NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is started because the topic was hijacking another thread.

So back to the discussion of the Rebs and the Consitution! ;)

Well we are civil war reanactors and would certaintly entertain you an a disscussion about the civil war.

Could you please point newcomers to said thread to catch up?

This is not meant as a put-down, Polish Warriors. But I don't understand Civil War Reenactment. I don't understand people studying these battles and re-planning them... and dressing up and re-fighting them.

Was it just a really groovy war for you? Or do reenactors think they can do it better?

SOmetimes I think it'd be better if they used live ammunition in the reenactments. :p

That's ok Neo-Reb. I must admit I had to review the 9th and the 10th. Especially their history and intent. I visted a legal firm that deals with Consititutional law.....

It's good to see that you did your homework. I'm glad to hear that. :)



I read your article but I think it was written by another Neo-Reb vs a "neutral" evaluation.

I don't believe the source is written by a Neo-Confederate, though, I might be mistaken.....


Particular to me were the Madison and Jefferson remarks which don't really give their true intent.

And which comments would those be, per se?


Madison was the main force for Manifest Destiny. Why would be so supportive of sucession[sic]?

Because Madison realized he couldn't infringe on the states' Constitutional right to secede. The states joined the nation, retaining their individual soveirgnty (how on earth do you spell that?!), and could withdraw from the pact at anytime.....


If you remember Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery when writing the Declaration. He abandoned the effort when the slave states threatened to pull out if they tried to end it. If he belived so much in states rights over the union.....

As a side-note, it's ironic how Jefferson pushed for banning slavery, yet he held slaves of his own....


The 9th and 10th amendments were not designed for states to sucede from the union. Madison attempted to cover things that he could not forsee. Now having said that States leaving was probably not his intenent nor interest.

No, there were not designed with the exact purpose to give legality to secession. However, they cover the Constitutional right to secede for each and every state. The 9th and 10th Amendments retain the unenumerated rights to the states, secession being among those rights. Since secession is neither granted nor prohibited by the constitution, the states (the people) reserve the right to secede (an unenumerated right).


So it was more of a technicality then a "flagerant" violation of the Consititution.

Well, the 'full-blown' flagrent violations of the Constitution stem from Caeser Lincoln's suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus (see Article I, Section XI), which led to the unlawful arrests of over 14,000 Americans and the deportation of US Senator, Clement Vallendigham.....


Well, you can play morality arguments and play "The South good" "The North Bad" all you want. The 9th and 10th are interpretive cases.

A: Neither side can fit to the 'good' or 'bad' titles. They both did aweful things before and during the war. Slavery, for example, is an evil institution of all evil institutions. However, I will tell you right up front, I'm a secessionist sympathizer. I'm a Confederate sympathizer. Not for slavery -- I'll never condone holding another human in bondage -- but for their ideals of freedom, liberty, and the general standing up to the tyrant attitude. They fought for their homes, their countrymen, their ideals, and their lives. Many could say that Dixie fought an unwinnable war, which might be true (however, if Thomas Jonathon Jackson hadn't been killed at night during Chancellorsville, we may very well have two separate nations to this day).



If the framers thought it was important, they would have set an amendment for leaving the union.

They did -- the 9th and 10th Amendments allow the states to retain the unenumerable right to secede from the nation.....


Also, the rebs were didn't follow the arguments you make. There was a town(or was it a county) in Texas that wanted to remain in the Union. The Rebs forcefully put it down and Hung a bunch of the "conspriators". At the moment I can't give you the name as I just bought a house and my library is still in boxes.

I know that not all of Dixie wished to secede. Look at West Virginia, it seceded. Why is it that no one considers that 'illegal' and 'immoral'?


As to the Star of West? What's your point? Lincoln wanted an incident to incite the masses and the South played into his hands.

Lincoln wasn't even President when the Star of the West incident occured.....


Hmmm you argue the Consititution and seem to ignore that if you pull out it no longer applies.

