The War Between The States Discussions

Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Zonie, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 17, 2019 #2241

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,464
    Likes Received:
    864
    Historically speaking, Slavery was still Constitutionally legal in the North and South when the South seceded.

    FUNDING and ARMING of Treasonous Murdering Insurrectionists was not, though some Abolitionists got away with it SCOT FREE.

    Gus

    Edited to add: And with that I bid you adieu until later.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2019
  2. Oct 17, 2019 #2242

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Well, If you can't explain your own words, what chance have I got ? :D
     
  3. Oct 17, 2019 #2243

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    I love when you ignore States rights and fall back on the Federal Govt. (the Constitution) to make an argument for the South.
    Especially when it's incorrect.
     
  4. Oct 17, 2019 #2244

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,464
    Likes Received:
    864
    Well, I didn't quite get done with editing my last post before you added this.

    Constitutionally, Slavery was still legal in the North as well as the South. While it is true most Northern States had changed their STATE laws to make it illegal, it was still legal by the U.S. Constitution.

    Now adieu.

    Gus
     
  5. Oct 17, 2019 #2245

    ppg1949

    ppg1949

    ppg1949

    40 cal - b MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    W. Central Indiana
    Carbon6, Your opinion makes more sense with your explanation. Thanks
     
  6. Oct 17, 2019 #2246

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    That attempt to waive it off doesn't cut the sniff test.

    Yes, duels were fought at times, usually with a formal challenge, terms and a date set. They were not legally tolerated in many states, and most certainly not done on the floor of either the House or Senate. The 1854 and 1856 attacks were not challenges to a duel, but outright violence with no warning committed by elected southern congressmen on other elected northern congressmen.

    Brooks considered challenging Sumner to a duel, and instead decided Sumner was socially inferior to him. Brooks felt only social equals could be challenged to a duel, not lesser mortals. So, like many slave owners, he resorted to using a cane/cudgel and beat him on the floor of the Senate almost to the point that he died.

    The courts may not decide cases based on whether something is moral or not, and questions of that sort may not even be considered in how cases are handled, decided or rendered. Because a matter was held in court, and a decision rendered doesn't mean the results are ethical, even if they are given a veneer of being legal.

    By your logic, Wirtz's trial in a recognized court was legal, and therefore the court's decision and his punishment was all according to the "law.

    Before Brown's raid, there were two incidents of violence by southerners towards northern abolitionists, not by means of a duel, but direct physical attacks without warning by southern congressman against northern abolitionist congressmen they did not like.

    Claiming southerners were in fear of northern "terrorism" may be a case of psychological projection after decades of southerners fearing slave revolts (Nat Turner's revolt, and Denmark Vesey in particular got those juices going) of being slaughtered in the night by marauding blacks. That led to southern militias patrolling roads, watching for runaway slaves, and in general heavy handed behavior towards blacks without passes, being out at night, etc. Did it lead to eventual paranoia or fear that the possibility of violence against southern whites and slaveowners was always a possibility? Who knows?

    What can be said, is there were very prominent cases of southerners initiating violence against northerners. 1854 and 1856 have already been stated. The assassination attempts (yes plural) on Lincoln was planned after his election and before he could reached DC, but thwarted. The 1865 one wasn't. That's three attempts that start looking like violence out of the blue was more likely a southern "pattern." Add Sumter to that, and the south starts looking less like the victim but the perpetrator who blames the victim.

    Nice try on your part. Next time, try harder.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2019
  7. Oct 17, 2019 #2247

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania

    Yep. Lots of fear, or in some cases it may have led to or actually have been paranoia directed at people who weren't white, pro-southern, and in favor of slavery.

    Fear of slave revolts. Fear of not being able to control the government after the political winds started shifting in the decades before the war. Fear that rich white guys might have to change how they made a living actually working with their own hands and skill . Fear of racial equality with blacks and your daughter getting knocked up by someone who wasn't white. Fear of political equality in a state or county were blacks were more numerous than whites and you could be outvoted.

