Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Confederacy and States Rights - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 08:07 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
VictorClark
Member
 

Joined: Thu Sep 17th, 2009
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 8
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Unionblue wrote:

Beware, the beast is loose upon your forum.




 

I have to ask whether you joined this board to insult people.



 Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

VictorClark wrote:

 

I have to ask whether you joined this board to insult people.


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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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.


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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Much appreciated.



 Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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.

Again, the Constitution is not a "For Dummies" book

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Unionblue wrote: 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


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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

19bama46 wrote: Unionblue wrote: 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


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..
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. 

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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 08:09 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4583 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 33 queries executed.