Because it does not. Secession is a retained right of each and every state, promised by the Constitution. But once that state has seceded, they're no long subject to the authority of the United States or the Constitution. If you voluntarily change your religion, you're allowed to, and you no longer have to follow the rules/regulations that your prior Bible/Torah/Koran/whatever used to have you follow. Similarly, if you move from the US to Canada and become a Canadian citizen, you're no longer subject to US laws.....


Basically the South became a free territory. Who formally recognised the "new country"

Since when does an area need to have recognition to be considered a nation? Moreover, the CSA did have recognition in terms of the British building their ships and the French/Dutch supplying them with arms/gun powder.....


Well you also make it sound like it was a planned right. It was an interpretation.

Planned right by whom? I'm not understanding what you're getting at with that one. I've asked, repeatedly now, for anyone to find me where the Constitution mentions that secession is illegal...


The South had no chance to win. They played into "Ceasar Lincolns" hands and gave him the rallying cry he needed.

Again, see a few points above about Thomas Johnathon Jackson. If T.J. Jackson had not been accidentally shot by his own men the night of the Chancellorsville battle, he could very well have led the CSA to victory, or at least to have captured Washington and forced a settlement....but that's hypothetical, 'neways.....


Also, the South brought Reconstruction on themselves. Killing Lincoln allowed it to happen. Lincoln would not allowed for it as he once said you can't heal wounds if you treat people like second class citizens.

This is true. While J. W. Booth thought he was doing his homeland a great service by assassinating Tyrant Lincoln, it only served to bring about twenty years of Deconstruction and humiliation to the Southern people.....and years of Executive corruption....


Finally, I am glad the South was crushed. Think about it. With their views of the races, they probably would have sided with the Nazi's in WWII.

While I do not condone the South's view of slavery or of the Negro people, I will say this: if the Northern bigots had their way, slaves would not have counted as human beings. Read up on the 3/5 Compromise, if you don't know what I'm talking about. Secondly, had the war not happened, or had the CSA won, slavery would have died off in the South by the late 1870's/early 1880's, because the Industrial Revolution would have caught on and eliminated the need for forced labor....


Oh and your Forest comment. Democrat? If you are trying to slam the current party, well you have to review the history. The Republicans of today are more like the Democrats back then. The big change came when Truman chased out the Dixicrats.

No, it wasn't intended as a shot at the current party, it was more of an inside joke, rather.....


Well I guess it's time for the second civil war.

It will happen. I don't know when, but it will happen. Whether it is North versus South (again), East versus West, Liberals versus Conservatives (which will probably be what will cause it) -- it will happen again....

This is not meant as a put-down, Polish Warriors. But I don't understand Civil War Reenactment. I don't understand people studying these battles and re-planning them... and dressing up and re-fighting them.

Was it just a really groovy war for you? Or do reenactors think they can do it better?

SOmetimes I think it'd be better if they used live ammunition in the reenactments. :p

Not meant as a put-down or a smart-ass reply, but why do we role-play on NationStates? Is managing a nation really 'groovy' for all of us? Or do we think that we can do better than our real-life counterparts?

Sometimes, I wish I was incharge of the government...err....not sometimes...all the time.... :p

Im sorry but yall brought up the civil war so I had to educate you. Slavery didn't cause the civil war. States rights did. Why did states rights bother Abe so much? Because without the South the North would crumble. Why would the North crumble? Because at the time they didnt have income taxes and the government was funded by taxes on exports and guess what all of the US's exports were. Cotton. Cotton was shipped from the South to textile countries like England and the money was shipped up north to fund uncle sam. Abe Lincoln was worried because the South was rakin in the money and the North was makin jack shit, but he couldnt just say it was a war about money because look now with the war in iraq, it hasnt even been officially stated but everyones accusin bush. So imagine if he came out and said we dont give a damn bout thouse slaves but we do want the money they rake in. So thats the civil war in a nut shell, Im not pro slavery or anything but i do think yanks can kiss my ass.

Ok this topic is getting rather large for a simple post so lets break it down:

Starting with the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The United States was a series of colonies under the British unitary system; upon the execution of the Revolution, the United States became a confederation under the Articles of Confederation; and when that system proved unsuccessful, it was transformed into a federal system by the Constitution.

