| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:44 am |
|
101st Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Interesting question. My short answer is that the only way for the north to maintain the union would be for the north to occupy it. However, the cost of occupation would have been enormous and could have made more onerous by southern resistance to federal laws including payment of tariffs and other taxes. The civil war went on for 4 years and by the end the southern economy was devastated. The south would have been better off with ten years of patience and with its assets in tact. I have heard of situations where one half of a marriage was initially unwilling to divorce, but they were eventually worn-out and recognized inevitability of divorce.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:44 am |
|
102nd Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member 
|
Hank, Intersting points!! So, if there is no "voluntary" enterance to the Union, then the people of those areas mentioned were forced into the Union??....That, somehow, seems rather imperialistic.... Thanks!! Happy New Year!!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:46 am |
|
103rd Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member
|
Thanks, Mildman!!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:57 am |
|
104th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Hank C- My answer to your question about the rights of states beyond the original thirteen to secede would be that when new states are admitted, they have equal rights to those of the original states. Section 3: Admission of New States to Union; Property of United States - Const See: "Doctrine of the Equality of States." Reading from this source: "Since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State's act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union: "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."" (See Footnote 259). With regard to Louisiana, there is this: "With the admission of Louisiana in 1812, the principle of equality was extended to states created out of territory purchased from a foreign power." (See Footnote 260). While the Constitutution did not originally include the principle of Equality of States, there is this: "Again and again, however, in adjudicating the rights and duties of States admitted after 1789, the Supreme Court has referred to the condition of equality as if it were an inherent attribute of the Federal Union." (See Footnote 262). Last edited on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 11:48 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 01:14 am |
|
105th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Texas Defender. You say I misuse facts by misspelling sumter as sumpter and calling Texas vs. White, Texas vs. US. Meanwhile, you twist facts in a US Supreme Court case! Once and for all lets establish the facts. In the Texas Vs. White decision the court “ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White In this ruling the US Supreme Court looked back to 1861 to say that secession did not occur in 1861 because it was illegal. If the case came to the court in 1861, why would there have been a different decision? Unilateral secession was a stupid action, firing on ft. sumter compounded this mistake and lead to the unnecessary loss of 750,000 lives. One cannot possibly drink enough “lost cause” Kool-Aid to rationally argue that secession was a wise choice.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 02:03 am |
|
106th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
MildMan- Against my better judgement, I'll make one more answer to you here. I have not twisted any facts regarding the 1869 USSC decision Texas v. White. As I said previously, the 1869 ruling did not effect what remedies were available to the states in 1861, BEFORE the ruling took place. There was no Texas v. White in 1861. The ruling was made in 1869 and took effect in 1869. Until then, secession had not been declared unconstitutional by any court. As to your question about if the case came up in 1861 would the ruling have been different- that is an impossible question because the 1869 case judged the constitutionality of an action that Texas had already taken eight years earlier, before the war began. Now if you are asking would the prewar Taney Court in 1861 have ruled that secession was constitutional if a case involving that issue had reached them, I say that they might well have taken a different view from that of the 1869 Court on the question. (Not that such a ruling would have stopped Mr. Lincoln by any means). The 1869 Court included no less than FIVE Lincoln appointees, and was quite different from the Taney Court in the beginning of 1861. (That Court included seven of the nine justices that had decided the Dred Scott case in 1857). The 1869 Court could hardly have ruled that secession was legal without invalidating the main reason that the war was fought from the northern perspective. There was no way that that was ever going to happen. The deck was certainly stacked in 1869. After a military victory in a four year war and with a Court having a majority of justices appointed by Mr. Lincoln, a decision saying: "Lincoln was right" was finally made by the victors eight years after the fact. As for the firing on Ft. Sumter, I have previously said that it was the worst thing that the Confederates could have done. But I believe that there would have been a war regardless of what took place there. I strongly disagree with your apparent contention that there could ever have been peaceful secession in 1861 or any time soon after that. (Regardless of what a court might have decided.). As I have said before, there is only a war if both sides decide to fight one. Mr. Lincoln had already decided that there would be one unless the southern states abandoned secession. He meant to reassert Federal authority. Considering the hardened positions of both sides, I could maintain that it was the election of Mr. Lincoln that was the cause of the war. (To use your method in a previous posting: "Lincoln elected = secession= war," etc.) You can say that unilateral secession was: "Stupid," if you wish. I have not given an opinion that it was or wasn't. I have said only that the states had the RIGHT to do it. I have not argued that secession was a : "Wise" choice. I have said only that the states had the RIGHT to make it. Once again, you seem to be attributing a position to me that I have not taken. Last edited on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 11:25 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 02:33 pm |
|
107th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
