is the pledge unconstitutional?

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence. When America declared
its Independence, it did not yearn for war with England,
but was willing to tolerate its inconveniences, for the goal;
so also, the South.

hamilton wrote:
not really... they lost.
Is that a non-sequitur, Mr. Hamilton ?

we had more and better resources than them, and could supply our army better, despite their having superior leadership, and it was quite obvious even from the beginning, although they managed to hang on for so long.

The advantage is most wars and battles goes to the defense, and the South was a place with little infrastructure and wild extremes of weather... It would have taken a much longer time to beat them if they had not had so many incompetent Generals, and their one eyed president... Gettysburg was an outrageous slaughter, and from the point of view of good generalship, should never have been fought by the South... Anteitam was terribly fought by the North... The North had better soldiers and worse generals over all... The North had a more effective government by far, able to borrow, with good credit, and a firm tax base... Still; fighting a primarily defensive war should have bought the South more time than it did, since it was such a terrible place to fight..

Do you see what I am saying??? The very roads a people one day might use for its trade might the next be used by a friendly army, and the day after be used by an invasion force... The roads and bridges and railroad of the South were from the beginning in terrible shape, but the poverty that resulted from the institution of slavery kept the whole place decapitalized.... And they could not help themselves because they had no social identity, but only a general sectional identity... They could in each little area barely build the infrustructure they found essential let alone building up the infrastructure of neighboring states and areas... To the end, just as today, they never found the back bone necessary to tax themselves... They wanted to fight the war on borrowed money, or on some one else's dime, and they hoped to drag England into the conflict in one fashion or another, with no reasonable expectation of success... They were dreaming... A commitee could thread a needle better than the South fought that war...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

The advantage is most wars and battles goes to the defense, and the South was a place with little infrastructure and wild extremes of weather... It would have taken a much longer time to beat them if they had not had so many incompetent Generals, and their one eyed president... Gettysburg was an outrageous slaughter, and from the point of view of good generalship, should never have been fought by the South... Anteitam was terribly fought by the North... The North had better soldiers and worse generals over all... The North had a more effective government by far, able to borrow, with good credit, and a firm tax base... Still; fighting a primarily defensive war should have bought the South more time than it did, since it was such a terrible place to fight..

thats not true...
the southerners only had to fight defensivly, and knew the land much better than union troops. their constitution had very few and minor changes in it compared to ours, and the gernerals, well Lee was considered the best in the states. he hadnt lost a battle until i think it was gettysburg. the soldiers, while almost consistantly fewer, were more experianced with their guns than union troops.

2 Replies

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

Fido wrote:

The advantage is most wars and battles goes to the defense, and the South was a place with little infrastructure and wild extremes of weather... It would have taken a much longer time to beat them if they had not had so many incompetent Generals, and their one eyed president... Gettysburg was an outrageous slaughter, and from the point of view of good generalship, should never have been fought by the South... Anteitam was terribly fought by the North... The North had better soldiers and worse generals over all... The North had a more effective government by far, able to borrow, with good credit, and a firm tax base... Still; fighting a primarily defensive war should have bought the South more time than it did, since it was such a terrible place to fight..

thats not true...
the southerners only had to fight defensivly, and knew the land much better than union troops. their constitution had very few and minor changes in it compared to ours, and the gernerals, well Lee was considered the best in the states. he hadnt lost a battle until i think it was gettysburg. the soldiers, while almost consistantly fewer, were more experianced with their guns than union troops.

This is a battle you do not want to fight... Anteitam had to potential to be a terrible loss for Lee... He had fortune, and Jackson on his side, and a terrible general on the other... He made a lot of mistakes at Gettysburg alone, plenty enough to justify his defeat... What longstreet said of him, that he was masterful in defense is certainly true... In every success, he gained and held the defense... I have seen Fredricksburg... I have seen Gettysburg... Geography alone accounts for their victories and defeats, But in the ultimate clash of cultures, the culture of the South was threadbare long before the war, and it had not the moral courage to bear taxation to support the cause so many of its people were being taxed to death on the battle field to support....If more taitors had been hanged this country would be a better place for it today... They were useless to themselves, and useless to this nation... I gotta go...

0 Replies

@hamilton,

It is a mistake to believe that the Confederate States had superior military leadership. There were a handful of officers who consistently performed well in independent command, and the number of disastrous bumblers, whether in independent command or as subordinates, was at least proportionately as high as, or higher than was the case in the Federal armies. Even when a command performed consistently well, such as was usually the case with Mr. Lee, their profligate waste of the lives of their men in tactical offensive assured the destruction of their armies.