Federal systems are chosen for a number of reasons. The size of the nation might be one concern; the diversity of the political subdivisions might be another. The United States combines a bit of both: the size of the continental United States made a unitary system unwieldy, and the diverse interests of the states made confederation impossible. Nations like Switzerland have a population split by language, and despite its small size, found federalism to be a better choice than the others. China, being an extremely large and extremely diverse nation, finds the unitary system more suited to its political ideology. However, communism does not require a unitary system: the former USSR was a federation, at least in its internal structure.

Federalism in the United States has evolved quite a bit since it was first implemented in 1787. In that time, two major kinds of federalism have dominated political theory.

The first, dual federalism, holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted very narrowly, such as the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such. In this case, there is a very large group of powers belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.

The second, cooperative federalism, asserts that the national government is supreme over the states, and the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause have entirely different meaning. A good illustration of the wide interpretation of these parts of the Constitution is exemplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause's other common name: the Elastic Clause.

Dual federalism is not completely dead, but for the most part, the United States' branches of government operate under the presumption of a cooperative federalism. The shift from dual to cooperative was a slow one, but it was steady.

One of the earliest examples of a shift was in the Supreme Court's Gibbons v. Ogden decision, which ruled in 1824 that Congress's right to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause could be "exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than those prescribed in the constitution..." The Court did not expand the powers of the national government much over the next century.

Regardless of the kind of federalism current the Constitution does provide some very specific powers to both the states and the federal government. These powers are traditionally divided into three categories.

Reserved powers are those that have been granted specifically to the states or are of a traditionally state scope. These consist mostly of police powers, such as providing fire and police protection, establishment of health regulations, licensing, and education.

Granted powers, also known as express, enumerated, implied, delegated, and inherent powers, are those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8, such as the power to coin money, to raise an army and navy, to provide for patent and copyright protections, to establish a post office, and to make treaties and war with other nations. An express, delegated, or enumerated power is one specifically listed; an implied or inherent power is one that exists to carry out an express or enumerated power. For example, Congress can raise an army; this implies the ability to specify regulations concerning who can join the army.

Concurrent powers are those held to some extent by both the federal and state governments. Both, for example, have taxation power, the ability to construct and maintain roads, and other spending for the general welfare.

Many things are denied of both or either levels of government. States, for example, have no authority to coin money or wage war. Neither may pass a bill of attainder or any ex post facto law. Much of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to both states and the federal government, while all of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to the federal government. Note that the Bill of Rights originally had no effect of restriction on the states, but judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause has incorporated much of the upholding of civil rights to the states.

So it would appear that we have an interpreted right to withdraw from the union. Well at the time that is.....

Star of the West?

Ok I have to admit I don't know where my head was at with that one.

Looking back at the previous post. I can't even fathom what I could have mistaken it with some else....

Anyways, the fact that Anderson moved over to Fort Sumter seems to outweigh the fact it was sent. Damage was already done.

Just to butt in: In Texas v. White, the USSC ruled that no state has the right to leave the United States under any circumstances. The union is indissoluble by any government, person, or state.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/TT/jrt1.html

The only 'state's right' involved was that of slavery. To live free is not something that a state or government can take away, making that point moot.

Old Stonewall.....

His abilities are without question.

However, some things to consider

1) He never faced a competant commander.
2) He inflicted heavy losses and yet the Union Returned with larger armies
3) His causualty rates. The South could not replace the men fast enough.
4) The way he pushed his troops(ie: the foot calvery) also spread out his troops all over the place. Washington would not have been quickly taken as you imply.

What ifs are fun.

