The War Between The States Discussions

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

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Dec 8, 2019 #3321

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,118
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Unalienable or Inalienable?
    Raleigh or Ralegh as spelled in sixteenth century
    Wynde or wind? Tire or tyre, center centre ect
    Webster was a yankee after all.
     
  2. Dec 8, 2019 #3322

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    Americans are a spoiled lot since we have basically only seen our nation and its borders grow larger since it was created.
    In other parts of the world the borders were constantly changing and evolving due to wars and the changing of government organization and the many different ethnic groups.
    Some world border changes were the result of peaceful transitions while others weren't.
    North America not only had so much open territory, but while the US experienced growth in power, the Europeans were abandoning many of its colonial land holdings.
    So there was a mutually shared Federal and state interest that our national borders should not shrink for many reasons.
    At least that was a shared interest except for the political division that was caused by slavery ever since the beginning of the Union which led to the compromises over admitting free states and slave states into the Union.
    There was a lot of open territory that still needed to be organized into new states,
    There were a lot of natural resources at stake, even though many were still undiscovered.
    There are a lot of reasons for not wanting a nation's borders to shrink.
    Freedom of travel, a common monetary system, language, courts, a shared history dating to the development of the earliest colonies and the AWI, ease of investment.
    Being more industrialized and having more population, urban and industrial and financial centers, it's understandable that the north may have had a larger accumulation of wealth and influence, at least in terms of population which also translated into more political and economic influence.
    The nation's political party system wasn't strictly based on geography, but it often exhibited the state vs. federalist arguments, probably more the result of slavery than not.

    But the free state vs. slave state issue was the main divisive factor since everything else was shared as being in common other than the differing agricultural vs. industrial economies.

    If the slave issue were entirely put aside for one minute, then no one would want the borders of the United States to shrink.
    But considering that the south did promote the shrinking of the national border, that alone would have led to war whether slavery was the reason for advocating a border change or not.
    It was a simple political dispute but one that also involved economics, and which would have represented a loss of national power and a degree of freedom for the remaining states.
    Southerners seem to see the shrinking of their borders simply as a matter of gaining more freedom for themselves, to be able to grow and expand slavery.
    Yet from the northern perpective which the southern apologists don't seem to acknowledge was that shrinking would result in an unnecessary loss of freedom and opportunity for the majority of states that remained in the Union, the states that had more power and influence that would have been forfeited.
    Since the north had more power, money, an industrial base and population to begin with, it didn't make sense to them that the American majority should succumb to the will of a minority.
    The amount of loss would be disproportionate.
    If the north had 90% of the industry, why should the south be allowed to shrink the nation by such a proportionately larger amount of its territory.
    If the north had more than twice the population of the south, then why should the amount of its freedom and opportunities shrink along with the size of its borders.
    Meanwhile, the south had laws that sent freed slaves northward since in some states like Texas, it was illegal to reside in a slave state as a free black.

    My point is that border changes have happened throughout history, often due to being forced upon a nation that was weaker militarily.
    But in the case of North America, we were mostly isolated from the rest of world and European wars, we had a unified nation with more opportunity for freedom, travel, development, population growth, business, commerce, a common and superior form of government just as envisioned by the founders.
    For the national borders to suddenly shrink would have represented not only a physical loss of land and freedom, but also presented a real threat since a weaker United States would also be weaker in the hostile world.
    And a new nation directly to the south would have been viewed as being hostile, an economic and military competitor.
    There was no reason for the north to give up an ounce of its freedom.
    There was no need for the south to give up one slave until it seceded.
    But the physical shrinking of America's national borders was probably the most unacceptable aspect of southern secession, especially since the border was perceived to be intrinsically and directly linked to the degree of freedom for all Americans, all due to the sectional self interest of Confederates.
    It's no wonder that the strong legal arguments that have been made in this thread date back to the founding, while the southern cause for freedom is only based on the natural right to make war in order to divide a nation for the benefit of their own self interest to own slaves which the south was not actually threatened with, but it was only perceived.
    That's why Lincoln proposed emancipation, since without slavery there would have been no war, and no loss of freedom for American citizens.
    Only more freedom for slaves and for all wage earners who would be paid for their work.
    Since the south was proven to be weaker militarily, they had no justification to shrink American borders or to deprive Americans of any of their freedoms.
    Every side in a conflict has self interest, but with regard to shrinking borders. the national interest was on the side of the north and keeping the original borders.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  3. Dec 8, 2019 #3323

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    Compare Stephens and Lincoln by their actions, then see how they measure up.
     
