervous sentry is about to shoot his own commanding general.

Indeed, I've often wondered how the 1948 War of Independence might have worked out if the Confederacy had come in on the Israeli side....

[FYI, after considerable armtwisting by others, I'm in the process of working on an alternate history novel of my own, though set in the post WWII period.]

[archy]

Out of respect for the south, I capitalized Dixie.

'Preciate it! Thanks!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Indeed, I've often wondered how the 1948 War of Independence might have worked out if the Confederacy had come in on the Israeli side....

And then there's this..

[Maelstrom]

I’m unaware of any information gleaned from reading science fiction or specific information in Reading, PA.

Your opinion is unsupported by any source, fact, or reasoning up to this point.

[carton253]

I wonder who it was the responsible party that first twisted that arm?