Im sorry but yall brought up the civil war so I had to educate you. Slavery didn't cause the civil war. States rights did. Why did states rights bother Abe so much? Because without the South the North would crumble. Why would the North crumble? Because at the time they didnt have income taxes and the government was funded by taxes on exports and guess what all of the US's exports were. Cotton. Cotton was shipped from the South to textile countries like England and the money was shipped up north to fund uncle sam. Abe Lincoln was worried because the South was rakin in the money and the North was makin jack shit, but he couldnt just say it was a war about money because look now with the war in iraq, it hasnt even been officially stated but everyones accusin bush. So imagine if he came out and said we dont give a damn bout thouse slaves but we do want the money they rake in. So thats the civil war in a nut shell, Im not pro slavery or anything but i do think yanks can kiss my ass.

Otay. If the North was soooo poor as you suggest, then how did the fund the war? The manpower, the equipment, the navy?

As to the Slave question. Lincoln himself said that was never the main issue. Maintaining the Union....

If slavery was that important, then why did he wait to free them?

Otay. If the North was soooo poor as you suggest, then how did the fund the war? The manpower, the equipment, the navy?

As to the Slave question. Lincoln himself said that was never the main issue. Maintaining the Union....

If slavery was that important, then why did he wait to free them?

Because he couldn't officially free them with out the congress, and before the war the division of the country made that impossible.

Just to butt in: In Texas v. White, the USSC ruled that no state has the right to leave the United States under any circumstances. The union is indissoluble by any government, person, or state.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/TT/jrt1.html

The only 'state's right' involved was that of slavery. To live free is not something that a state or government can take away, making that point moot.

That is true. But the argument at hand is if the Southern States Constitutional rights were violated by the war.

The case in question was after the war.

Because he couldn't officially free them with out the congress, and before the war the division of the country made that impossible.


Yes, he personally wanted to free the slaves, but his first goal was maintaining the unity of the nation. Saying that Lincoln went to war purely for the goal of freeing the slaves severely discredits Lincoln and completely forgets the fact that the south attacked federal property first.

That is true. But the argument at hand is if the Southern States Constitutional rights were violated by the war.

The case in question was after the war.

Yes, I am aware of that, just pointing out that this decision says that the south never actually left the union, and was merely in a state of rebellion (not a country)/treason the entire time, forfeiting any rights given to it by the constitution. The constitution gives rights to the states, and the states didn't do anything, according to the law, the people did. The people can be treated as harshly as the constitution dictates.

(edit...night, I'll continue later, just chiming in on something)

Yes, he personally wanted to free the slaves, but his first goal was maintaining the unity of the nation. Saying that Lincoln went to war purely for the goal of freeing the slaves severely discredits Lincoln and completely forgets the fact that the south attacked federal property first.

And before our friend can chime in.

Though the two forts were on NC soil, they were still built by the Feds and thus Federal property.

Otay. If the North was soooo poor as you suggest, then how did the fund the war? The manpower, the equipment, the navy?

As to the Slave question. Lincoln himself said that was never the main issue. Maintaining the Union....

If slavery was that important, then why did he wait to free them?

The North was soooo poor when it comes to the money they actually made. The money generated through taxes on exports is what funded their war effort. All the money generated by the taxes went to the government and guess where the government happened to reside. And I stated the slavery thing because most people believe thats what started it, and more educated people know that it wasnt, but it was states rights instead. But the reason Abe was so determined to keep the south was leaving was because the South funded everything with the taxes. Thats one of the reasons the south hated the north. Because the north took advantage of them and still looked down upon them . Its a simple case of the victor writing the text books. Its simple as that.

The North was soooo poor when it comes to the money they actually made. The money generated through taxes on exports is what funded their war effort. All the money generated by the taxes went to the government and guess where the government happened to reside. And I stated the slavery thing because most people believe thats what started it, and more educated people know that it wasnt, but it was states rights instead. But the reason Abe was so determined to keep the south was leaving was because the South funded everything with the taxes. Thats one of the reasons the south hated the north. Because the north took advantage of them and still looked down upon them . Its a simple case of the victor writing the text books. Its simple as that.


Actually...most educated people here (marginal south, N'ark Delaware) believe that it was slavery that was the cause of the civil war. The only real 'state's right' in dispute was slavery, and all other issues (tarrifs, ect) would be non-issues if slavery did not exsist.

[tag]ged with immense interest.

