Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sensitive question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

    No again. Not in this case anyway. The American colonists were Englishmen and women, not some captive population like the Aztecs, Incas or many others that could be mentioned. They were equal to the folks in London by virtue of citizenship and the rights inherent in that situation. In spite of that, they were denied those rights with no way to appeal.

    In the US, the southern states were equals who were denied no rights accorded to same. They had mechanisms built into the political system, in our case the Supreme Court, to have their say legally. They chose to try and win their argument by the sword, and in that court the decision went against them. Case closed.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Actually this is false history, New Amsterdam was settled earlier than many of the British settlements, (1624) and it's settlements ranged from what is now Long Island to Albany and beyond, From Toms River to Vermont-Canada area,
    New Sweden was settled in what is now New Jersey, parts of Delaware and parts of Pennsylvania.
    In 1664 the British took over New Amsterdam and forced the Dutch settlers to sign allegiance to the king. Even going so far as to force them to take new names.
    The Dutch Settlers in 1654 held court in all settlement to vote on the issue of allowing Jews fleeing Portuguese persecution in Brazil and voted in favor of allowing them refuge. The first Jewish settlement was created in America.
    The Swedish settlement "New Sweden" was created in 1638 in New Jersey, Delaware and parts of Pennsylvania.
    It should also be noted that Georgia was settled by a mix of Scottish, Irish, Welsh and British, mostly convicts that Oglethorpe recruited from jails and prisons, by paying their fines they agreed to seven year servitude in the colony of Georgia .
    England was not the only player in early colonial America.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by daddut roger View Post


    The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights, does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.

    In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.

    in any case, secession is a right enshrined in the Constitution ... your Xth Amendment proves nothing in this sense ...
    on the contrary, I can quote, a second time, the Section 10 of Article I, where it is written:
    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; Money corner; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


    the Southern Confederation therefore had no legal existence.
    Excellent posting demonstrating that there was no legal 'right' of secession for the Confederacy. Well done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Another aspect of the rebellion was that it was welcomed by both Great Britain and France, especially Great Britain, who feared a growing economic and world power in the United States. A weakened US divided by rebellion and divisioni would have benefitted both France and Great Britain.

    A second aspect of the rebellion allowed France to attempt to firmly establish a puppet 'empire' in Mexico which the US could do nothing about until the war was over. The US sent a 50,000-man army to the US-Mexican border under Sheridan after the Confederacy collapsed to force the French out and support the Mexican insurgency.

    Leave a comment:


  • daddut roger
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    Interesting. Chase was an abolitionist, so I always figured he ruled according to his conscience rather than the law. His reasoning was based on the common history of the states rather than on the Constitution.
    But I could definitely see him ruling to seize funds and otherwise benefitting the Northern cause.

    Secession is still legal, since Supreme Court cases are not binding on the states, and the X Ammendment is still in effect. It comes down to public will. If California wanted to secede, for example, it depends on the federal government and if the people of other states want to go to war to keep it in the Union.

    It is a Union of the bayonet, where if you want to leave, you have to be prepared for war.

    The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights, does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.

    In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.

    in any case, secession is a right enshrined in the Constitution ... your Xth Amendment proves nothing in this sense ...
    on the contrary, I can quote, a second time, the Section 10 of Article I, where it is written:
    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; Money corner; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


    the Southern Confederation therefore had no legal existence.

    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    They should've gone to the gallows.

    If they had, though, the South would've had its martyrs, and the results would make the dung-cart of the lost cause look like a mouse-dropping.

    Trying to forgive, and re-integrate, the South was certainly the right call, although I admit it could've been handled better.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    Being a colonist makes you by definition a second rate. Logically they were denied rights. Nothing wrong with that.
    Silly beyond belief, but you go ahead and have fun with that if you wish.

    Regards,
    Dennis

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    Secession is still legal, since Supreme Court cases are not binding on the states, and the X Ammendment is still in effect. It comes down to public will. If California wanted to secede, for example, it depends on the federal government and if the people of other states want to go to war to keep it in the Union.

    It is a Union of the bayonet, where if you want to leave, you have to be prepared for war.
    Secession still legal? I see you missed Texas v White. So, (referencing my bold of your post), you also obviously missed out on McCulloch v Maryland which in fact has established just the opposite as a precedent.

    On a practical basis, by believing in secession you are implying that the Founding Fathers established the Constitution as some sort of temporary expedient. That is a knee slapper.

    I suppose your logic plays well at SCV and UDC conventions, but other than those throwbacks pining for the good old days of some folks knowing their place, that thinking holds no water. Carry on with it if you wish, but it is more stand up comedy than rational thought.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Last edited by D1J1; 11 Jul 20, 05:16. Reason: Edit to cite correct SCOTUS decision

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    There is no way the state of California will be able to raise enough troops to disarm and expel the US Armed Forces.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    That decision was heavily influenced by the North's intention to seize all funds still held by the South as part of reparations. If secession had been ruled legal, then those funds could not have been touched by the North.

    Prior to the Civil War, secession was legal according to the documents governing the states at the time.
    Interesting. Chase was an abolitionist, so I always figured he ruled according to his conscience rather than the law. His reasoning was based on the common history of the states rather than on the Constitution.
    But I could definitely see him ruling to seize funds and otherwise benefitting the Northern cause.

