RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

mdiehl -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/26/2012 9:09:16 PM)
quote: It was never constitutionally illegal to secede. But there was no process for it, nor any way to ensure due process for people residing in secessionist districts who wanted to remain citizens of the United States. So you'd be bouncing the 10th Amendment against the 9th and 6th Amendments if you do try to secede. That's why in my view the only legal way to do it would be through the Amendment ratification process.

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/26/2012 9:42:11 PM)
I believe Grant himself got in a bit of trouble by saying that the South had the right to secede if they won the war. In the end, this argument is probably close to the mark. [;)]

Alfred -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/26/2012 9:54:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Lincoln's considered written opinion on whether the southern states had a legal right to secede is a masterpiece. His conclusion that secession was illegal meant that it was the South which took up arms illegally, not the North. No State (in the sense of the duly authorised national government) which most definitely since the Treaty of Westphalia claims a monopoly over internal military forces and their use, can tolerate any segment within the State from challengining that monopolistic position. It was illegal then, it is still illegal today for any of the American states to secede. There is no provision in the constitution to allow unilateral secession. The constitution would need to be amended to create a process by which a state could secede. Alfred Lincoln's arguments are quite compelling. But he ignores the arguments put forth by Otis, Gerry, Adams, et al, in favor of secession by the new England States in 1814: the very States that were so opposed to that proposition just 35 years later. Is it "legal" to secede? That has never been definitively decided, and perhaps rightfully so. After the War of Sucession, there were several Amendments made to the Constitution, but not one (nada, rien, nichts, nichevo) said a State couldn't secede; a fundamental State Right that is still in play, today. After the whole War thing and all, you would think they would make it clear, I mean, they had a perfect opportunity, but they didn't. Why not? Because States Rights were still a fundamental principle of the National establishment. Just think about that for a minute. The study of Constitutional Law is an exercise in whimsical, Mescaline dreams, and depends, solely, on the who-what-where-why and 'how big is my winkie', of whatever Supreme Court Justice happens to be in power at the time. It was never constitutionally illegal to secede. It is not now, and has never been, constitutionally illegal to secede. States Rights is a nascent concept, waiting in the wings. Liberty has multiple birthplaces and every State is a separate incubator (T.Paine, paraphrased). We will just have to agree to disagree in walking through this minefield.[:)] In a confederation of states an argument can be made that there is an implied right to secede even if no procedure to do so is explicitly set out in the agreement to confederate. That is because essentially in joining together to form a confederation, each State has not fully extinguished its sovereignty. The current European Union is a good example of a de facto confederation even though the European political elites would much prefer people to think that that political entity is much more than a confederation. The USA between 1783 and 1787 was a confederation. The Holy Roman Empire was also a confederation as the individual sovereigns (from which the modern concept of sovereignty has been derived) retained their independent rights. A federation however is a different entity and was ushered into the political lexicon with the 1787 Constitution. In all federations, states which join lose their sovereignty. They become essentially administrative units. In the case of the USA, there can be no question that 35 of the 50 states had absolutely no sovereignty ever for they had no independent sovereign existence prior to their admission to the Union. That leaves only the original 13 states plus Texas and Hawaii to argue that at a point in time, prior to joining the Union, they existed as independent sovereign entities. That is a hard argument to sustain. Firstly, the original 13 states were not independent sovereign states whilst they existed as colonies of the Britain Crown. The Declaration of Independence was a formalised declaration of revolt, in itself a revolt does not grant sovereignty, although sovereignty ensues upon a successful revolt. Thus American sovereignty really only dates from 1783 at which point the argument would be whether it attached to the individual revolting colonies which were now states joining in a confederation, or in the confederation itself. But that becomes academic because of the move to replace the confederation with the federation. I would argue that the possible implied vestiges of sovereignty of the states under the 1783 confederation arrangements were voluntarily surrendered, and in fact it was a requirement that they be so surrendered, in reaching the new 1787 agreement. Any sovereign political entity is afforded the protections of the Vienna Convention to any diplomatic missions it establishes in another sovereign political entity. The state of California could establish its own trade mission in Berlin to foster German investment in California or to facilitate California exports to the German market. The California trade mission would however not enjoy the benefits of the Vienna Convention which the USA Consular Offices in Germany enjoy. Alfred