  4. Dec 8, 2019 #3324

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    How about "in" vs. "of"
     
    tenngun likes this.
  5. Dec 8, 2019 #3325

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,118
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Location:
    Republic mo
    That’s a good argument for you point of view. But I don’t think any of the first thirteen would have signed on to a constitution that held that idea.
    The small size or small living area offered by the New England states had them running scared over the idea of domination by larger states, or larger groups of states. In 1789 most people ate food grown locally. The amount of farm land available directly effected how big of a population a state could have.
    Small states were scared, and who were they scared of? Virginia Georgia New York and Pennsylvania.
    While you may argue that the rights of 90% out weigh the rights of 10%, our founders were very scared of that situation.
     
  6. Dec 8, 2019 #3326

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    Southerners weren't fighting for their freedom, they were fighting against change. In doing so they were enslaving themselves. They were fighting themselves. literally and metaphorically.
    As slavery would have expanded without restraint under the Confederacy, the average poor white southerner would have found himself displaced by the slave. Slavery would give blacks an employment advantage over whites and would give slave owners an economic advantage over non-slave owners. In short, poor white southerners would become in essence slaves themselves of a different kind. Slaves denied equal opportunity because of black slavery.
     
  7. Dec 8, 2019 #3327

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    Is your argument valid if you have to freeze it in time to make it ?
    If it isn't valid now, then it wasn't valid then.
     
  8. Dec 8, 2019 #3328

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Yohogania
    No, the irony is your commentary about all the stuff about UFO's while in defense of your thinking being juxtaposed in the same post attempting to defend pro-southern apologia. UFO believers often make claims that are unverifiable, and southern apologists and defenders of the lost cause myth ignore facts to the contrary.

    Both UFO supporters and southern apologists have written tons of rubbish. Your comment about people in the future might view what was written about UFO's and taking it seriously...that can be applied to the southern apologists who write, speak and post all sorts of stuff in defense of what others might consider whacked out.

    That's part of the irony, but not all of it.
     
    Carbon 6 likes this.
  9. Dec 8, 2019 #3329

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    After serving in the US Senate for many years, Sam Houston was elected to be the Governor of Texas in 1859.
    He was a pro-unionist Governor of a slave state and was against secession if Lincoln was elected.
    He eventually declared Texas to be an independent Republic again rather than to join the Confederacy.
    When he refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Texas Convention to join the Confederacy he was asked to take a loyalty oath to the Confederacy which he refused.
    Then he was forced from office.
    He refused Union assistance to remain Governor but made scathing statements against joining the Confederacy.

    "A Texas political convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Houston proclaimed that Texas was once again an independent republic, but he refused to recognize that same convention's authority to join Texas to the Confederacy. After Houston refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, the legislature declared the governorship vacant. Houston did not recognize the validity of his removal, but he did not attempt to use force to remain in office, and he refused aid from the federal government to prevent his removal. His successor, Edward Clark, was sworn in on March 18.[83] In an undelivered speech, Houston wrote:

    Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas. ... I protest. ... against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.[84]

    On April 19, 1861, he told a crowd:

    Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.[85] --->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston#Governor_of_Texas

    Sam_Houston_Grave.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
    DaveC and Carbon 6 like this.
  10. Dec 8, 2019 #3330

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    That was good. :thumb:
     
  11. Dec 8, 2019 #3331

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,118
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Except for the simple fact that the states of the south were firmly entrenched in the idea that states could leave the union at their will. An idea first voiced in New England, an idea not forbidden in the constitution.
    Even Houston above acknowledged it was a states rights though he feared the outcome
     
  12. Dec 8, 2019 #3332

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Yohogania
    The part about "simple" applies to those simple minded people who got suckered into going along with the south's delusional ideas about leaving the Union.

    Prattling on about the Constitution not explicity forbidding secession, doesn't make it legal. Articap has been trying to tell you and you refuse to admit there are clauses in the Constitution that can be applied to over various situations not mentioned in the document. No where does it say murdering a head of state is legal, yet there are ways to deal with that situation. Not only in the present, but also then.

    Whatever the pro-secessionists leading southern state government thought or wanted was usually not a matter they permitted or considered giving all franchised members of the public in that state, a chance to vote on. In 1860, southern states did not put Lincoln's name on the ballots of southern states, which was a direct denial of their political franchise to vote freely. In 1861, southern states that considered secession (and went the whole hog on it) never allowed state wide votes on whether to stay or leave.

    That is NOT freedom. Pretending the north didn't permit "freedom" and then joining a clique of anti-northern slave owners who we are constantly told was a (small?) minority, is akin to jumping out of the frying pan directly in the fire while holding a can of naptha.

    Telling everyone secession was legal then, and legal now reminds me of something I've often heard. When some tells you to do something they haven't done, then don't take their advice. If you want to convince everyone it is, go ahead and try it. Some of would find watching what happens, very interesting. Shall we fire up the pop-corn machine any time soon?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  13. Dec 8, 2019 #3333

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Yep. Words also have specific meanings that can be subtle. In the present world, Americans and English-speakers outside the US use the same word, sometimes with different meanings. Over the last 250 years or so, nuances and shaded meanings present in the language then and now may not be the same.