Texas Defender wrote: <snipped > Excellent! Having said that, it’s difficult to imagine the United States going through the various processes for acquiring new territory such as, but not limited to, diplomacy, purchase, and war, in order to allow the states thus formed to later leave the union. Therefore, since new states acquired in such a manner have *all* the rights of the old states, the ‘right’ to secede must not be one of them...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 03:05 pm |
|
108th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Hank C- We agree that the source I provided was excellent. However, we come to opposite conclusions from it. My belief is that the Constitution as originally ratified allowed states to secede. Since the original states had that right, and since new states entering the Union were given the same rights as the original ones, then it follows that the new states also had the right to secede. (However difficult to imagine that might be for some people). Last edited on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 03:07 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 12:53 am |
|
109th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Texas Defender, Let me make one more try at a coherent discussion. I can’t argue with a belief that secession was legal in 1861, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I am willing to discuss facts, and the only facts in this discussion were brought up by you ( thank-you). I am referring to the Texas vs. White Supreme Court Decision in 1869. That decision was held that unilateral secession was illegal in the constitution, and that the sale of bonds in 1861 was not affected by secession because Texas had always remained a state in the union, it did not and could not unilaterally secede. Perhaps you are thinking that since the decision was in 1869 there was no law against secession in 1861. That is wrong. The Supreme Court interprets existing law; it does not create entirely new laws. Even if one believes an act is lawful, it may not be. For example, it’s always a good idea to ask before one trespasses. If one thought that secession might be illegal, it is better to ask before acting; secession in particular had been debated for many years. Do you recall that New England contemplated secession in 1815 as part of the “Hartford Convention"? Ironically NE perceived that they were being dominated by southern interests! The South Carolina secession document makes a long argument for for the legality of secession. Why? It needed to make persuasive argument in defense of the legaility of its action - because its legality was not universally accepted. Making an argument, however, does not mean the argument correct. Here is a current or recent example: the individual mandate of the new healthcare law, the requirement that everyone carry Insurance. I, and many others believed emphatically that this was illegal under the constitution. Many states decided to sue to force the Supreme Court to rule, and the SC found the law/mandate valid, but in making this finding they didn’t create a new law. Here is a stretch, but imagine this. Suppose individual states decided not to sue, but unilaterally not to enforce the health care mandate/law, then fired at federal agencies in their states that where charged with enforcing it? This more or less is what southern states did. My reading of the Texas vs White case is that "unilateral" secession ( note the quotations) was found to be unconstitutional. There was no decision on whether secession could be negotiated between willing parties in a political process. That has always been my point, cooler heads and smarter politicians would have chosen negotiation over war. You also say that Lincon’s election, and his opposition to secession was the cause of the war. Please remember that the successful southern effort to split the democratic party lead to the election of a candidate (Lincoln) with only 39.8% of the popular vote. I agree that Lincoln was above all for preservation of the Union. And I agree that Lincoln took every action, legal or no, to prevent disunion. However, In 1861 Lincoln was an unproven president, who many were skeptical of, and whose presidency was opposed by 60.1% of voters! The south, not voters or congress, gave him the “war powers” he used so skillfully, by starting the war! At least we agree that Sumter was a bad political move. It would have been far better for the south to let an inept Lincoln stumble into attempting to occupy the south. You are correct that war may have been inevitable - but a guerrilla war would be one the south could have won. I have been worn out with this discussion, and I accept part of the blame for its toxicity. So I am done, unless you have specific “facts” that you invite me to comment on. Perhaps we can conduct our next discussion with more courtesy. I am willing to try if you are. Your obedient servant, Last edited on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 01:32 am by MildMan |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 01:51 am |
|
110th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
MildMan- The best that I can do in regard to having a: "Coherent discussion" at this point is to go over some of the areas that we are at least somewhat in agreement about. The most obvious is certainly the attack on Ft. Sumter. It was a total disaster for the Confederates because it was used by Mr. Lincoln to arouse the northern population and justify raising an army to invade the southern states. It was a tragedy even more so because it was totally unnecessary. Major Anderson had kindly informed the Confederates that he would have to abandon the fort after 15 April due to a lack of provisions. There was no military reason not to wait a few more days and allow him to do so. We apparently agree that it was at least likely that the war was inevitable regardless of what happened at Ft. Sumter. If the Confederates had been smarter, it would have made it more difficult for Mr. Lincoln to be able to raise an army, and it would have taken him longer to do so. Something other than the attack on Ft. Sumter would have had to be used to provide the spark. We apparently agree that Mr. Lincoln's mission as he saw it was to preserve the Union, regardless of what measures, legal or illegal, were necessary. We agree that Mr. Lincoln was a master politician who skillfully used every opportunity provided to him to arouse public sentiments, and to get others to do his bidding. We agree that the democrats handed Mr. Lincoln the election because they split their party. It would have served them better to unite behind Mr. Douglas and try to deal with their differences after the election. But practicality is not often a virtue common in political partisans, whether then or now. As for the current political scene, we totally agree that the insurance mandate of the new healthcare law should have been declared unconstitutional. Since there is now a precedent declaring that the Federal Government has the authority to require everyone to buy a specific product, it could, in theory at least, mandate that everyone purchase a green beanie with a propeller on top. Last edited on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 02:35 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 02:55 am |
