| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > The Confederacy and States Rights |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > The Confederacy and States Rights |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|||||||||||||
| The Confederacy and States Rights | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 08:07 am |
|
21st Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
To our other forum members, When Jefferson Davis uttered the phrase, "If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstond: Died of a theory," are we to believe he meant anything else other than the defeat of the Confederacy could be laid at the alter of "States Rights?" That each State, petty in claiming its 'rights' as a Sovereign State, did not help in bringing down the Confederacy? A good source supporting Davis's view would be the book, Dixie Betrayed: How The South Really Lost The Civil War, by David J. Eicher. In his book, Eicher describes much of the political conspiracy, discord, and dysfunction in Richmond that took place during the war, along with the fights with state governors, the Confederate House and Senate, and between Davis and his own vice-president and secretary of state. The author claims that Secession did not end with the breakaway of the Southern States into the Confederacy, but that it continued with some governors wanting to set their states up as separate nations, which undermined the efforts to have a unified war effort. Makes for a good read. Sincerely, Unionblue Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 08:47 am by Unionblue ____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 01:48 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
UnionBlue, aka [deleted by admin], is a notorious Civil War cyber-bully who specializes in suppressing the opinions of those he doesn't agree with-- and who prove him wrong-- through personal attacks, trolling, insults, general rudeness and condescension, invasions of privacy and cyber-stalking. He is also an armchair-attorney who makes glaring basic mistakes in reading hand-picked legal cases, using them to "strain out gnats and swallow camels--" while ignoring all other evidence-- in order to "prove" what glaringly isn't so... and to talk down to recognized legal scholars who disagree with him. Naturally, he goes on the "ignore" list with other impossible rhetoriticians.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 02:12 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
TW - if your wish is to flame other members, please go to a board that tolerates it. This one doesn't. It's not up to you to call anyone out
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 05:49 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
Why the double-standard, allowing cyber-bullies and stalkers to harass your members without a word? Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 06:04 pm by ThomasWashington |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
You obviously mistaken this for a debate. It is not. It was a warning. I don't answer your questions, but if I did I'd say I saw nobody harrassing and rude but you. I really don't care how arrogant it may sound, but the fact is you're in my house. Follow the rules or leave. Simple as that.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:56 am |
|
26th Post |
|
VictorClark Member
|
Unionblue wrote:
I have to ask whether you joined this board to insult people.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:57 am |
|
27th Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
Back to the original premise of this thread. Were there problems within the Confederacy with the States zealously defending the concept of State's Rights at the expense of the Confederate central government? To the point it actually did harm to the overall goal of achieving Confederate independence? We have seen one example of North Carolina refusing to send troops outside of the state to support the defense of the whole Confederacy, and I am certain that Gov. Joe Brown of Georgia also butted heads with Davis over the issue of the Confederate draft and use of Georgia's troops. Anyone aware of any other examples? Sincerely, Unionblue
____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:58 am |
|
28th Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
VictorClark wrote:
No. Unionblue Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:58 am by Unionblue ____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 04:11 am |
|
29th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
Folks, Seems I missed a post by UnionBlue (last post on 1st page of this thread) that violated the same rules that TW got reprimanded for. I apologize for the oversight. Let's be clear - I don't intend to play babysitter. It's obvious you folks have a personal issue with each other from other boards. Take it back there. I'm not going to put up with it. I'd rather this board be dead with an occasional worthy comment than it be busy with a slew of petty flames. End it now or all will be put out.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 05:27 am |
|
30th Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
Taken from an article at the following website: Too Small for a Republic, Too Large for a Lunatic Asylum. http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society/csa_viable4.htm States Rights "Mary Lyde Williams gave the Presentation Address at the unveiling of the North Carolina Memorial at Gettysburg on July 3, 1929. She intended to make a great compliment when she began with the words, "They wrote a constitution in which each state should be free." Ironically it was none other than Zebulon Vance, the governor of North Carolina who was notoriously hostile to the national government. Opposition to conscription in North Carolina was intense and disastrous for recruiting. Vance's faith in states' rights drove him to stubbornly oppose the Davis administration. And he was not alone. Governors and state legislatures refused to give the national government the soldiers and money it needed because they feared encroachment on the rights of the states. Georgia's governor Joe Brown warned of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy States rights and individual liberty. Brown declared, "Almost every act of usurpation of power, or of bad faith, has been conceived, brought forth and nurtured in secret session." Giving the Confederate government power to draft soldiers was the "essence of military despotism." In 1863 Governor Pendleton