    Too much fear can breed psychosis and paranoia. The fear of violence by northerners may have been nothing more than paranoid projections southerners began manifesting by politicians in Congress within the halls of government, and the Brown raid used as justification for addition fears that could have been avoided if southerners were able to realize they created a trap of their own making.
     
  8. Oct 18, 2019 #2248

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania

    How often do victors prosecute their own after a war?

    Now that you mention events in the north (again), prior to the Lieber Code, there was no legal definition of war crimes in America. Before the Geneva and Hague Conventions, wars were generally a situation of mutual or reciprocal actions. If you started slaughtering prisoners attempting to surrender, then don't complain if it happens to yours. You don't want your wounded men killed on the spot, then don't start or it can happen to yours.

    The southern prison situation was the result of many factors, however, a case can be shown that conditions began getting worse in the south, and northern prisons responded by subjecting southern POWs to similar treatment in northern camps. The north felt (and there are grounds for that belief) the southern POW situation created a reciprocity situation and was given back something of the same.

    None of that is a justification, however, based on how wars were fought, and what were considered "war crimes" by your definition did not come into existence until decades after the war. No one has ever claimed wars of that era were kissy-kissy make nice type events, and like it or not, might made right in determining the aftermath of wars.
     
  9. Oct 18, 2019 #2249

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Indeed.
    In researching the Confederacy and slavery, fear does keep popping up as a motivator.
    You also forgot "fear of Lincoln"
     
  10. Oct 18, 2019 #2250

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Thousands of confederates weren't charged for their treason, murder, sedition, etc. It was part of healing the nation. Going after a couple abolitionists would be stupid..
     
    Straekat likes this.
  11. Oct 18, 2019 #2251

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,464
    Likes Received:
    864
    Actually by your logic and attempt to waive off the actions of Commandants of POW camps of the North, it shows even more modern day hypocrisy.

    Yes, things got worse in Confederate Prison Camps as a direct result of the Anaconda Plan closing off the South from being able to procure medicines, food, and other items that were needed by all Southrons (not just the military) and of course that directly meant they did not have the items to give the prisoners.

    However in the North; there was never a shortage of food, medicines, necessary clothing or materials for adequate housing of prisoners. The North DECIDED to withhold these basic survival items from POW's even though the items were available. Therefore they were more culpable than Wirz, who could not get those items for the POW's in his camp.

    But you are historically correct, the North never held their Commandants liable for what they did, only Wirz.

    That high horse is exposed as a rickety, broken down three legged hobby horse without a head.

    Gus
     
    Irish lad likes this.
  12. Oct 18, 2019 #2252

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,464
    Likes Received:
    864
    Nice try, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

    Wirz's trial was a Drum Head Military Court. It was seen as such even during the times in the North and is the reason no other Southron POW Commandant was brought up on charges.

    The question on what did the South have to fear from the North at the time they seceded, has been historically answered.

    Since those who supposedly loved the rule of Constitutional and Federal Law so dearly, decided not to even charge the Abolitionist Co-Conspirators of the Murderous Treasonous Armed Insurrection, they had every reasonable fear the North would do it again.

    That can't be waived off or diffused, because it was historic fact.

    Gus
     
  13. Oct 18, 2019 #2253

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,464
    Likes Received:
    864
    Oh and laying aside the deliberate mischaracterization of what I wrote about Brooks having been brought to trial and found guilty..... at least he WAS brought up on charges in a Legal Court and found guilty, even though I agree his punishment was too light.

    However, the Abolitionist Co-Conspirators in Murder, Treason and Armed Insurrection were never even arrested for their crimes, let alone brought in front of a Legal Court. So much for the supposed period Northern belief in Constitutional Law, Federal Law and of course JUSTICE for the Innocent Victims of John Brown and his fellow Terrorists.