Blackhorse -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 2:21:54 AM)
I have a slightly different take from both JWE and Alfred. I don't know about legal, but it is not constitutional to secede, in the sense that the constitution contains no provisions or process to allow it. America's founding document was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in 1781. As the name suggests, the original states were aware that they were forming a union to last forever. That suggests, at least to this dim-witted saber-waver, that there is no inherent right to secession, notwithstanding the arguments of the Northern extremists of Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, or the Calhounists in the South. The successor covenant, the U.S. Constitution in 1789 speaks of "a more perfect union" and nowhere repudiates the perpetual union concept behind the creation of the then few-years old country. There is a fine American tradition of justified revolution. Lincoln himself pointed to this; his argument was that the South had no cause that justified revolution. Lincoln reversed the argument. The founding fathers' philosophy -- the one that made the United States of America special -- is that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Lincoln contended that democracy is the practical expression of that principle, and that no democracy could survive or function if a minority could withdraw whenever they disagreed with the majority. Therefore, by attempting to secede, the South was undermining the entire concept of self-government. It may seem sophist or a parlor-room argument today, but back then folks were willing to fight and die for it. Many northerners in the Civil War believed that they were fighting to preserve the very principles of democracy and individual liberty. That same spirit animates the Gettysburg address, when Lincoln concluded by saying that Unionists were fighting to ensure that, "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth." quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Lincoln's arguments are quite compelling. But he ignores the arguments put forth by Otis, Gerry, Adams, et al, in favor of secession by the new England States in 1814: the very States that were so opposed to that proposition just 35 years later. Is it "legal" to secede? That has never been definitively decided, and perhaps rightfully so. After the War of Sucession, there were several Amendments made to the Constitution, but not one (nada, rien, nichts, nichevo) said a State couldn't secede; a fundamental State Right that is still in play, today. After the whole War thing and all, you would think they would make it clear, I mean, they had a perfect opportunity, but they didn't. Why not? Because States Rights were still a fundamental principle of the National establishment. Just think about that for a minute. The study of Constitutional Law is an exercise in whimsical, Mescaline dreams, and depends, solely, on the who-what-where-why and 'how big is my winkie', of whatever Supreme Court Justice happens to be in power at the time. It was never constitutionally illegal to secede. It is not now, and has never been, constitutionally illegal to secede. States Rights is a nascent concept, waiting in the wings. Liberty has multiple birthplaces and every State is a separate incubator (T.Paine, paraphrased).