|
111th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
Ok come on at least make it a Stetson. All kidding aside I think you are both right. Prior to the 1960's we were under constitution law where the Supreme Court had to rule based on the Constitution or its Amendments. Post 1960's however we are now under law based on the courts decisions. The example given to me was that if the court was liberal then the enforcement was liberal and visa-versa. I'm sure the Texas Defender could explain this better but the point is that the reason the Health law passed was not because it was based on the Constitution but based on what the courts saw a correct for today. As to succession, it was a topic discussed by the states almost from the time the Constitution was signed so what the south did was in fact force the courts to make it clear what could and couldn't be tolerated. Too bad so many people had to die and so much hate had to be created to define it. In California with the same sex marriage fight, the Court ruled that because it was allowed for a short period of time, even the will of the people didn’t matter because we are now denying them rights they were granted. That is a civil decision not a Constitutional one. Now let’s not start another discussion here, I just used it as an example but you have a valid point. Now that the health care bill had been passed and forced on the public, the government can now force any product on the public and cite it as the turning point that granted them the authority.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 03:28 am |
|
112th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
One source for the above post: http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-interpretation Read carefully to the Supreme Court ruling and the rational behind them. TAD99
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 09:52 am |
|
113th Post |
|
BHR62 Member 
|
I really don't know what to think as far as the Constitutionality of secession. The original framers didn't want people bailing out because they wouldn't survive without each other. But it isn't really addressed either in the Constitution (I've read it but not a guru on it). The North perspective was this. Lincoln didn't want to proside over the disintegration of the American Republic. We were a little over 80 yrs old when war came. We had just started to become a prosperous nation that was in the beginning stages of challenging the European Monarchies. We had a bright future ahead of us IF we stayed together. The Northern soldiers that joined in 1861 and 1862 did it for love of the Republic. Their motivation was purely for the preservation of the Union above all else. Slavery was an after thought far down the list of reasons for enlisting. Republics didn't normally last that long in history. A lot of norherners wondered if this was the end of the American Republic when the south broke off. I know the CSA was heavily based on the USA but we both would have been weaker. So with the British all powerful in the world we would both be at their mercy.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 10:34 am |
|
114th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
BHR62- One reason that many northerners opposed secession is that they regarded the breakup of the United States of America as a disaster for all mankind. They viewed the US as a unique outpost in the world that granted political liberty and economic opportunity to its citizens. This was seen as a sharp contrast to other nations where tyranny generally ruled. If the US could not prosper, they believed, it would mean that men were not capable of governing themselves in a just manner. As they saw it, preserving the US meant the preservation of democratic government and democratic ideals. They could not bear the thought that: "American Civilization" would be allowed to: "Fail." To them, a breakup of the country would amount to failure. Many were willing to fight to prevent it. Last edited on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 10:39 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 01:40 pm |
|
115th Post |
|
BHR62 Member
|
TD...I agree. That was sort of what I was trying to say in some form or fashion....you just said it clearly and fuller a lot better than I did 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 07:53 pm |
|
116th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
MildMan wrote: Interesting question. But the southern political power brokers have no time. the border slave states are rapidly becoming less so. Immigration and manumission are rapidly decreasing the number of slave-holders in the upper south. In Maryland, Missouri and Arkansas, less than 20% of families own slaves. Historically, as states reach 10%, slave-holder political clout wanes and abolition follows. The lower south has to do something drastic and soon…and it does…
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2013 12:42 am |
|
117th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Texas Defender, Well we do agree on many things! Nice message, though I think an polite debate is OK too.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2013 12:57 am |
|
118th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Hank C. Slavery, being a very bad institution, was on an inevitable road to extinction. The US stood alone, or nearly alone among civilized nations in allowing it. But, if I were a slave owner and all my wealth was in slaves I probably would be in denial of the inevitable extinction of slavery and I be working to perpetuate it. So I agree with you, I as a slave owner would be impatient and unwilling to wait 10 years to announce secession and outlast northern efforts to prevent it. However, during those 10 years slavery would have continued to exist- untouched. It was the “military necessity” of freeing slaves that hastened the end of slavery. No war = no 13th amendment. This is another reason that firing on ft sumter and starting a war backfired on the south.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2013 12:57 am |
|
119th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
BHR62 Interesting. The framers of the constitution also could see the problems in Europe, where many nations in close proximity were in constant conflict. This also factored into an appreciation of a united states and a fear of the impact of disunion – inevitable war and conflict. Last edited on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 01:04 am by MildMan |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 08:19 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Top |