    For example, Americans use the word friend to apply to a life-long best buddy to people they've met recently and barely know much about them. Two hundred years ago, an Englishman would not consider another (gentleman) properly introduced unless he and the other person both knew someone well, and could formally introduce them to each other. Until people were formally introduced, members of polite society did not consider a person someone they knew, let alone a friend, until that "formal introduction" took place. Does that matter today? Not at all. Then? To some it did.

    Do "quaint" and obscure meanings used in the past matter sometimes? If you are reading and commenting on legal and political documents, those nuanced words, and grammar, can be absolutely critical.

    When someone who doesn't have legal training, uses written English badly, and tells you "it's legal".....see better advice from someone who may know more.

    Free advice on what's legally permissible from someone who isn't competent to give professional advice isn't necessarily worth what you paid for it, it can cost you dearly for taking bad advice.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  14. Dec 8, 2019 #3334

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,118
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Can you site some examples of things not illegal that people were punished for doing?
    Killing a head of state is murder, and that makes it a state and local jurisdiction matter.
    One of the things that filed conspiracy theories about Kennedy was transporting JFKS body out of state when by law it was a Texas matter.
    It is now illegal to kill any head of state, but before that law was passed the CIA did attempt to kill Castro.
    None of those points sighted about clause in the constitution preventing states from some activities reserved for the federal government are applicable...AS THE CSA WAS NO LONGER A PART OF THE UNION.
    Going on about the Federalist papers is oK but the federalist papers are commentaries, they are not the constitution. The constitution says nothing about if a state can with draw or not. Absence of a law doesn’t mean it’s illegal until some one else tell you you can do x, unless you have a lot of precedence on your side you can’t prevent the south was acting illegally.
    Prattling on about how states can’t do this or that only applies to states that are in the United States. The constitution was no more applicable to the CSA then it was to Mexico.
     
  15. Dec 8, 2019 #3335

    Eutycus

    Eutycus

    Eutycus

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    South Texas
    There was a 70 year old man from Gettysburg that took part in the Battle. I'm not going to bore everyone with details as most followers of history already know it. But in this famous picture of John Burns, what sort of gun is 20191208_092003.jpg he posing with?
     
  16. Dec 8, 2019 #3336

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    How about delivering the mail.
    July 29 1835
    Thousands were deprived of their constitutional right when South Carolina refused to deliver the mail and instead burned it.
    Several constitutional rights were violated.
    Though the only people punished were the victims.
    [​IMG]
     
    arcticap likes this.
  17. Dec 8, 2019 #3337

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    Probably a post for the flintlock section, but it looks like a half-stock trade gun to me.
     
  18. Dec 8, 2019 #3338

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,118
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Location:
    Republic mo
    I have understood it to be a cut back US musket from war of 1812. I also understand he was photographed with it but used a current rifled musket during the battle.
     
  19. Dec 8, 2019 #3339

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Yohogania
    You're got more "facts" wrong. Murder at the time could be a Federal matter, not the prerogative of a state.

    Murder might be a state matter depending on location, however, in the District of Columbia, it is Federal, not state. The District of Columbia is governed by Congress, not Maryland, not Virginia, or any other state.

    In case you don't know where this applies, I'll explain it so you should be able to understand why you are wrong.

    When Booth shot Lincoln, it was in the District, and was a Federal Matter. Booth was hunted down using Federal troops, not those of Maryland or any other state. The executions of his accused conspirators? It was not a state matter, it was Federal and the conspirators were tried by military tribunals, and they were hanged by the military.

    The crap about the southern states not being part of the Union? That's not a fact as you are attempting to portray, but entirely a belief based on your thinking of what the Constitution doesn't say. Although you want something that specifically state "x" is illegal, the legal system routinely deals with laws that are used in ways they were never intended.

    Citing the "Deceleration"? That dog doesn't hunt, because I don't buy into the idea the Americans had a "right" to rebell. The Americans could try, take their chances, and if they lost....well, tough, what did they expect would happen if things went south?

    You gotta do better than you've done. The same tired slogans aren't cutting the mustard.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  20. Dec 9, 2019 #3340

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,118
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Location:
    Republic mo
    I don’t see how this relates to the question.
    Was any one prosecuted for withholding the mail?
    I do believe the problem here was outlawed material. Unfortunately well up until the 1950s censorship was rampant. “Banned in Boston” stamped on your book was ticket to a million seller.
    There remains sites on the internet one is wise not to look at.
    However my question was do you know a precedent that an activity not addressed in law bought punishment for the person doing the not illegal thing.
     

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page



arrow_white