Murrah withheld Texas troops claiming they were needed for self-defense of the state and refused to send them East to defend the nation. Vice President Stephens warned that to allow Davis to make "arbitrary arrests and to draft state officials conferred on him more power than the English Parliament had ever bestowed on the king. History provided the dangers of such unchecked authority." Stephens thought that Southerners should never view liberty as "subordinate to independence" because the cry of "independence first and liberty second" was a "fatal delusion." Independence was not evidently the primary goal for Stephens. While the Confederate Constitution did not specifically include a provision allowing states to secede; the Preamble spoke of each state "acting in its sovereign and independent character." But it also declared the formation of a "permanent federal government." The Constitution prohibited the use of revenues collected in one state for funding internal improvements in another state. State legislatures were given the power to impeach officials of the Confederate government in some cases. It is in such contradictory grounds that the seeds of inevitable defeat were sown." Sincerely, Unionblue
____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 05:29 am |
|
31st Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
javal1 wrote: Folks, javal1, Understood and I will comply while on this forum with the rules you have established here. Sincerely, Unionblue
____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 05:39 am |
|
32nd Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
Much appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:33 pm |
|
33rd Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
javal1 wrote: Folks, Seems I missed a post by UnionBlue (last post on 1st page of this thread) that violated the same rules that TW got reprimanded for. I apologize for the oversight. Let's be clear - I don't intend to play babysitter. It's obvious you folks have a personal issue with each other from other boards. Take it back there. I'm not going to put up with it. I'd rather this board be dead with an occasional worthy comment than it be busy with a slew of petty flames. End it now or all will be put out. Ok. I apologize for having drawn any cyber-bully onto your board. Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 06:38 pm by ThomasWashington |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 04:32 pm |
|
34th Post |
|
ole Member 
|
And so it goes. Disagree, get on the ignore list. That does tend to limit input from those who disagree, and allows ranting on without the inconvenience of evidentiary rebuttal.Major misunderstanding of actual history invented to demonstrate your own imagined superiority in understanding. The Framers went to great pains to reduce their own lofty language to that of the people. So far as misinterpretation goes, I've never heard anyone claim that the Constitution places requirements on and gives authority to the president-elect. Revealing. Ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 08:48 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Unionblue Member
|
Ole, I just wanted to be sure so I reread my copy of the Constitution and by golly, you're right. Don't see anywhere about anything the President-elect is supposed to do before he is sworn into office as President. Frankly, the man who is currently holding the office before the President-elect is sworn in, I believe he is called THE President, might take a bit of offense at being told to move out early. But that's me and my copy of the Constitution. Anyone aware of any updates or changes in recent years that give the President-elect presidential powers before THE President leaves office at the end of HIS term? Any information would be appreciated. Sincerely, Unionblue
____________________ Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
19bama46 Member
|
Unionblue wrote: Ole, Well, I am not sure.... the current occupant did have an :Office of the President Elect"... presumably, they did something! As to the authority by which he did it.....heaven knows...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 09:53 pm |
|
37th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
19bama46 wrote: Unionblue wrote:There's a difference between preparing to take office and having any actual authority. Obama was more visible in preparing as President-elect than any others I can remember in my lifetime, though. The President-Elect gets a security detail, is included in the intelligence briefings, etc., and probably any other liberties that the sitting president feels inclined to grant his/her successor.Ole, As Obama often pointed out, though, there's only one president. The President-Elect now, and then, has zero executive authority until sworn in. Otherwise you got two presidents! I would imagine Lincoln felt similarly. There wasn't much he could do other than plan or give some speeches and get his administration ready to go. I guess he COULD have sent a letter to Congress telling them he was going to call an emergency session AFTER he was sworn in and had the power to do so, just as a heads up. Wasn't this in the Declaration of Independence thread, though. You're right Ole, we've all gotten confused. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
38th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
Let's leave modern politics out of it. The question at hand is whether Lincoln had this authority under the Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 10:46 pm |
|
39th Post |
|
ole Member
|
I guess he COULD have sent a letter to Congress telling them he was going to call an emergency session AFTER he was sworn in and had the power to do so, just as a heads up. I thought of that as well, barrydancer. Or he could have announced it at the inauguration. How would that have looked? "Uh, guys. I want you to stay because I intend to start a war." And there was a complication. The terms of many in the 36th Congress ended on March 4th. Would he have had a quorum in either branch on the 5th? Could he extend their terms? Ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 01:31 am |
|
40th Post |
|
19bama46 Member
|
javal1 wrote: Let's leave modern politics out of it. The question at hand is whether Lincoln had this authority under the Constitution. I forgot...we can't do dat no mo
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 02:47 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > The Confederacy and States Rights | Top |