wpurdom -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 3:25:24 AM)
I'm late to this party and want toget back to the original question. One has to start with the strategy of the campaign. "Amateurs study tactics,professionals study logistics." By 1863, the logistics in the South generally, and Virginia, in particular were in horrible shape. For the previous Chancellorsville campaign, Lee had had to send off over 1/4 of his army to So. Virginia because they couldn't be supplied at the Fredericksburg line. Horses were getting in bad shape and the VIII Corps had seized most of the Shenandoah Valley. So the campaign had three objectives-to recover the Shenandoah, to take the logistic burden off of Virginia and fortify his army by living off the Northern countryside, and to open up a war of manuever to see if an opportunity for a successful battle on Northern soil opened up. It's not like Lee had any good options. As a map exercise, sending Longstreet out West earlier was probably the best option; but it's not like the management of the war out West offered much prospect for optimism. A direct attack on Hooker would be far less promising than the situation at Gettysburg. He needed the Shenandoah bread basket to survive the fall and winter, and he needed to avoid drawing down Virginia supplies. (There was no decisive objective, the Valley was the closest thing within his capabilities.) Otherwise, he would all too likely be facing his 1864 destiny in 1863. And the best way to retake the Valley without losing Fredericksburg was to do it with overwhelming force, threatening a Northern invasion. The drawback was that strategically, the Gettysburg campaign was a raid, not an invasion. As pointed out by CRSutton in post #69, Lee's army had no supply line; he carried limited ammo and had to disperse to forage. If forced to concentrate, he had to fight or retreat. 1. Stuart's raid - The great strategic error of the campaign was Stuart's raid, taking off all the reliable recon forces. In a rapid moving dispersed manuever, his presence was vital to being able to forage successfully without being forced into battle on disadvantageous terms. I disagree about Lee making a strategic error in committing to a fuller battle after the first day. At that point, Lee had too choices - he could try to win and drive the Union in retreat, or he could retreat back to Virginia. With the concentration of the armies, he could not support himself off the countryside and he already had substantial numbers of wounded to worry about. The Lonstreet alternative makes no sense - Meade understood the strategic situation as well as Lee. With the Confederate army as close to parity as any time since Seven Days he wasn't going to attack a defensive Lee. As pointed out by Capt. Mandrake in #70 Meade's plan was to move into a good defensive position in the vicinity of the Army of Northern Virginia and force it to attack him or retreat. And as the actual retreat from Gettysburg, a retreat back to Virginia and across the Potomac was not risk free. Lee had parity in forces until the arrival of the VI Corps and good prospects in battle. 2. Ewell's non-attack on the 1st may have been a mistake, but I hesitate to give much blame for it. It was not without risk, and if successful, as pointed out by Capt. Mandrake, very likely would have only resulted in a withdrawal to Pipe Creek, as was seriously contemplated that evening without the attack. The attack would have only resulted in a limited victory and likely would have resulted in the same retreat to Virginia or need to attack a good Federal position. Second day - I ascribe no blame to Longstreet. I find most plausible the account of Last Chance For Victory by Scott Bowden. Given the lack of prep by Stuart due to his absence, Longstreet did what he had to do to launch the full-bore attack, much like Chattanooga, that Lee wanted. He launched a well executed echelon attack that was executed perfectly by the I Corps and only faltered, close to success on the southern end of Cemetary Ridge when III Corps engaged. 3. Mahone, Posey, Anderson, and Powell Hill I lay the tactical failure at the feet of these commanders. Bowden/Ward make out the case that Mahone's failure was outright dereliction of duty, disobeying direct orders to advance. After the successful attack by Longstreet, points north on the Union line were weakened to stem the tide and each successive CSA echelon was successful. After the successful attack by McLaws, Anderson's division attacked each brigade in succession in the same pattern as Longstreet's attack. The first three brigades were successful - Wilcox, Lang and Wright, but Posey allowed his brigade to become dispersed and only a portion advanced to the support of Wright. Next in turn was Mahone with 1500 men who had in front of him a 1000 man Federal brigade tyring to contain Wright. First he refused Posey's request to come to his support. Then he refused the order from Richard Anderson through a courier to advance (similar to conduct by him at Seven Pines). At this point the next division under Pender was waiting its turn to attack. He made the preliminary move of sending skirmishers forward to clear the way and then headed towards Mahone to see what the hang-up was when he was taken out of the battle by an artillery fragment. And there went the last chance for victory. Had the Light Division and the two other brigades been committed at that point it appears that the south end of Cemetary Ridge had been too weakened to hold. Of course, Anderson bears responsibility for not intervening himself when his division started unraveling and Hill also bears responsibility for his own lack of involvement - leaving his subordinates to their own devices. Finally, back to Canoerebel's original question, Bowden et al make a plausible case that the II corps attack that day was predicated upon a successful lodgment on Cemetary Ridge by III Corps. Of course, we would have had a better idea about all of this, had Lee not deliberately obfuscated matters in his post-battle report; he apparently was not interested in making it easy for anyone to assess blame for the outcome against anyone other than he. But I would contend that the South's position at the outset of the 1864 campaign would have been essentially identical had Lee cut off the battle after the 1st day and retreated then. He had little to lose strategically in making one last attempt at victory. And certainly, had he cut his losses after the first two days he would have been in as good a position as retreating after the 1st day. The third day was obvious a desparate throw, reminiscent of Mavern Hill - he had trouble conceding defeat. (He wasn't the only one, see Cold Harbor, Kennesaw).

m10bob -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 12:23:26 PM)
Fault for the defeat of the Confederates? Why, Reynolds' First Corps, Army of the Potomac. Specifically, The Iron Brigade, "the black hats"....... [image]local://upfiles/7909/BBBBC9C298AA4DE4AAD829099D1C953E.jpg[/image]

