ALL THINGS CIVIL WAR

@snood,

Snood. I have no desire to re-enact. Nor do I have any opinions on the re-enacters.
Suffice it to say, when I was growing up in Falls Church Virginia there were 25 square miles of woods behind our house. I spent my youth digging up Civil War treasure and junk. Now that was fun

1 Reply

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

The Booths spent the rest of their lives distancing themselves from John Wilkes.

I bet John Ford thawt that was an abuse of his theater.

David

0 Replies

I wonder whether John Wilkes Booth bought a ticket.

1 Reply

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

Snood. I have no desire to re-enact. Nor do I have any opinions on the re-enacters.
Suffice it to say, when I was growing up in Falls Church Virginia there were
25 square miles of woods behind our house. I spent my youth digging up Civil War treasure and junk.

Now that was fun

more fun pulling them UP than putting them DOWN

0 Replies

@raprap,

The emphasis on Buford's delay of Heth's division until Dorsey Pender came up with his division, with almost no mention of the fight of the first brigade, first division, first corps (the "Iron Brigade") and almost no mention of Rhodes and Early arriving north of the town and driving in XIth Corps, along with the scant notice paid to the events of the second day (until the fight for the round tops), then the detailed account of Pickett's division and the attack on the Union center is why i believe Shaara used the book Pickett's Charge, as i mentioned earlier. It is also worth noting that someone wrote a history of the 20th Maine in the 50s when everyone was gearing up for the centenniel. He took the bare bones account of the regimental history and fleshed it out with Chamberlain's numerous accounts. It was written more or less in the form of a novel, but was well researched and did no violence to history that i know of. Significantly, the author remained silent about Chamberlain as "Hero of Gettysburg" and "Savior of the Union," two constant themes of Chamberlain's accounts.

The book might have remained obsecure, but then Reader's Digest included it in one of its "Condensed books" compilations and it enjoyed a renewed interest (that was in 1958? 1959?--i disremember). After that, not only did the sales pick up again, but libraries rushed to get one or more copies of the full book for their shelves. In the myriad of books coming out each year in that period, that was important to distinguish that book from the rest of the herd.

I don't know, but i suspect that Shaara was inspired by those two books.

*************************************************

Ambrose Bierce served with both Buell's Army of the Ohio (he was at Shiloh) and in the Army of the Cumberland. He was with Thomas at Chickamauga after Rosecrans had fled to Chattanooga. There was an interesting little book published about ten years back or so, Ambrose Bierce's Civil War, which was made up of the few accounts he wrote of his personal experiences.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Firing on Ft. SUmter ceases on April 14. Film at 11
Lincoln presents Congress with a proclomation that askes for 75000 troops to be raised from among the state militias to "put down the rebellion"

Anyone have an official declaration of a state of war?

0 Replies

From "Son of the South-dot-com," here's the Harper's Weekly account of the declaration of war. (scroll down)

From the same sources (Son of the South and Harper's), here's the account of Lincoln's call for volunteers.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Granted that under Article I Section 8, Congress has the power
to "suppress Insurrections" I find it impossible to believe that in the 1700s,
the ratifying States were so LACKING in claustrophobia and doubt
as to intentionally lock themselves into a union from which
thay coud never leave.

Indeed, MY State, NY, in its Instrument of Ratification of the US Constitution,
was most acutely explicit qua its right to leave the union if that were deemed necessary to its happiness.

BEHOLD:

NEW YORK INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION
00/04/17 NY Instrument of Ratification of the Constitution

Record Group 11, The National Archives, Washington, DC

“ That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people

whensoever it shall become necessary to their happinesss ....

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;
that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People
capable of bearing Arms,
is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of
War, Rebellion or Insurrection."
THEN: Be it known that We the People of the State of New York, Incorporated in
statehood under the Authority of The Constitution of the United States of America
by the New York Instrument of Ratification, thus are graced by the
full benefits and liberties predicated under that document; or we are made and held captive
under Unlawful Powers to which Under God we cannot, must not,
and do not submit.”
[All emfasis has been added by David.]

(I guess its kinda obvious that the New Yorkers forgot about that
when thay invaded the South.)