0 Replies

@hamilton,

The South was out presidented... I believe Davis was once secretary of defense or some such thing, and thought he was a general... Lincoln actually troubled himself to learn what he did not know at the beginning of the war... He had a real good grasp of logistics, witness his letter to Butler, I think it was in Lousina in regard to his hair brained scheme of going on the offensive, what I think became the Red River campaign... He sometimes replaced able commanders with the "Slows"... He replaced incompetent commanders quickly when Davis showed he was incapable of doing so with Bragg... Lincoln gave able commanders all due support, and it has to be understood that Grant was not great, by any stretch... He was relentless... If one thing did not work, he tried another, never settling for stalemate... I do not know, and no one knows how Forrest would have done with large command, but Lincoln would have supported that man where Davis used him badly, and gave him little of support... The contempt of the planter for the self made man was all to evident with him....

One of the best Southern Generals was Jackson... It is amazing how far that man went with dogged determination and little of intelligence to go with it... There were a few simple lessons he learned well that made all his success possible... He believed in discipline, and he believed that mystery (surprise) was the key to success in battle... It is where the North was overwhelmed with forces they did not even believe were there that success was most complete for the South...The guy was like the Angel of Death... So many people he touched had only to get near him to die... It is sad, and terrible, but his single death may have saved thousands...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Let me just address a few points, salient points,
which I genuinely DO find to be of interest:

Setanta wrote:

Your remarks about the powers of the President, especially your weak argument to the effect that he is "in possession" of military property, are nebulous because they are based on no constitutional or statutory authority. I'll be more than happy to concede that point just as soon as you provide evidence that those powers were granted to the President by act of Congress. Otherwise, it is a nebulous and meaningless argument from a theory which you apprently personally hold as to the powers of the President.

The USSC has held that the President IS the executive department of the federal government.
(I don 't have the case, offhand; too lazy to look it up or track it down.)

Setanta wrote:

I assume that you meant unintelligible.

Yes; thank u.

Setanta wrote:

You have claimed that the military property of the United States is "in the possession" of the President, and therefore can be disposed of as he sees fit, or through the agency of his designated executive officer (Secretary of War)--however, there is no constituional authority for this claim on your part.

If, as a matter of constitutional theory, found by the USSC,
the President IS the executive department of the federal government,
then (figuratively speaking) it matters not whether he keeps his assets in one pocket or another one.
When a soldier of the US Army is in possession of a rifle,
the President is in vicarious possession thereof.

Setanta wrote:

I have also pointed out why i referred to you as delusional,
based on your silly claims about southerners as though they were innnocent men,
non-violently rebelling against an oppressive government. That is a delusion.

Tho I take cognizance that Southerners were not happy
about how things were going in Congress qua economic matters,
I choose not to go as far as to say that the federal government
was oppressive, except insofar as it invaded the South
(MOSTLY) after the South had withdrawn from the Union.
Historical evidence (e.g., the NEW YORK Instrument of Ratification)
shows that the Founders (including Northerners) did not accept the Roach Motel theory of federalism.
Thay looked upon withdrawal the same as if we chose next week
to leave NATO or the UN (without a war).

Setanta wrote:

If the South was content to peacefully go its own way,
why did southerners actively make war on the United States without provocation?

Permit me to analogize:
if we quit the UN, but it refused to recognize our withdrawal
and it refused to vacate the real estate on 42nd Street
and armed its staff, maybe brought in alien armed forces,
I deem it unlikely that the USA 'd tolerate that.

I pretty sure that we 'd see something like its operation in Waco.
When the Founders adopted the Declaration of Independence,
thay did not lust for war with England; thay yearned for Independence.

Setanta wrote:

Certainly the firebrands of the South underestimated their enemy.
I see no good reason to assume, however, that they didn't understand that their actions would lead to war,

Well, thay might well have expected the federals (Lincoln)
to respect the original intendment of the Constitution,
which did not include forcing States to remain locked into the Union, against their will.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Changing labels doesn't bolster your argument. There is nothing in the constitution to support a contention that military property is in the possession of the executive branch, and can be disposed of as the executive branch sees fit. Once again, Article One, Section 8 makes clear that these are powers of the Congress. You further ignore the first paragraph of Article Two, Section 2, which i quoted, which shows that the President is commander in chief,

The Federal government did not invade anything. Insofar as the Federal government did not recognize the southern states as a separate nation, and insofar as Congress has passed an act enabling the President to suppress an insurrection--it was not an invasion. Once again, Federal troops entered southern states after those states had made war on the United States without provocation.