CT Grognard -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 12:26:16 PM)
There have been some fascinating commentaries on this thread which I, a lawyer by education and amateur political philosopher by hobby, find very interesting. Isn't the authoritative answer on the question of secession the Supreme Court decision in Texas v White, 1869? I'll explain it to those who do not know it. Texas, as everyone knows, voted in favour (both state legislature and public referendum) of seceding from the United States in 1861. Back in 1850, the federal government had given $10 million in US bonds to Texas to settle border claims. There were still some of these bonds being held by Texas in 1861. Needing money, Texas decided to sell the bonds, but existing law meant the governor of Texas, Sam Houston, had to sign his endorsement on each bond before it could be sold. Fearing that the value of the bonds would drop if the US Treasury refused to honour bonds sold by a Confederate state, the Texas state legislature repealed the state law requiring the governor to endorse federal bonds, thereby seeking to hide the origin of those bonds. A whistleblower in Texas notified the Treasury who then publicly indicated in newspapers that it would not honour any bonds from Texas unless endorsed by Houston. A number of bonds, despite this warning, were purchased by a brokerage owned by a Mr White. These bonds were subsequently resold to a number of individuals and in some cases successfully redeemed through the US Treasury. At the end of the Civil War, a new state constitution and state government was created in Texas. As soon as the new state of Texas became aware it was no longer in possession of the pre-war bonds (which had been sold to White's brokerage) they decided the bonds had been illegally sold to finance unlawful rebellion and then sued White's brokerage for return of the bonds. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase in 1869. According to him, the original Union of the thirteen colonies had been made in reaction to very real and serious problems faced by the colonists, the first result being creation of Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union. The Constitution, once implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship. Wrote the Chief Justice: "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'. And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convoy the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." This decision took place against the backdrop of Reconstructionist politics, and was heavily criticised by radical Republicans and Conservatives alike.

CT Grognard -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 12:34:30 PM)
1st Brigade, 1st Division, I Corps, Army of the Potomac? With 2nd, 6th and 7th Wisconsin, 19th Indiana and 24th Michigan Infantry Regiments.

CT Grognard -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 12:43:48 PM)
Your post is indeed supported by the Texas v White decision. It would appear that the only way to validly "secede" in terms of the US constitutional regime is only one of the following two options: 1) Justified revolution; or 2) Consent from all the States. As to what "justifies" revolution - now that is an entirely different proposition. [:D]

janh -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 1:24:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." Wow, this turned into a very interesting debate... still digesting... The first thought coming to me is drawing comparisons between the conflict of 1861 and the prior conflict of 1775. What is the difference between secession, and revolution? Or does it ultimately only come down to word games ("definitions") by lawyers or such professions? In a sense, JWE is surely right: "right" is usually always the victory that can exert his new ideas, philosophies etc. So if the CSA had defended its own ability to have a free will, i.e. to operate independent, the answer between right and wrong would certainly look different. Much as I would bet the colonies would have risen up against the British no matter whether they would have had to call it "secession", "revolt", "uprising against tyranny" or "fight for freedom". I would also guess that the British government considered also colonies as perpetual part of the Empire at that time, though I know little about their contemporary constitution or laws. So ultimately the success of the colonies gave their doing justification, or de facto made it meaningless for their opponents to claim to be acting in accordance with their law. quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse There is a fine American tradition of justified revolution. Lincoln himself pointed to this;... Probably, no matter what principles or treaties you invoke, if the USA had not been able to impose legislation or their will on the CSA by means of military force, the CSA would have proven that they were able, and right in the eyes of their population to secede. I am quite convinced, though, that even in the latter case, and if it had been able to overcome the internal disagreements about state rights, the CSA would probably not have survived very long as its own entity for economic reasons -- they would probably have remained dependent on the industrial north, and suffered economically. Ultimately, I think is much more important than any formulation of treaties, or laws (which are only tools to assist people to live together by following the principles and ideas underlying the reasons for the former): quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse The founding fathers' philosophy -- the one that made the United States of America special -- is that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Lincoln contended that democracy is the practical expression of that principle, and that no democracy could survive or function if a minority could withdraw whenever they disagreed with the majority. I think Lincoln had a very strong common sense, and many times he showed this during his presidency. I would even say he valued common sense above the text of the law, and he questioned the latter if he found them no longer applicable, or not apropriate to the situation etc. (like revoking many death sentences, but there are more examples). And Blackhorse' statement sums that up quite nicely. Disagreement with any democratic decision, process, or an newly elected president, cannot be sufficient reason to secede. Otherwise the system is led ad absurdum, as seen so often nowadays in politics or normal life -- so of like "I agree with the public decision, but only as long as it benefits me more than others -- otherwise, I protest, block, etc.". There was a political debacle in Germany quite recently, where a minority tried the latter, i.e. benefit from federal subventions on the one hand for their city, but not allow building of new railway infrastructure that a large majority would have benefited from in return; Stuttgart 21, maybe you read about it). Unfortunately, there sometimes can be balance problems between democracy, which quite naturally produces "average results", and the protection of minorities on the other hand, who may be seeing things with very different importance. Majority decisions not necessarily are painless for the rest, but they ideally should remain bearable for everyone -- or also the majority should reconsider. I guess that is where Southerns felt the biggest problem was back then. Democracy just doesn't always work perfectly and smoothly. No matter how many laws we have, and how accurately they are worded, or how timely they are adjusted to new needs or changed perceptions of the people who they are to serve. I must admit, in this context I have highest respect for Lincolns achievements in these crucial 4 years of struggle. Though when I first read the 3rd volume of Foote's books, I may respect for Lincoln did take a beating, I still consider him one of the biggest statesman of history, one with a common sense and integrity that many politicians today could learn a lot from. Hard to image where this struggle could have drifted without his steady hand.