Other States did likewise, in THEIR Instruments of Ratification,
not NY alone.
If my torpor did not exceed my sloth,
I 'd dig them out for exhibition.

ANYWAY, in the fullness of good faith,
I believe that the jurisprudential analysis of
a sincerely honest, impartial court
woud have found that a State had the Constitutional freedom
to leave the Union, the same way that America can quit NATO,
or quit the Organization of American States, or the UN, if we decide to.

Indeed, the Constitution provided in its 10th Amendment that:
"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."
[All emfasis has been added by David.]
That can reasonably be understood to include the power
of the States to leave the Union, upon which the States relied
when thay decided to ratify the US Constitution.

A peaceful decision to discontinue membership
is NOT an "Insurrection".

The history of the world will bear witness
to the fact that governments LOATHE & ABHOR the loss of geografy.

I offer, for your consideration,
the concept that the Northern invasion was only an exercise in brute force
and it was not supported nor authorized by the Constitution
that the Northerners swore to uphold, and from which
the Southerners resigned.

If anyone will feel better by pointing out
that might makes right, we can still consider the issue,
if we wanna.

Mr. Setanta, if u prefer that consideration hereof
not be on your thread, please lemme know
n I 'll be happy to defer to your wishes
and begin a new thread on this topic.

David

0 Replies

I don't really care. However, your point of view ignores two salient facts. The first is that the southern states were acting to protect the institution of slavery, no matter what people now claim about it. The second is that they seized or attacked in attempting to seize, Federal military installations, and did so without provocation from the Federal government. That Buchanan responded in such a weak manner is not reason to assume that the United States did not have the right in law and in simple justice to take military action to defend their military installations, and to punish the aggressors.

Consider what the response would be today if any American military installation anywhere were attacked without provocation, and Mr. Obama did nothing.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't really care. However, your point of view ignores two salient facts.
The first is that the southern states were acting to protect the institution of slavery,
no matter what people now claim about it.

Well, my inquiry seeks to consider the Constitutional legitimacy of one region of America
invading another region, under the auspices of the federal government.
Did the federal government have that Constitutional authority?
In other words: to WHAT did the Founders AGREE?
If this had been debated by the Founders,
by the Federalists and the Anti-federalists,
during argument of the merits of Ratification,
what woud have been the upshot ????
The Constitution was accepted upon the promise to add the Bill of Rights,
which the First Congress went ahead n rendered it to the States for ratification.
Did the the 10th Amendment include States' freedom to leave
the Union, or not ??

During Ratification debate,
if someone had raised your question (essentially):
"Hay, suppose that some States continue to have slavery;
will it be Constitutionally correct for those States that don't
to invade the slavery States in order to force them BOTH to

1) remain in the Union
and
2) to abandon slavery against their will ????"

In my opinion, the federalists and the Anti-federalists
woud have agreed that the federal government was not granted power to do that.

Do u see it differently ?

Setanta wrote:

The second is that they seized or attacked in attempting to seize, Federal military installations, and did so without provocation from the Federal government. That Buchanan responded in such a weak manner is not reason to assume that the United States did not have the right in law and in simple justice to take military action to defend their military installations, and to punish the aggressors.

Consider what the response would be today if any American military installation anywhere were attacked without provocation, and Mr. Obama did nothing.

Well, the reasoning was that AFTER the Southern States had quit the Union,
those Federal military installations were violating their sovereignty,
the same as the English Redcoats took a while to leave America, after the Treaty of Paris,
keeping up some of their forts for a while, in violation of American sovereignty.

The idea was that the federal troops shoud go back to their own country.
The Southerners (predictably) wanted their real estate back.
After the South quit the Union, the Northerners became alien troops under an alien flag.
So far as I am aware, thay sought to keep no chattel of the USA.
My information might be incomplete on that point.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The South seceded on the belief of the legitamacy of slavery, and then they attempted to take Federal property, fire upon a merchantman vessel, and then fired upon a fort.
The point of legitamacy of the seceded states is kinda by the wayside.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The South seceded on the belief of the legitamacy of slavery,

Yes, and also (more in point) upon the belief
that thay had a right to leave the Union,
for any reason or for no reason,
the same as we can leave A2K, if we wanna.