    Gus
     
  14. Oct 18, 2019 #2254

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    "That high horse is exposed as a rickety, broken down three legged hobby horse without a head."

    Look at the mirror when you say that. Look closely.

    I said prior to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, warfare could involve the concept of reciprocity/retaliation. When the south, regardless of what the circumstances of not having enough food where, led to prisoners being ill-fed (and much more) and news of their treatment made it's way north, northerners began to feel it was justified to return the "favor" regarding southern prisoners. The food situation in the north didn't concern them, the treatment of Union captives in the south did.

    Why did the prisoner exchange program break down in the first place? It was largely due to southern recalcitrance regarding the parole and pardon exchange system of prisoners of war. Southerners flatly refused to consider blacks as being soldiers in the Union army, and would not even consider including them in the parole and prisoner exchange program. The northern commissioners felt there was no longer any point in continuing the negotiations, and rightly, walked out with the offer that the south could continue further talks on the matter if black would be included in the parole and exchange program. Shortly afterwards, the north decided to end the program because the south would not budge on the matter of blacks.

    When southern prison population ballooned as a result of southern intransigence over black prisoners of war, or even to recognize they held that status, the food situation started to affect the situation. Should the south have thought whether they could have handle the increased prisoner population, and the related matter of housing, food, and other supplies being a potential problem? Some would say yes, and if the south didn't think of it, that was negligence by not considering the logistics of their decision and what it would mean for the prisoners (white and black), and if they could properly care for them.

    In the minds of many northerners, confederate commandants and camp guards crossed a line by their ill-treatment of prisoners, and retaliation in kind was felt an appropriate response. Soldiers in particular do not take kindly to the mistreatment of their brothers in arms, and when they feel someone has stepped over a line, there may be a response, whether legal or extra-legal. Warfare can be very ugly, particularly In that when you feel the other guy did something nasty to one of yours. In that pre-Geneva/Hague era, a wartime atrocity by one side could easily result in the other side committing one in retaliation,

    I'm not saying any of that is proper or two wrongs made a right. It's what happened. Two wrongs don't make a right.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  15. Oct 18, 2019 #2255

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Gus, you provided YOUR answer, not the part where the south was paranoid through blind fear, thinking every sound the wind made in the night was a lurking danger.

    You cited Brown's raid in 1858, a single incident as a major part of why southerners felt threatened by the north. Then you proceeded to blandly wave away the fact two separate terrorist acts, one in 1854 and another in 1856, by southern members of Congress against northern abolitionist members of Congresss, inside the Capital building, YEARS before Brown's raid, were somehow similar to duels fought at times in the past. They were not duels. Brooks' attack was a premeditated terrorist act that was brutal in it's premeditation, and the way it was done, without any consideration for the victim. Afterwards, Brooks showed no signs of remorse, and appeared to gloat over it.

    Responding that the court's verdict and punishment of Brooks was conducted by a court, and therefore of no further importance seems to be an attempt to push it all under the rug, because you're intent on focusing on Brown's financial backers who you say went unpunished. Can you say one way or the other they were or were not investigated, and if an investigator decided to not press charges (for whatever reason)? If an investigation was held, and the result was no one decided to press charges, it was technically legal because it was handled through the court system. If you want legal or due process of the law, that also includes law enforcement decided not to press charges.

    Violent terrorist acts by elected southern congressman aimed at their colleagues in Congress, were in the Capital building, not some early morning duel over "honor" that was illegal in the United States outside the halls of government, and most certainly inside those buildings. The 1854 and 1856 southern terrorists acts against northerners were not the result of southern fears regarding northerners, it was southern hatred of northern abolitionists that boiled over. I'll repeat that. Those two attacks (and others by southerners against abolitionists) were not done out of fear, they can be shown to be the result of hatred and not self-defense. That blows a hole in your claim southerners were afraid of northern violence. It was southern violence born of hatred. The fact two of those acts were committed in the halls of Congress were elected officials are expected to exercise their unhindered right of frees speech without being the victims of violence is appalling, and mentioning "duels of honor" outside those halls, especially in the same post, shows you're attempting to pretend the south was the victim, not the perpetrator of violence.