I'm currently arguing about the Civil War in some other place, so I won't butt in here unless it's needed. Just to let y'all know, I'm pro-Confederate and anti-Lincoln, much like Colerica here.

The North was soooo poor when it comes to the money they actually made. The money generated through taxes on exports is what funded their war effort. All the money generated by the taxes went to the government and guess where the government happened to reside. And I stated the slavery thing because most people believe thats what started it, and more educated people know that it wasnt, but it was states rights instead. But the reason Abe was so determined to keep the south was leaving was because the South funded everything with the taxes. Thats one of the reasons the south hated the north. Because the north took advantage of them and still looked down upon them . Its a simple case of the victor writing the text books. Its simple as that.Are you saying that the winners shouldn't write the history books? What kind of retarded theory is that?

Actually...most educated people here (marginal south, N'ark Delaware) believe that it was slavery that was the cause of the civil war. The only real 'state's right' in dispute was slavery, and all other issues (tarrifs, ect) would be non-issues if slavery did not exsist.

One, Dont ever say delaware is marginal South. If anyone ever says Delaware is part of the South they should be taken out back and double tapped in the back of the head. Second, bullshit,Weve said it before well say it again, Lincoln really didnt give that much of a damn about slavery. He was against it but he wasnt gonna do anything about it, especially cause a war. So if the most educated people in Delaware say it was slavery they must be dumber than the stereotypical dixie redneck. It was money, plain an simple. South had it, North wanted it, North couldnt let the South walk out its front door throwing the north into economic hell so naturally they claim states cant secede and they go to war.

Also, anyone think its funny how Lincoln said that the South had never left the union but he made them do all sorts of crap so they could once again become part of the US. Thats always bothered me.

Also, anyone think its funny how Lincoln said that the South had never left the union but he made them do all sorts of crap so they could once again become part of the US. Thats always bothered me.

The South lost. Get over it.

And if you seriously think the civil war was a case of the south being rich and the north being poor, than y'all better just come out of the woods and get some schoolin'.

One, Dont ever say delaware is marginal South. If anyone ever says Delaware is part of the South they should be taken out back and double tapped in the back of the head. Second, bullshit,Weve said it before well say it again, Lincoln really didnt give that much of a damn about slavery. He was against it but he wasnt gonna do anything about it, especially cause a war. So if the most educated people in Delaware say it was slavery they must be dumber than the stereotypical dixie redneck. It was money, plain an simple. South had it, North wanted it, North couldnt let the South walk out its front door throwing the north into economic hell so naturally they claim states cant secede and they go to war.

Also, anyone think its funny how Lincoln said that the South had never left the union but he made them do all sorts of crap so they could once again become part of the US. Thats always bothered me.

One, go down to Kent and tell me that. The southern counties are definitally part of the south.

Second, I'm not talking about what Lincoln did, I'm talking about what the south did. They walked over slavery. If you'd like I can pull up the documents of succession, which all state with some variation that they walked to preserve slavery. As for economic power the north was far and away in a better position then the south ever would be up to that point. Look at the manufacturing statistics, look at the railroad statistics, hell, look at the number of people the North had under arms.

Oh, and the stuff that lincoln made them do? It wasn't crap. Maybe you like not letting niggers (pardon my southern) vote, but I don't.

The civil war was not about slavery: it was about seperatism.
No state of the Union has the right to leave it. That was what Lincoln said.
The end of slavery was declared after the war and the right to vote was only implemented in 1870, so several years afterwards. I can´t be said that this was the main reason for the war.

The civil war was not about slavery: it was about seperatism.
No state of the Union has the right to leave it. That was what Lincoln said.
The end of slavery was declared after the war and the right to vote was only implemented in 1870, so several years afterwards. I can´t be said that this was the main reason for the war.

4. No bill of attainder,ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves, lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Sorry?

You don´t prove your point. On the contrary. The southern states were leaving the Union of the USA and formed the Confederate states. By doing so they left the union.
Lincoln responded by saying that no state has the right to leave the union and the war began.

