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


Jefferson Davis - Jefferson Davis - The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 02:29 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

Heresy? No. Simply nonsense.

ole



 Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2007 03:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
J
Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 11th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 8
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

CleburneFan wrote: J wrote: The more I read about Lincoln, the more I think he should have been canonized a saint. 

Some in the South feel the same way about Robert E. Lee.:D


I've often wondered why Stonewall Jackson isn't more prominent in Southerners' hearts than Lee is.  I know that he sometimes looked silly shabbily dressed sucking on a lemon holding one arm in the air, but his exploits in the Shenandoah Valley were as impressive if not more impressive than Napoleon's Italian campaign.  Also, Jackson gave his life to the cause and was done in by friendly fire.

R. E. Lee was great but a lot of his greatest victories were at least partly due to Jackson.  Jackson was to Magic as Lee was to Riley.

I know I'm hijacking this thread but it's my thread and it's been more or less hijacked already.

:D

Jae

Last edited on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 03:10 pm by J



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 01:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

but it was Lincoln that created the blueprint for all who followed him
If subsequent presidents followed that blueprint, I'd tend to agree with you. But they didn't--until TR started the ball rolling.

ole



 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 02:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm not a student of political science and my interest in the Civil War is primarily strategy and tactics, so I'm taking a stab in the dark here. But I would guess that Lincoln was moved to take the measures that he did because of the very trauma of a civil war itself, which was an unprecedented event in the nation's history to that point. Maybe it required unprecedented actions to win it.



 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 02:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama:

2. The imprisonment of the Maryland legislature...where is there constitutional grounds for that

Where is there historical grounds for this assertion?

Not trying to jump into the middle of this but quite regularly I see many people besides yourself  throw this statement out as fact and have never seen a reference for it. Yes, members of the legislature were arrested but not the whole body.  Anyway carry on with the interesting debate.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 02:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

either we have a constitution that is followed or we don't

Interesting point, but by seceding don't the southern states reject the constitution and its "protections" or do they get the best of both worlds protection of the constitution and benefits of being their own nation? 

On the other side of the coin, I am always amused that the southern states had to be readmitted to the Union when the whole damn war was fought on the principle that they could not leave?



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 03:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If it was a right everyone had and was expected to be exercised at some point in our history, the founding fathers sure did a poor job of planning for it and the orderly transfer of power, didn't they?



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 03:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama:

Not that simple, the Federal government was set up for international relations and defense so there has/had to have been an orderly process to reckon with those powers of the Federals.  For example who does Ft. Sumter really belong to the Federals who used revenue from all the states to build it or South Carolina?  If the Federal Government signs treaties with foreign nations promising so many pounds of cotton what recourse does the Federal government have when all the cotton states leave at once?  Is South Carolina obligated to help the US honor its commitments?  What if it can sell cotton for 2X to France versus Britain (where X= the treaty price).  How can the Federal Government perform its duties when all of a sudden members can leave with no obligation?

If seccession was a recognized right, than the FF screwed up royally IMO and did not properly address the weaknesses in the Constitution relative to that event.  Since they did such a good job overall this weakness is really glaring.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 04:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   If the position of the US Government was that the eleven southern states never really left the Union, then it does seem to be a contradiction that they would have to be re-admitted to it. But this is only one example of the contradictions of the federal position.

  Another example is the declaration of a blockade on the southern states that was declared by Mr. Lincoln on April 19th, 1861.

 

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln

  A blockade traditionally was declared by one nation on another nation. But the federal position was that the southern states were not a nation, so how could a blockade be declared upon them in the traditional sense?

  Another example would be postwar U.S. Supreme Court decisions specifically denying states the right of secession. If they didn't have the right before the Civil War, why do they need to be denied it afterwards?

  The Founding Fathers were geniuses, but they could not make a perfect Constitution. In our system, it takes two branches of the federal government to check the excesses of the third. It can be maintained with some justification that Mr. Lincoln ignored the Constitution when it suited him to do so. He wasn't the first president to do so. (For example, President Jackson chose to ignore a Supreme Court decision regarding the Cherokees).

  The Judicial branch of the government tried to check the Executive in the Merryman case and others. It could not do so without the cooperation of the Legislative branch. (In fact, Mr. Lincoln was prepared to arrest the Chief Justice. ) The Congress did not formally suspend habeus corpus until 1863.

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

  The source referenced above also points out that while the U.S. government would not allow the secession of the Southern states, it happily encouraged the same thing in other countries throughout its history.

  It was the states that established the federal government, and not the other way around. Since the interests of the various states did not always coincide, it was natural to expect that friction could arise between them. The ultimate contradiction is that the Founding Fathers recognized their right to leave the British Empire when its policies were harmful to it. Yet the government that they established denied the same right to leave to the southern states, even though its Constitution did not forbid it.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 05:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama:

The fallacy in your argument (IMO) is that of historical accuracy. I do not believe the feds engaged in trade agreements during that time.

Really?!  May I recommend you look into China and the reosolution of the First Opium War as just one example of a trade treaty that comes to my mind immediatley, that occurred  before the CW?



 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 05:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD:

Hard to argue with much of that so the BL is it came down to the Federal Govt letting go or the South earning it in blood, neither of which happened and the issue has forever been settled. That is unless someone else wants to try again and then the same ultimate criteria will prevail again, i.e. letting go or earning it in blood.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 05:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David-

   I agree with what you said about the BL, especially when it comes to all of the states except for one.

  As a Texan, did you ever consider the unique position of Texas? Since the government position seems to have been that Texas never actually left the Union, what if the Texas Supreme Court decided to make mischief by declaring that the 1845 Treaty between the US and the Republic of Texas was still valid? That would allow Texas to divide itself into five states and thus have ten US senators.

  I can just imagine the bellowing that would come from certain senators in the northeastern portion of the country. It will never happen, but at least I can find it amusing to ponder the resulting fallout.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Current time is 09:54 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4458 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 36 queries executed.