    By saying Brown's financial backers got off scot-free, you've decided they were guilty and should be punished, without or without you knowing if they were investigated, and if a law enforcement investigator decided not to press charges. What happened to the concept that people are considered innocent in the eyes of the law until found guilty in a court of law? You've prejudged people and presumed they are guilty, and that shows YOUR biases.
     
  16. Oct 18, 2019 #2256

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    The irony of John brown is that, the South and the institution of Slavery created him. The creation of John Brown the radical abolitionist, ended up ultimately destroying all three.
     
  17. Oct 18, 2019 #2257

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,623
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Are you seriously comparing an act of violence one man did to another to an orchestrated raid that’s goal was to kill as many Southren slave owners as possible?
    So Bob robs a 7-11 and kills the clerk is the same as 9-11?
    ???
     
  18. Oct 18, 2019 #2258

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,623
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Location:
    Republic mo
    I’m sorry I don’t follow your reasoning here. People doing a legal activity inspired some one else to try criminal activity against them is the victims fault?
    So if you didn’t want a bugler to break in to your house and steal your things you wouldn’t have had so much nice stuff in your home.
     
  19. Oct 18, 2019 #2259

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    During the nullification crises of 1832 -1833, South Carolina held a convention where they said that attempts to use force to collect the tariffs would lead to the state's secession. It had also initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement of the tariffs. --->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

    The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. --->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

    The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    This clause passed unanimously at the Constitutional convention. --->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    In 1833, Congress passed the Force Act which included Section 5 ,which the act also had a sunset clause that led to its expiration:

    Section 5 deals with States, or portions within a state, who employ force, or any other unlawful means, to obstruct the execution of U.S. federal law, or interfere with the process of any federal court. This section authorizes the president to use whatever force necessary to suppress such insurrections, "and to cause the said laws or process to be duly executed" --->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Bill

    While the Force Bill rejected the concept of individual states' rights to nullify federal law or to secede from the Union, this was not universally accepted. It would arise again in the buildup to the American Civil War.

    However in his "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina" on December 10, 1832, Andrew Jackson declared to the South Carolina government:

    "Seduced as you have been, my fellow countrymen by the delusion theories and misrepresentation of ambitious, deluded & designing men, I call upon you in the language of truth, and with the feelings of a Father to retrace your steps. As you value liberty and the blessings of peace blot out from the page of your history a record so fatal to their security as this ordinance will become if it be obeyed. Rally again under the banners of the union whose obligations you in common with all your countrymen have, with an appeal to heaven, sworn to support, and which must be indissoluble as long as we are capable of enjoying freedom. Recollect that the first act of resistance to the laws which have been denounced as void by those who abuse your confidence and falsify your hopes is Treason, and subjects you to all the pains and penalties that are provided for the highest offence against your country. Can (you)...consent to become Traitors? Forbid it Heaven


    Just over 28 years before the civil war, this was its precursor and illustrates how the Federal gov't. and a southern born President viewed rebellion and secession.
    Note that even then, he expressed the view that the Union "must be indissoluble as long as we are capable of enjoying freedom."
    South Carolina was as much aware of the pitfalls of any southern state seceding in 1832 as when Sumter was attacked in 1861.
    What would have led Confederate leaders to think that any attempt to seceded would have gone any differently in 1861 than in 1832?
    Perhaps the southern states thought that there was safety in numbers.
    So Lincoln wasn't the first to devise the Union's reaction to a rebellion, Jackson was an experienced military leader who announced what the game plan would be in the event of secession.

     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
  20. Oct 18, 2019 #2260

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    I don't quite follow you "burglar" scenario, but if the burglar breaks in to free someone being held captive, the B&E is a moot point.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white