Before the war no federal law was passed that banned slavery. The southern state would of course liked laws that protected it.
They were of course concerned about the issue.
That´s one of the reasons they left the union. But there was not a federal law passed banning slavery which led to the seperation of the south.
The main reason for the war was the southern seperatism and their decision to leave the union.
And that was also the reason with which Lincoln justified going to war. It wasn´t slavery, he didn´t even mentioned it when he went to war in 1861.

You don´t prove your point. On the contrary. The southern states were leaving the Union of the USA and formed the Confederate states. By doing so they left the union.
Lincoln responded by saying that no state has the right to leave the union and the war began.

Before the war no federal law was passed that banned slavery. The southern state would of course liked laws that protected it.
They were of course concerned about the issue.
That´s one of the reasons they left the union. But there was not a federal law passed banning slavery which led to the seperation of the south.
The main reason for the war was the southern seperatism and their decision to leave the union.
And that was also the reason with which Lincoln justified going to war. It wasn´t slavery, he didn´t even mentioned it when he went to war in 1861.

Incorrect. The war started when the south opened fire upon federal forts, but thats irrelevent. They left the union because they were afraid that they were going to lose slavery because of this Lincoln in the Whitehouse (hence why they went to such extremes to keep the slave/free states in balance), which they might have had a point considering his views on the issue.

Incorrect. The war started when the south opened fire upon federal forts, but thats irrelevent. They left the union because they were afraid that they were going to lose slavery because of this Lincoln in the Whitehouse (hence why they went to such extremes to keep the slave/free states in balance), which they might have had a point considering his views on the issue.
That´s what I said: they were concerned. But the war broke out because the north didn´t respect their decision to leave the union. Who fired the first shot is irrelevant. Lincoln didn´t accept them to leave the union. And that´s why the war started: to keep the USA together.
It was not conducted to free the slaves but to keep the US together.
The end of slavery was just a product out of that, but it wasn´t the main reason for the war.

That´s what I said: they were concerned. But the war broke out because the north didn´t respect their decision to leave the union. Who fired the first shot is irrelevant. Lincoln didn´t accept them to leave the union. And that´s why the war started: to keep the USA together.
It was not conducted to free the slaves but to keep the US together.
The end of slavery was just a product out of that, but it wasn´t the main reason for the war.


The north wasn't going to accept the south leaving under any circumstances (rightfully so), so it doesn't matter. The real reason would be why the south rebelled...slavery.

It is quite relevant as to who fired the first shot because the North was sitting on its hands before then. They didn't make a single hostile act towards the south until they decided to attack Fort Sumter.

One, Dont ever say delaware is marginal South. If anyone ever says Delaware is part of the South they should be taken out back and double tapped in the back of the head. Second, bullshit,Weve said it before well say it again, Lincoln really didnt give that much of a damn about slavery. He was against it but he wasnt gonna do anything about it, especially cause a war. So if the most educated people in Delaware say it was slavery they must be dumber than the stereotypical dixie redneck. It was money, plain an simple. South had it, North wanted it, North couldnt let the South walk out its front door throwing the north into economic hell so naturally they claim states cant secede and they go to war.

Also, anyone think its funny how Lincoln said that the South had never left the union but he made them do all sorts of crap so they could once again become part of the US. Thats always bothered me.

Reconstruction was Grant not LIncoln. Sorry but if he hadn't been assassanated it wouldn't have happened. Lincoln would not allowed it as he said that you can't heal wounds if you treat them like second class citizens.

Reconstruction was Grant not LIncoln. Sorry but if he hadn't been assassanated it wouldn't have happened. Lincoln would not allowed it as he said that you can't heal wounds if you treat them like second class citizens.
Grant played a small part in Reconstruction. It was Radical Republicans like Thad Stevens who ran the country then.

I apologize for not jumping back into the fray earlier....but a combination of a little habbit I picked up that I liked to call 'sleeping,' and a nasty set of junk Norton AntiVirus just removed from my computer, kept me from replying....