CT Grognard -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 2:06:44 PM)
The operative political-philosophical concept at stake here is the right of revolution. As identified by Lincoln and the Supreme Court in Texas v White, "justified revolution" is one of only two ways of leaving the perpetual Union. The other is if the Union as a whole, i.e., every single one of the States forming part of that Union, consents to a constituent state leaving. What is "justified revolution"? It is essentially one where a valid right of revolution exists. This right of revolution goes right back to the Magna Carta in England, which influenced the later US Constitution. The Jesuits later often encouraged tyrannicide - the justified killing of a tyrant. If we look at the American Revolution, the right of revolution was created by the existence of certain preconditions. Alexander Hamilton argued that a right to revolution existed because resistance against the British was demanded by the "law of nature" to right the wrongs committed against the "first principles of civil society" and infringements of the "rights of a whole people". Jefferson felt that the sheer number and weight of grievances the colonists had meant they had met the burden of exercising the natural-law right of revolution. This right of revolution at the end of the American Revolution was codified in postrevolutionary constitutions. Examples abound: Texas: "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." North Carolina: "That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind." New Hampshire: "Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." Tennessee: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." Kentucky: "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper." Pennsylvania: "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper." Of these, I prefer the New Hampshire wording the most.

CT Grognard -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 2:29:39 PM)
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful." Alexander Hamilton

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 2:33:27 PM)
All good examples, but all are subservient to this provision of the US Constitution: Article 4, Section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." So if the good citizens of New Hampshire vote to give themsleves a state-level dictatorship in an open election, the federal governemtn will quite properly enter the state and prevent this, even by force, despite the vote of the citizens of the state.

CT Grognard -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 2:48:53 PM)
Correct. But I believe that if the federal government was to abuse its powers to such an extent that the good citizens of New Hampshire were oppressed in such a way that a natural-law right of revolution could be founded, this would be a justified revolution and in keeping with US constitutional law and philosophy.

crsutton -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 3:05:52 PM)
Yes, "When in the course of human event, it becomes necessary........." Pretty much says it all. The core strength of the United States is the balance between the rights of the states vs the rights of the federal government. This fundamental element is why we are what we are today. This debate has gone on since the earliest days of the republic and I firmly believe that the founders whole concept was to leave this debate "open ended" as a means of continued checks of one upon the other. For this reason, any debate over the right of sucession is meaningless. The idea being that every issue that arises between the states (and individuals) over the power of the whole is separate and has to be judged on its own merit and not on one single catch all definition of what the constitution means. If the Federal goverment decided to enslave all New Hampshiremen in concentration camps and work them to death, then it would be reasonable to surmise under the constitution and the rights or men (women) that they would be fully entitled to separate themselves from the rest of the nation. However, if the federal govenment decides that it would be in the best interst of New Hampshire to floridate the water then does New Hampshire have a justifying case for sucession? I doubt it. Each issue is different and must be judged as so. The Civil War was an unusual event. Was the South justified in suceeding from the North? You can argue, states rights to the end of time but the simple fact that the South would have retained the instituion of slavery would have nulified any argument in my mind. Others may have differing opinion than me and that is exactly what we as a Nation are about.

AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 3:53:53 PM)
I've always wondered if the South had left, but not fired on Ft. Summter, would war have been necessary? I find it hard to imagine the North invading the south over a peacefull succession. And if the south offered to pay settlements for federal property , would there have been any legal or moral justification for the war? I've always felt that the South "wanted" the war more than the North. If there was a succession without blood shed, or "insult to national honor" , and since a great deal of the North didn't want a war anyway , I've always felt that the sides could just "grow apart". Now in a few years they might have a desire to "have a go at each other". [&:] BTW , in answer to the original question , I must blame Robert E. Lee. No matter who was at fault, as commander he should get the blame. Maybe it's the sailor in me, but if the ships hits a rock, it's always the skippers fault, regardless who's at the helm. [:(]

JWE -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 4:06:48 PM)
I dearly love Con Law and critical legal studies. I really like the way people are responding to the proposition; with thoughtful and carefully structured arguments. You all are to be commended. btw, for all ya'll Con Law fellers out there, the Supreme Court Historical Society hosted a mock retrial of Texas v White, presided over by Justice Scalia. A splendid time was had by all. [ed] sorry for causing an OT drift. Now returning to our regularly scheduled OT topic [;)]

AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 4:30:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE I dearly love Con Law and critical legal studies. I really like the way people are responding to the proposition; with thoughtful and carefully structured arguments. You all are to be commended. btw, for all ya'll Con Law fellers out there, the Supreme Court Historical Society hosted a mock retrial of Texas v White, presided over by Justice Scalia. A splendid time was had by all. [ed] sorry for causing an OT drift. Now returning to our regularly scheduled OT topic [;)] I certainly don't consider it a drift. I dearly wish more Americans were interested in their Consitution. After all, it's our "Owners manual"! I really think more people should RTFM! [:D]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 4:53:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard Correct. But I believe that if the federal government was to abuse its powers to such an extent that the good citizens of New Hampshire were oppressed in such a way that a natural-law right of revolution could be founded, this would be a justified revolution and in keeping with US constitutional law and philosophy. This is a perennial argument of the pro-gun-rights folks over here. "To such an extent" is the legal term of art in question though, isn't it? In the eye of which beholder? And what percentage of the citizens have to agree before one can have a natural-law revolutoin? 50% plus 1 guy? Do the other 50% less one guy have a natural law right to resist the revolution, thinking as they do that the central government, while not bowing to their every wish, still maintains mechanisms such as the amendment process whereby they can engender change if they can convince a super-majority of their peers? It still comes down to the point JWE made up-thread. Natural law, samtcheral law--if you've got more guns you get your way.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 4:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: JWE I dearly love Con Law and critical legal studies. I really like the way people are responding to the proposition; with thoughtful and carefully structured arguments. You all are to be commended. btw, for all ya'll Con Law fellers out there, the Supreme Court Historical Society hosted a mock retrial of Texas v White, presided over by Justice Scalia. A splendid time was had by all. [ed] sorry for causing an OT drift. Now returning to our regularly scheduled OT topic [;)] I certainly don't consider it a drift. I dearly wish more Americans were interested in their Consitution. After all, it's our "Owners manual"! I really think more people should RTFM! [:D] I think a lot of Americans are being dragged away from "American Idol" and toward the USSC this week. Good thing too.

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 5:10:45 PM)
Many southern "fire eaters" thought the South's departure from the Union would be uncontested.� They thought wrong, but that's what they thought. Many southern unionists (there were alot of them) knew it was crazy to chance war when they lived in a prosperous and peaceful land (paraphrasing the sentiment of Alexander Stephens as expressed in speeches in 1860, just before secession, and just months before he became vice president of the Confederacy).� These unionsts tended to be older men, many of whom had served in the war with Mexico.� They knew what war was like, they lived in a prosperous and peaceful land, and they looked upon their sons and shuddered. Most of their sons were in favor of secession.� That's a common dichomotomy between the young and their elders, which I won't delve further into. It must have been horror heaped upon horror to be a union man in the South in 1860 and 1861.� You knew you were right, you knew just how much was imperiled, and you knew how terrible war could be.� They could see what was coming, but they were powerless to�stop it. The struggle of southern unionsts = the First Lost Cause.

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 6:15:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I've always wondered if the South had left, but not fired on Ft. Summter, would war have been necessary? I find it hard to imagine the North invading the south over a peacefull succession. And if the south offered to pay settlements for federal property , would there have been any legal or moral justification for the war? I've always felt that the South "wanted" the war more than the North. If there was a succession without blood shed, or "insult to national honor" , and since a great deal of the North didn't want a war anyway , I've always felt that the sides could just "grow apart". Now in a few years they might have a desire to "have a go at each other". [&:] BTW , in answer to the original question , I must blame Robert E. Lee. No matter who was at fault, as commander he should get the blame. Maybe it's the sailor in me, but if the ships hits a rock, it's always the skippers fault, regardless who's at the helm. [:(] An excellent point, and it shows how good Lincoln was that he maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. He put them on the horns of a dilemma with the Fort Sumter re-supply mission. Fire on the fort or the ships and the South starts the war. Let them through and the South concedes that it is not quite a sovereign nation. Point two on this is we have yet another similarity between the ACW and the Pacific War. How many threads have we had about "what if Japan had attacked Malaya and the DEI but not bombed Pearl Harbor and the PI?"