The hypothetical you lay out is not analogous. We are not constitutionally tied to the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organiztion, except insofar as we have ratified the necessary treaties, and the Senate retains the power to void those treaties. We are not inseverable parts of those bodies, so your analogy fails.

Your point about the revolutionaries not lusting for war is well taken. And it distinguishes them starkly from the southern firebrands who did lust for war, and took every measure they could to prepare for it, up to an including initiating the war.

You have not historical nor constitutional basis for your assertions about what the "founders" intended with regard to the question of secession.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The hypothetical you lay out is not analogous. We are not constitutionally tied to the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organiztion, except insofar as we have ratified the necessary treaties, and the Senate retains the power to void those treaties. We are not inseverable parts of those bodies, so your analogy fails.

How are states constitutionally tied to the United States? I just browsed the constitution of my home state; New Jersey. It seems to be silent about the matter.

I do agree with the rest of your post, though.

1 Reply

@Fido,

From my reading of Lincoln, Grant accomplished most of what he was given responsibility for. Lincoln had very high regards for Grant, and gave him support and accolades.

Lincoln also suggested to Grant that he let Davis escape.

Here's a letter Lincoln wrote to Grant.
"EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 30, 1864. LIEUT.-GENERAL GRANT: Not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, I wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as I understand it. The particulars of your plan I neither know nor seek to know. You are vigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, I wish to not to obtrude any constraints or restraints upon you. While I am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, I know these points will be less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. If there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. And now, with a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you. Yours very truly, A Lincoln."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Lincoln also suggested to Grant that he let Davis escape.

Did Lincoln or Secretary of War Stanton
engender a conspiracy to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlgren_Affair

Ulric Dahlgren was killed outside of Richmond, near the King & Queen County Court House, on March 2 during a bungled raid on the Confederate capital, ostensibly to free Union prisoners. (See Battle of Walkerton). Late that evening thirteen-year-old William Littlepage discovered Dahlgren's body and searched its pockets for a pocketwatch. Instead he found a pocketbook and two folded papers, which he promptly turned over to his teacher Edward W. Halbach, a captain in the Confederate Virginia Home Guard. Halbach examined the papers the next morning, discovering that they contained signed orders on Union army stationery for a plot to assassinate Davis. According to one of the papers:

"The men must keep together and well in hand,
and once in the city it must be destroyed and Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed."

Halbach immediately contacted his commander, Captain Richard H. Bagby, and informed him of the discovery. At 2 p.m. on March 3 Bagby transferred the papers to Lieutenant James Pollard with instructions to deliver them to his commander Col. Richard L. T. Beale. Beale instructed that they be delivered to the Confederate command in Richmond immediately. Pollard arrived in Richmond at noon on March 4 and delivered the papers to General Fitzhugh Lee. Lee, astonished at their contents, immediately took the papers to President Davis and Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin. Davis quietly read through the documents in Lee's presence and paused when he reached the assassination order, remarking "That means you, Mr. Benjamin." Lee was then instructed to take the papers to the War Department where they were received by Secretary of War James A. Seddon. Seddon decided to release the documents publicly and sought Davis' approval to do so. The Richmond newspapers were contacted for a conference at the War Department and given copies of the orders, which were published the next morning on March 5.

In coming months the papers were widely circulated in the Confederacy and in Europe as evidence of Union barbarism. Dahlgren was likened to Attila the Hun and several Union leaders were accused of participation in the plot up to and including President Abraham Lincoln. In the North, the papers were denounced as a forgery designed to weaken the Union's war effort.

For many years a debate has waged over the authenticity of the Dahlgren Papers. Part of the mystery stems from the fact that the papers have not survived and appear to have been intentionally destroyed by Union Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in 1865. The papers were among a collection of important Confederate documents transferred to Washington after the surrender of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Stanton ordered Francis Lieber to remove the Dahlgren Papers from the Confederate files and deliver them to him personally. He then presumably destroyed them as they have not been seen since.

Surviving records include transcripts of the documents, which were published in several newspapers, photographs of them that were provided by Lee to Union general George Meade for investigation, and a lithograph based on the photographs that was made in Europe where Confederate agents circulated the document to stir up sympathy for their cause. Unfortunately the destruction of the records by Stanton has prevented their examination in modern times and restricted historical knowledge of them to the surviving copies and examinations conducted between March 5, 1864 and November 1865 when Stanton seized the papers.