    Secession is still legal, since Supreme Court cases are not binding on the states, and the X Ammendment is still in effect. It comes down to public will. If California wanted to secede, for example, it depends on the federal government and if the people of other states want to go to war to keep it in the Union.

    It is a Union of the bayonet, where if you want to leave, you have to be prepared for war.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

    No again. Not in this case anyway. The American colonists were Englishmen and women, not some captive population like the Aztecs, Incas or many others that could be mentioned. They were equal to the folks in London by virtue of citizenship and the rights inherent in that situation. In spite of that, they were denied those rights with no way to appeal.

    In the US, the southern states were equals who were denied no rights accorded to same. They had mechanisms built into the political system, in our case the Supreme Court, to have their say legally. They chose to try and win their argument by the sword, and in that court the decision went against them. Case closed.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Being a colonist makes you by definition a second rate. Logically they were denied rights. Nothing wrong with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    That decision was heavily influenced by the North's intention to seize all funds still held by the South as part of reparations. If secession had been ruled legal, then those funds could not have been touched by the North.

    Prior to the Civil War, secession was legal according to the documents governing the states at the time.
    Which documents? State law does not trump federal law, and federal law is, and based on, the Constitution. And nowhere in the Constitution is there allowance for a state or states to secede.
    Last edited by Massena; 10 Jul 20, 14:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post
    They should have been tried, and if found guilty, pardoned. This is based on precedents of the Whiskey and Fries Rebellions.

    The Constitution was and is not clear on secession, and if you ask me, the balance of evidence was on the side of the Confederates. The pro-Unionists certainly didn't have much to rely on. In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court case that ruled secession was illegal, Chief Justice Chase based his opinion, in part, on the fact that the states shared borders and had a common history, not necessarily that they were tied together legally. It was a close question that could have gone either way, and many in the North believed the "Southern" states were in their right to withdraw from the Union. Some radicals even wanted to see the Gulf states go, so there would be less slave states in the U.S.

    But as the North won and the Union was restored, I think the same treatment should be afforded the Confederates as was accorded the Whiskey Rebellion participants and those in Fries Rebellion. In all cases it was a question of local or state power against federal authority, which was new and hotly contested. Presidents Washington and Adams both pardoned the participants of the earlier rebellions, so the precedent was set.

    In short, no one knew whether secession was legal or not, and the precedent was that if rebels were acting in a "gray area," no pun intended, then they should be pardoned. Lincoln held that opinion, which would put him in line with Washington and Adams.
    That decision was heavily influenced by the North's intention to seize all funds still held by the South as part of reparations. If secession had been ruled legal, then those funds could not have been touched by the North.

    Prior to the Civil War, secession was legal according to the documents governing the states at the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    General Milley hit the proverbial nail on the head.
    I believe the army will be renaming bases in the near future, that brings up the question, why doesn't the army name bases after states, cities, and presidents and men who have received the MoH, like the Navy names ships?

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    The Chairman of the JCOS has chimed in....The CSA was straight up a rebellion and an act of treason. In his opinion
    General Milley hit the proverbial nail on the head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardS View Post
    Not read much beyond the OP, but here is my 0 cents worth of opinion.
    1) The Civilian Leadership should not be tried unless they left FEDERAL service without resigning.
    2) Officers the same way. You resign, blanket pardon. You don't; you get tried for desertion.
    3) Blanket pardon for all WOs, NCOs and ORs. They didn't have the resign option.

    Should they have been tried for treason? That's tough. If you did; you'd start a guerilla war But also how one viewed the Nation and to whom one's loyalty was was different back then. Look at how the economies of each section was different. In the North trade goods move East to West and vice versa mainly with some coming south. It was an integrated economy. The states needed each other and so was united. The south's economy was food and cotton MAINLY. So the product was sent to a central location (usually the capitol) and so fostered a reliance on the individual state. Not any other state or the union as a whole. The only unifying force in the South was a dependence on slaves. That's it. So for the average dirt clod hopper farmer (I come from a long lime of dirt clod farmers) he looked no further than say Atlanta in Georgia. So for him the Federal Government was taxes and mail. He didn't see trade cross borders as a Federal thing, but just simply economic. So no tying bonds with the other states. And they thought the Constitution would allow a state to leave the Union. So they never considered it treason. So in every way I look at it; they should not be tried for Treason.

    Let me put my biases on the line. I had 3 relatives, that I know of, fight for the Confederate Army including one KIA. I FIRMLY believe they fought for state and home and not slavery. But the CSA did fight for slavery and thus a bad, bad, cause.

    Should the Confederate military be reviled? No. Most were the regular poor dumb schmuck that the US produces for every war. I think we all can roundly damn the cause, but shouldn't damn them.
    Should we revile the Civilian Leadership? HELL yes! They were the rich old men ho sent the dumb young schmucks to war to protect their profit.
    Should we revile the CSA? *CENSORED* *CENSORED* YES! Why are we thinking to talk about it. THE CSA WAS EVIL. It's a shame good people on both sides had to die or get caught up in the war. Both sides suffered. And the black people suffered the most and are still suffering to this day. Sorry if this is old news, but I've not been around much lately.
    They took up arms against their own country in order to defend a corrupt and immoral institution. The actual question that should be put is should they be honored for it. And the answer is a blunt 'no.'

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X