crsutton -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 6:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Many southern "fire eaters" thought the South's departure from the Union would be uncontested.� They thought wrong, but that's what they thought. Many southern unionists (there were alot of them) knew it was crazy to chance war when they lived in a prosperous and peaceful land (paraphrasing the sentiment of Alexander Stephens as expressed in speeches in 1860, just before secession, and just months before he became vice president of the Confederacy).� These unionsts tended to be older men, many of whom had served in the war with Mexico.� They knew what war was like, they lived in a prosperous and peaceful land, and they looked upon their sons and shuddered. Most of their sons were in favor of secession.� That's a common dichomotomy between the young and their elders, which I won't delve further into. It must have been horror heaped upon horror to be a union man in the South in 1860 and 1861.� You knew you were right, you knew just how much was imperiled, and you knew how terrible war could be.� They could see what was coming, but they were powerless to�stop it. The struggle of southern unionsts = the First Lost Cause. My family hails from North Georgia. There was not a lot of slave ownership there and a good deal of pro Union sentiment-or at least ambiguity about the whole thing. I have my great great great (or so) uncle's memoirs. The one thing I note is that he and his relatives joined up about the same time universal conscription was passed into law which says something about how they felt.

crsutton -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 6:49:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I've always wondered if the South had left, but not fired on Ft. Summter, would war have been necessary? I find it hard to imagine the North invading the south over a peacefull succession. And if the south offered to pay settlements for federal property , would there have been any legal or moral justification for the war? I've always felt that the South "wanted" the war more than the North. If there was a succession without blood shed, or "insult to national honor" , and since a great deal of the North didn't want a war anyway , I've always felt that the sides could just "grow apart". Now in a few years they might have a desire to "have a go at each other". [&:] BTW , in answer to the original question , I must blame Robert E. Lee. No matter who was at fault, as commander he should get the blame. Maybe it's the sailor in me, but if the ships hits a rock, it's always the skippers fault, regardless who's at the helm. [:(] An excellent point, and it shows how good Lincoln was that he maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. He put them on the horns of a dilemma with the Fort Sumter re-supply mission. Fire on the fort or the ships and the South starts the war. Let them through and the South concedes that it is not quite a sovereign nation. Point two on this is we have yet another similarity between the ACW and the Pacific War. How many threads have we had about "what if Japan had attacked Malaya and the DEI but not bombed Pearl Harbor and the PI?" Well the problem for the South was that the North refused to give up Federal forts of which there were many in the South. Not the best situation for sovereign states to have Alien forts at the entrance to major commercial waterways and ports. (Did somebody say China?) Sumter was just one of many. So yes, I suppose they were baiting the Southerners into a fight. And they got one...[;)]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 7:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel The struggle of southern unionsts = the First Lost Cause. Good points snipped, but I would disagree with this last so far as US history goes. Largely forgotten now, or at least unmentioned in polite society, are the Tories of the Revolution. No one knows exact numbers but I don't think one-third of the population is out of line and it could have been more, at least at the begining. (Varying a lot by geography.) Some left for Canada or the UK, some fought with the British, some were hanged from a local tree. But there were a lot of them.

Canoerebel -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 7:17:26 PM)
Well, the Tories were never referred to as "the Lost Cause." The Confederacy has been, so dubbing the efforts of southern unionists as "the First Lost Cause" makes sense. The struggle of the Loyalists in the American Revolution is equally compelling history, but will have to use another name. P.S. Lots of good books out there about Loyalists, including The Good Americans (non fiction) and Oliver Wiswell (fiction, but it does a heck of a job informing readers why Loyalists remained loyal).