A leading proponent of the forgery allegation was Admiral John A. Dahlgren, Ulric's father, who spent the rest of his life trying to clear his son's name. The senior Dahlgren based his argument against their authenticity on a European lithograph of the orders in which his son's name was misspelled "Dalhgren." The source of this error was discovered after the admiral's death by former Confederate general Jubal A. Early, who discovered the source of the error while studying the photographs. The lithographer, working from the photographs, mistook the "l" for an "h" and transposed the two due to ink marks that bled through from the other side of the paper.

After the controversy surrounding the documents developed, Union Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick, who authorized the Dahlgren raid, was questioned by General Meade about the photographs sent by Lee. Kilpatrick indicated to Meade that the papers were indeed authentic as he had seen them when conferring with Dahlgren, but claimed that the Confederates had altered them to include the assassination order. Meade officially replied to Lee that "neither the United States Government, myself, nor General Kilpatrick authorized, sanctioned, or approved the burning of the city of Richmond and the killing of Mr. Davis and cabinet," placing the blame solely on Dahlgren. Privately however, Meade confided to his wife that "Kilpatrick's reputation, and collateral evidence in my possession, rather go against this theory" that Dahlgren alone devised the conspiracy.

In addition to Meade's private beliefs, the papers' authenticity is corroborated by statements from Bureau of Military Information officers John McEntee, who accompanied Dahlgren on the raid and thus saw the papers, and John Babcock. It is further noted that the custody of the papers from their discovery by Littlepage on March 2 to their delivery to Davis on March 4 is well documented. The short period of time between their transfer from Littlepage to Davis reduces the time in which a skilled forger could be found.

Though the papers have long been disputed, recent scholarship by historians including Stephen W. Sears and Edward Steers, Jr. has tended to favor their authenticity, though few who believe in their authenticity contend they were written by anyone other than Dahlgren himself.

One theory about the Lincoln Assassination holds that the Dahlgren Papers' discovery instigated the chain of events ending in John Wilkes Booth's murder of Abraham Lincoln the next year.

Steers, in his history of the assassination Blood on the Moon, traces the assassination conspiracy's origins to this event. Though they offer a different theory of the assassination that is bitterly at odds with Steers' interpretation, Ray Neff and Leonard Guttridge also agree on the Dahlgren affair's role. Sears summarizes the relationship between Dahlgren and Booth as follows:

"Judson Kilpatrick, Ulric Dahlgren, and their probable patron Edwin Stanton set out to engineer the death of the Confederacy's president; the legacy spawned out of the utter failure of their effort may have included the death of their own president."

[All emfasis has been added by David.]

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The original thirteen states ratified the constitution. Succeeding states entered the union from a territorial status, and their entry into the union was based upon the authority of the constitution. That the constitution of New Jersey may be mute on the subject is irrelevant. New Jersey was the third state to ratify the constitution, which it did on December 18, 1787, by a unanimous vote.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

From my reading of Lincoln, Grant accomplished most of what he was given responsibility for. Lincoln had very high regards for Grant, and gave him support and accolades.

Lincoln also suggested to Grant that he let Davis escape.

Here's a letter Lincoln wrote to Grant.
"EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 30, 1864. LIEUT.-GENERAL GRANT: Not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, I wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as I understand it. The particulars of your plan I neither know nor seek to know. You are vigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, I wish to not to obtrude any constraints or restraints upon you. While I am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, I know these points will be less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. If there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. And now, with a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you. Yours very truly, A Lincoln."

One of the qualities that made Grant a good general was that he did not shrink from slaughter... There may be worse things than dieing; and I do not know, but it has got to be worse to die for defeat rather than victory,,, To push wave after wave of units into certain death in futility is something Grant did not often do... In shifting his flank to Petersburg he suffered slaughter, and might have had the place if his generals had acted swiftly; but that is past... My point is that he was not all that good, but that single quality made him good enough, that he brought the weight of the Army to bear, and kept up the pressure until he won victory... Lincoln, for his part, gave his General of the Army all necessary support knowing the one thing the country would not forgive was sacrifice in the cause of defeat....

I was reading last night about the confederate states, and about how quickly actual support for the war eroded... After the first battle and within a year the CSA had to resort to conscription, and the people used every ruse and resort to avoid it... Just as with taxation which the people did everything to evade, People avoided giving their lives to a cause they did not fully support and a society that offered them little, and promised them less... It is a lesson about democracy, that the purpose of democracy is to find the consensus, what people agree to do as one, and when majority rule is confused with democracy the result is not unity, but division, and when success is followed up with failure those leaders who **** themselves about the support of the people find they are leading themselves only...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That the constitution of New Jersey may be mute on the subject is irrelevant.