Do u allege that in 1861, slavery was NOT Constitutionally legitimate?
In your vu, was the 13th Amendment unnecessary ??

farmerman wrote:

and then they attempted to take Federal property,

WHOSE property????
If we quit the United Nations, do thay get to KEEP that
real estate on 42nd Steet???
and their no parking zones ?????
I don 't think so.

farmerman wrote:

fire upon a merchantman vessel, and then fired upon a fort.
The point of legitamacy of the seceded states is kinda by the wayside.

Was the fort within the CSA ??

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Well, my inquiry seeks to consider the Constitutional legitimacy of one region of America invading another region, under the auspices of the federal government.

This one's pretty simple. Whether or not a state had the right to depart, the Federal government's military measures were legitimate. If a state does not have the right to leave the union, the government had the right to suppress an insurrection. If a state did have the right to leave the union, the Federal government was entitled to levy war on a power which had first levied war on the Federal government without provocation.

Quote:

The Southerners (predictably) wanted their real estate back.
After the South quit the Union, the Northerners became alien troops under an alien flag.

Just to use this one sentence to stand for all of your comments. When the United States created a military installation, it became the property of the the United States, as opposed to being the property of the state in which it was erected--something to which all of the states had previously consented. Furthermore, the cost of the installation, its equipment and its maintenance was borne by all of the states. Do you allege that a foreign power (if, and only for the sake of discussion, one were to stipulate that those states had a right to withdraw from the union) has the right to steal from the rest of the states? Florida and South Carolina made no offer to purchase the real estate, nor to reimburse the states remaining in the union for the property they seized. In fact, they knowingly seized it with the intention of using those factilities and the equipment and stores in those facilities, to wage war on the United States.

I find your arguments quixotic, and unrealistic.

1 Reply

David wrote:

1) remain in the Union
and
2) to abandon slavery against their will ?

This is a good way to introduce the subject of practical politics. In fact, the best way for the South to have preserved the institution of slavery would have been to remain in the union. It takes two thirds of both houses of the Congress to propose constitutional amendments, and that could not have been done as long as the delegations of the southern states remained in Congress. Because of the three-fifths provision, southern states already had a huge political advantage, in that their delegations in the House represented far fewer voters than did the delegations of northern states. With the congressional delegations of the southern states in Congress, they effectively blocked any move to amend the constitution to outlaw slavery.

So nobody was doing anything to the southern states against their individual or collective wills. Furthermore, Mr. Buchanan and the Congress sitting in 1860 had not even mooted such measures. It can reasonably be argued that Mr. Lincoln also had no such plans, and even if he had, so long as southern congressional delegations remained in place, he could have accomplished nothing.

It was, in fact, an incredibly puerile move on the part of the southern states. It was the equivalent of saying: "If we don't play by my rules, i'm going to take my toys and go home"--when in fact, everyone was already playing by their rules.

2 Replies

The southern states had already decided upon a course of war, in many cases before they had seceded, or even convened conventions for the purpose. Several of the southern states applied in late 1860 for stands of arms and munitions from the St. Louis armory. Of course, as soon as Virginia seceded, they moved to seize the armory at Harper's Ferry. They also attempted to seize the Navy yard as Gosport, and although they salvaged much, the blue jackets fired the naval stores, and U.S.S. Merrimac, which was then in dry dock.

Under any other circumstances, those clowns would have been labelled brigands, thieves, pirates.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

David wrote:

1) remain in the Union
and
2) to abandon slavery against their will ?

Setanta wrote:

This is a good way to introduce the subject of practical politics.
In fact, the best way for the South to have preserved the institution of slavery would have been to remain in the union.

History has proven that to have been the case.

Setanta wrote:

It takes two thirds of both houses of the Congress to propose constitutional amendments,
and that could not have been done as long as the delegations of the southern states remained in Congress.

Yes.

Setanta wrote:

Because of the three-fifths provision, southern states already had a huge political advantage, in that their delegations in the House represented far fewer voters than did the delegations of northern states. With the congressional delegations of the southern states in Congress, they effectively blocked any move to amend the constitution to outlaw slavery.