Cribtop -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 7:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I've always wondered if the South had left, but not fired on Ft. Summter, would war have been necessary? I find it hard to imagine the North invading the south over a peacefull succession. And if the south offered to pay settlements for federal property , would there have been any legal or moral justification for the war? I've always felt that the South "wanted" the war more than the North. If there was a succession without blood shed, or "insult to national honor" , and since a great deal of the North didn't want a war anyway , I've always felt that the sides could just "grow apart". Now in a few years they might have a desire to "have a go at each other". [&:] BTW , in answer to the original question , I must blame Robert E. Lee. No matter who was at fault, as commander he should get the blame. Maybe it's the sailor in me, but if the ships hits a rock, it's always the skippers fault, regardless who's at the helm. [:(] An excellent point, and it shows how good Lincoln was that he maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. He put them on the horns of a dilemma with the Fort Sumter re-supply mission. Fire on the fort or the ships and the South starts the war. Let them through and the South concedes that it is not quite a sovereign nation. Point two on this is we have yet another similarity between the ACW and the Pacific War. How many threads have we had about "what if Japan had attacked Malaya and the DEI but not bombed Pearl Harbor and the PI?" Well the problem for the South was that the North refused to give up Federal forts of which there were many in the South. Not the best situation for sovereign states to have Alien forts at the entrance to major commercial waterways and ports. (Did somebody say China?) Sumter was just one of many. So yes, I suppose they were baiting the Southerners into a fight. And they got one...[;)] As a descendant of South Carolinians, I can point out that if he wanted a fight Lincoln chose wisely to send the supply ships to Sumter. Talk about fire eaters. The old saying is that South Carolina is too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum. [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 8:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I've always wondered if the South had left, but not fired on Ft. Summter, would war have been necessary? I find it hard to imagine the North invading the south over a peacefull succession. And if the south offered to pay settlements for federal property , would there have been any legal or moral justification for the war? I've always felt that the South "wanted" the war more than the North. If there was a succession without blood shed, or "insult to national honor" , and since a great deal of the North didn't want a war anyway , I've always felt that the sides could just "grow apart". Now in a few years they might have a desire to "have a go at each other". [&:] BTW , in answer to the original question , I must blame Robert E. Lee. No matter who was at fault, as commander he should get the blame. Maybe it's the sailor in me, but if the ships hits a rock, it's always the skippers fault, regardless who's at the helm. [:(] An excellent point, and it shows how good Lincoln was that he maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. He put them on the horns of a dilemma with the Fort Sumter re-supply mission. Fire on the fort or the ships and the South starts the war. Let them through and the South concedes that it is not quite a sovereign nation. Point two on this is we have yet another similarity between the ACW and the Pacific War. How many threads have we had about "what if Japan had attacked Malaya and the DEI but not bombed Pearl Harbor and the PI?" Well the problem for the South was that the North refused to give up Federal forts of which there were many in the South. Not the best situation for sovereign states to have Alien forts at the entrance to major commercial waterways and ports. (Did somebody say China?) Sumter was just one of many. So yes, I suppose they were baiting the Southerners into a fight. And they got one...[;)] As a descendant of South Carolinians, I can point out that if he wanted a fight Lincoln chose wisely to send the supply ships to Sumter. Talk about fire eaters. The old saying is that South Carolina is too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum. [:D] I'm not sure the North wanted the fight. But consider Lincoln's point of view. If he can't supply Sumter, he can't evacuate it. So you might as well try and supply it. The one thing from a public relations view , or even a moral view , is let the garrison starve. I'm not sure the Southern leaders wanted a war (such as SC's governor who I have always heard the quote about the asylum attributed to) , but the leaders were not in control of the mob. I suspect the leaders wanted the North to evacuate the garrison.And eventually might have negoitiated. The mob wanted blood. Unfortunately , they got it. [8\|]

crsutton -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 8:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel The struggle of southern unionsts = the First Lost Cause. Good points snipped, but I would disagree with this last so far as US history goes. Largely forgotten now, or at least unmentioned in polite society, are the Tories of the Revolution. No one knows exact numbers but I don't think one-third of the population is out of line and it could have been more, at least at the begining. (Varying a lot by geography.) Some left for Canada or the UK, some fought with the British, some were hanged from a local tree. But there were a lot of them. In that respect the war of revolution in the Southern Colonies was in all but name a civil war. Very few British troops participated in the fight in comparison to the number of loyalists.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg (3/27/2012 8:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Well, the Tories were never referred to as "the Lost Cause."� The�Confederacy has been,�so dubbing the efforts of southern unionists as "the First Lost Cause" makes sense.� The struggle of the Loyalists in the American Revolution is equally compelling history, but will have to use another name.� You said "first" Lost Cause. I was just offering an earlier one. Not necessarily a title.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875