It is relevant to discussing whether David's US-UN analogy is valid. The US constitution is to the UN what state constitutions are to the US. (At least if the state in question is one of the original 13 or Vermont.) Hence, New Jersey's secession from the US does look analogous to America leaving the UN.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

So what if the cabinate and President Davis were some part of the target of some raid??? They were a legitimate target of military action... It was not like the assasination of Lincoln carried on by so many drunks and madmen in the expectation of glories eternal from a now defeated and humiliated South... Booth had it right when he wrote to effect that the South had changed... In fact; we had all changed, and for a short while and under terrible circumstances had been made one country, and able to act as one...

When Lincoln was killed he was made immortal... It would have been better for the country for his calming hand to have remained even if the country had seen hum in the end to be human, and he was, and not without faults... He was a very good and intelligent man that only the hands of an assasin could make great...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

That would only be true if states were still employing constitutions adopted before their ratification of the United States constitution--i doubt that many, if any at all, are in that case. Comparing the United States constitution to the United Nations is just silly. Comparing the United States constitution to the United Nations charter would be more appropriate, but given that we are a member of the United Nations because the Senate approved adherence to a treaty only means that we participate unless and until the Senate repudiates that treaty.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That would only be true if states were still employing constitutions adopted before their ratification of the United States constitution--i doubt that many, if any at all, are in that case. Comparing the United States constitution to the United Nations is just silly. Comparing the United States constitution to the United Nations charter would be more appropriate, but given that we are a member of the United Nations because the Senate approved adherence to a treaty only means that we participate unless and until the Senate repudiates that treaty.

So if the Massachusetts legislature repudiates Massachusetts' membership in the United States, they have your blessing? The constitution of Massachusetts is still the one it adopted in 1780.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
That the constitution of New Jersey may be mute on the subject is irrelevant.

It is relevant to discussing whether David's US-UN analogy is valid. The US constitution is to the UN what state constitutions are to the US. (At least if the state in question is one of the original 13 or Vermont.)

If you are saying that many of our treaties deny to US citizens the rights they should expect fromtheir constitution, then I would agree... And; while it is within the power of the Senate to recind those treaties, if the abrogation of our rights and the rights of others in foreign lands were not their object to begin with, then why did they ratify them??? The Senate is reactionary and undemocratic... Does it hep to say that the Supreme Court is more reactionary and even less democratic... The idea of self rule is found in the fact that people cannot often be induced to act against their self interest, and that the power to change their minds and course is all the protection they need from bad decisions... When you have to trust a government with authority that justly belongs with the people to do right when there is no direct means to make them do right is nonsense... Again, while our means of physical and verbal communication has vastly improved we have less democracy today than when the constitution was new, and there is no excuse for it, but that is the reason for the inability of government to meet our needs...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:

That would only be true if states were still employing constitutions adopted before their ratification of the United States constitution--i doubt that many, if any at all, are in that case. Comparing the United States constitution to the United Nations is just silly. Comparing the United States constitution to the United Nations charter would be more appropriate, but given that we are a member of the United Nations because the Senate approved adherence to a treaty only means that we participate unless and until the Senate repudiates that treaty.

So if the Massachusetts legislature repudiates Massachusetts' membership in the United States, they have your blessing? The constitution of Massachusetts is still the one it adopted in 1780.

Let them repudiate it, and see what good it does... First; people have rights by virtue of membership in the United States as citizens... What majority, or near majority or overwhelming majority is sufficent to remove a single person from their rights...Second; the relationship between state and federal government is one of Lord and Liege, of pledge and mutual obligation... Each acts independently and togather to achieve the same ends, so without some great injury done by the federal government, the state has no right to de-fy it... Third: The property of the federal government like the citizens whose rights it protects and loyalty it has a right to expect cannot simply be abandoned unilateraly... Michigan has interests and property in every other state, and all areas of this country are essential to our defense, and have already been won by victory... So again; what ratio in the state would it take to remove the state from the union when we all have a say in the matter???

0 Replies

@Thomas,

No, and that's a straw man argument, because i have already pointed out that we are a member of the United Nations because the Senate ratified a treaty, as is provided for in the constitution. However, Massachusetts was not entered into the union by the ratification of a treaty by the Senate (which did not, in fact, then exist). However, that entire argument is beggared by Article VI, second paragraph, which reads, in its entirety:

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.

Having ratified the constitution, Massachusetts is bound by that paragraph as much as it is by all other terms of the constitution.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

The Supremacy Clause has a well-known anti-secessionist bias. Quoting it is shrill and unbalanced.

1 Reply

is the pledge unconstitutional?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know