Yes.

Setanta wrote:

So nobody was doing anything to the southern states against their individual or collective wills.

True, so far as slavery was concerned.
There were some miscellaneous economic disagreements
in reference to which the South was dissatisfied.

Setanta wrote:

Furthermore, Mr. Buchanan and the Congress sitting in 1860 had not even mooted such measures. It can reasonably be argued that Mr. Lincoln also had no such plans, and even if he had, so long as southern congressional delegations remained in place, he could have accomplished nothing.

That 's how I see it.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

In retrospect, we know that the Southerners were militarily overconfident.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

(Ahem)
Let me rephrase that-
You guys are really very interested in the Civil War, it seems...
Do you have any thoughts about the people who spend time and money on civil War re-enactments?

They seem a little over-the-top to me.
Some of those guys half-starve themselves to look the part.

Now up here in the 'Chusetts we do Revolutionary War play-acting.
I won't say our folk are less committed, but if you drop by Lexington and
Concord this time of year, you'll get the impression that the Redcoats
were opposed by a bunch of pudgy, bespectacled, middle-aged guys.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

David wrote:

Well, my inquiry seeks to consider the Constitutional legitimacy of one region of America
invading another region, under the auspices of the federal government.

Setanta wrote:

This one's pretty simple. Whether or not a state had the right to depart, the Federal government's military measures were legitimate. If a state does not have the right to leave the union, the government had the right to suppress an insurrection. If a state did have the right to leave the union, the Federal government was entitled to levy war on a power which had first levied war on the Federal government without provocation.

I must dissent.
The provocation consisted of alien occupation
(a de facto invasion) of Confederate territory.
If we throw the UN out of Manhattan,
does it have a provocation for war against us?
I don 't think it does.
I think the Philippines were within their rights
when thay threw us out of our naval base there in 1992,
tho I did not like it much, at the time.

David wrote:

The Southerners (predictably) wanted their real estate back.
After the South quit the Union, the Northerners became alien troops under an alien flag.

Setanta wrote:

Just to use this one sentence to stand for all of your comments.
When the United States created a military installation, it became the property of the the United States,
as opposed to being the property of the state in which it was erected--something to
which all of the states had previously consented.

That 's true, but that was subject to the joint sovereignty of the federal system, which had ended.
When it took title to the realty, it was not then an alien military presence.

Setanta wrote:

Furthermore, the cost of the installation, its equipment and its maintenance was borne by all of the states.
Do you allege that a foreign power (if, and only for the sake of discussion, one were to stipulate that those states had a right to withdraw from the union) has the right to steal from the rest of the states?

That is subject to reasonable negotiation of property value.
Neither side made much of that notion.
BOTH sides were interested in SOVEREIGNTY.

THAT was the disputed issue.

Setanta wrote:

Florida and South Carolina made no offer to purchase the real estate, nor to reimburse the states remaining in the union for the property they seized. In fact, they knowingly seized it with the intention of using those factilities and the equipment and stores in those facilities, to wage war on the United States.

On a DEFENSIVE basis only; thay did not wanna invade the North, except as a counter-invasion,
for purely strategic reasons.

Setanta wrote:

I find your arguments quixotic, and unrealistic.

Well, history has told us that thay were unrealistic
because of military failure.

I was considering the Constitutional reasoning involved in
the North's decision to invade the South and force it into the Union.

To my mind, it was a naked power grab.
The Founders woud have believed that it was OK to leave the Union.
It was not a prison.

If that were not true,
then it woud have been a BIG SCANDAL
when the NY Instrument of Ratification was received.
It might well have been rejected, with its declaration
of NY's right to quit the Union, for its happiness.

That is not what happened.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No, the provocations were attacks on Federal military installations when in fact the the state in questions--Florida--had not departed the union; and the firing on an unarmed merchant vessel in Charleston harbor. You're attempting to make out that these states had a right to seize property which was not legally theirs just because of proximity. A poor argument, and one i suspect you know would not work in court.

The UN analogy is not, in fact, analogous.

1 Reply

ALL THINGS CIVIL WAR

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know