On 27 May 1861, the army of the United States of America (the Union) – a nation which had been formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 1788 – invaded the State of Virginia,1 which had itself recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate Virginia’s secession by violent force.

***

The United States of America seceded from Britain when our brave Founding Fathers risked everything they had for freedom in 1776. That was not a rebellion -- it was a secession. We then disgarded our own government system in what was intended as 'revision' of the Articles of Confederation. We all know that gave us the Constitution we have today.

The states seceded with the intent of peacefully forming their own nation that would co-exist alongside the Union. History is written by the winners, though, so keep that in mind. The United States was at a double standard (while they themselves had only seceded from Britian eighty-five years prior. What short memory spans us Americans have, 'eh? The Union was also on the illegal side of the scale for invading the Confederacy, (and in violation of the eleven states' rights when they seceded). The 9th and 10th Amendment gaurentee(sp?) the unenumerated rights of the states to secede from the Union whenever they wish.

Thomas Jefferson, in his Kentucky Resolution of 1798, wrote:

"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."

Caesar Lincoln had the abscure view that secession equals the destruction of the federal government. That is bunk. Secession doesn't destroy the federal government; it ends the gov't's authority over a certain territory and sets up a new government to take its place in that territory. Lincoln attempted a straw-man argument, saying that that the 10th Amendment doesn't promise each state the right to destroy the Union. However, secession is not destruction, as the last sentence states. Rebellion is destruction. Secession is breaking away and living on their own. Which is exactly what the 13 Colonies did when they declared their independance from the British Crown.....


The Declaration of Independance states, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Declaration also states, "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."


In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union’s invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy’s firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away.

If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.

The incident at Fort Sumter is largely significant as a political victory for the Union. Presiden-elect Lincoln, while holding a hostile military force on Southern soil, was able to outmaneuver the Confederacy into firing the first shot of the war. That the shot would be fired, however, was guaranteed by President Lincoln in his Inaugural Address when he disingenuously announced, “there shall be [no violence] unless it be forced upon the national authority.” He then defined the term “national authority” in such a way as to insure that war would come:

"The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere."

Whatever one’s legal, political, or moral views about President Lincoln or the Civil War, it should be obvious that Lincoln was being dishonest here. He was suggesting that he would not resist secession, but would continue to tax the seceders and to hold hostile military installations on their property – an absurdity. Before becoming president, Lincoln had been more honest. He had simply said “we won’t let you” secede. The truth is, the southern states wanted to go in peace, but Lincoln “wouldn’t let them.”

Anything I have put in the quote tags came from this source (http://www.liberty-ca.org/presentations/articles/2003was_secession_legal.htm).....

And to those that say that the Confederacy was the 'blood-thirsty' agressors, all you need to do is to read Yerffej's signature. The Confederacy wished to be left alone. Simply put. The Union's military threat to South Carolina forced the newly-independant and soveirgn territory to retaliate out of self-defense. If, in the Cold War, the USSR had a military base within the territorial waters of the United States, would the US not have been justified to take pre-emptive action to remove the open and obvious threat, so close to home (as we did in the Cuban Missile Crisis)?

Pardon me, but I don't think that Fort Sumter posed a threat to the confederacy any more then an embassy does to a foriegn nation. First off, that attack is a declaration of war against a power, as it is owned by a nation, the Federal Government, and second, the Fort wasn't doing much at all.

On re-enactments: I'm all for it!

Personally, as one who thinks it's possible to learn and grow from history, and from anything in general, and that simulation models to explore possibilities is useful, I'm a fan of re-enactments. (Although I've never watched one, heard one, dressed up or fought in one, or known anyone who has. Come to think of it, maybe that makes not-fan. Alas.)

But they aren't creative enough. They think they can learn something by constantly applying the same tactics and everything. It'll just turn out exactly the same that way. As Einstein said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." [Paraphrased]

So, what you need to do is mix it up a little. Give the confederates five or six squad automatic rifles. Add Union air support. Pretend someone had produced chlorine enough to make early use of mustard gas and end Gettysburg in a choking, coughing, bloody yellowish panorama of death. Or in other words, live a little!