Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/80292-more-confederacy-debate-now-its-right-across-lawn.html)

CShine

01-13-2005 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000

flstf,

The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful.

Quite the contrary, it's the ONLY thing that has any meaning regarding who had a right to it. If South Carolina had ANY legitimate grounds to claim that they could secede then they could ONLY claim to take the lands within its borders. They did not have any claim to territory that had always lain outside their borders, yet they presumed to do just that. They had no more right to Ft. Sumter than they did to Boston harbor. The fact that the fort was strategically significant to the operation of the harbor did NOT confer to them the right to shoot at it, much less seize it. Doing so was AN ACT OF WAR.

sob	01-15-2005 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

So was sending ships in order to begin an invasion.

By your logic, we would have "started" WWII against Japan if we'd shot down any of their torpedo bombers before they hit Pearl Harbor.

sob	01-15-2005 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I found something interesting in my research also that I would like to share. It is the "Paradox of Democratic Secession" Seems logical to me.

There lies another difference between the American Revolution and the American Civil War.
The revolution was an act of creating a democracy as the colonies had no power of democracy to begin with.
The Confederate States were performing an action that was antithetical to democracy.

Then there is this one:

In essence it is: "We let you be part of this democracy, therefore we are permitted to keep you in it.

The situation the southern states were in was like in a court case were someone writes up a personal contract with someone that if he fails in the goal he has to forefeit his firstborn to the other half of the contract.
The Judge will say, though the contract states it, you have no legal right to do this.

The same goes to secession from a democracy. You can state it in a contract that you hold the right to seceede, but the definition of democracy prohibits it.

The concept you bring up is that a contract can not be based on illegality. I prefer to use a different example than yours: an employment contract in which it is specified that the employer is not required to pay an hourly employee overtime, no matter how many hours the employee puts in.

There are very clear laws prohibiting the practice above, unlike the act of secession, on which there were no prohibitions. In fact, as was earlier stated, three states demanded that right, and the other ten acceded.

Let's review:

First you said in an earlier post that

Quote:

Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union.

(Post #38)

You followed that up with

Quote:

American Civil War: a process agreed upon in the constitution for seccession, the confederacy ignores it and just declares independence.

They had the right to leave, but you can't just say "Bye" There are procedures.

(Post #42)

Ergo, if you are to be believed in regard to the above, and in regard to your comments regarding democracy in #90, our Constitution is an illegal contract.

Therefore, the South was within its rights to terminate the contract.

Please note that it is not my position that the Constitution is an illegal contract. I am simply pointing out what I see as a flaw in your argument.

I should also note that you seem to waver between saying the states had a right to secede, and saying they had no such right.

sob	01-15-2005 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

This is an interesting discussion. I've been an (armchair) Civil War buff for years, and I've never had any doubt that

a) The war was, on a fundamental level, about slavery
b) That Lincoln did carry out some illegal actions, but justified them in his desire to save the Union. As most Northerners agreed, there was not much opposition to this.
c) That the legality of secession is a murky area, but arguing over it is meaningless. The South always knew the North would fight to preserve the Union

It's interesting to see that this topic still engenders such feelings and mixture of interpretations today.

Mr Mephisto

That's one reason I've enjoyed this thread--because many of us see some parallels between that time and the present.

I'm not clear if the positions above represent the way you feel today, especially in regard to a).

Although no one would say slavery wasn't an important component of (gig inserted here) the "War for Southern Independence," it has always appeared to me that the fundamental cause was clearly an intolerably overbearing central government. The financial aspects have been covered to some extent here, but not as much as I'd like.

b) The NORTHERNERS might have agreed, but the Southerners would (and still do) react quite differently. You tend to take it personally when an army steals your possessions (silverware and livestock, not slaves) and destroys your crops, in order to have your family starve in your absence. The words "Never Again," borrowed from another cause, seem appropriate here.

I also tend to contrast excusing "some illegal actions" of Lincoln to the flamebait thread I saw earlier in which someone delivered a rant because, for security, the parade participants weren't supposed to fix their gaze on President Bush.

Examples from that thread:

Quote:

Why do I feel the tendrils of Fascism wrapping around my ankles

Quote:

Irate, we shouldn't suspend our rights for even a single day.

These statements were about directing your gaze. I haven't seen a word from either author in regard to the wrongness of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. If Bush followed Lincoln's example, a great many people on TFP would be locked up under "martial law" without official charges or a trial.

Habeas

At least Bush hasn't ignored the chief justice of the US Supreme Court!

Superbelt

01-15-2005 05:48 PM

I can't get to everything you said, but I will by at least monday night.o one of your questions:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...hlight=Lincoln
From me:

Quote:

The "Great" presidents, like Roosevelt and Lincoln openly violated the constitution. Lincoln basically suspended the entire thing and ruled the Union as a dictator in wartime, thankfully he restored it after the war was over.

Mr Meph:[qote]Lincoln, without a doubt, stands head and shoulders above all others in my mind. Without his dogged determination and leadership the United States may have ceased to exist as we know it today. He had his faults, but they were minor to what he achieved; the preservation of the Union and the Emancipation of the Slaves.
[/quote]
Neither of us specifically cite Habeas Corpus but we both allude to it in a manner that is obvious to anyone who is even remotely well read in American Civil War History.
So, we are on record to this.

sob	01-15-2005 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I can't get to everything you said, but I will by at least monday night.o one of your questions:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...hlight=Lincoln
From me:

The "Great" presidents, like Roosevelt and Lincoln openly violated the constitution. Lincoln basically suspended the entire thing and ruled the Union as a dictator in wartime, thankfully he restored it after the war was over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Neither of us specifically cite Habeas Corpus but we both allude to it in a manner that is obvious to anyone who is even remotely well read in American Civil War History.
So, we are on record to this.

Well, I cited it, but you apparently didn't read it. Lincoln didn't suspend the Constitution. Here it is again:

Habeas, the Constitution

Quote:

Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?

Answer: No

Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus?

Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862

Was Habeas Corpus ever restored?

Answer: Yes, in 1866.

Here's the story:

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Copyright, 1999
American Patriot Network

Just for emphasis, as you can see above, the Supreme Court restored Habeas Corpus after the war. Lincoln was hindered in doing so, since he happened to be dead at the time.

By the way, does it meet with your approval for a president to rule the Union "as a dictator in wartime?"

Thanks in advance.

jorgelito

01-15-2005 08:11 PM

This is really interesting as it starts to bring up"the ends justifies the means" type of argument. Also, I feel it's heading into "slippery slope" territory of double standards.

For example: Would we find it ok if Bush suspended habeas corpus in the interest of "national security"? Would he then become one of the greats years from now? It's probably too soon to tell, one of the inate problems with the study of history.

sob	01-15-2005 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

That was the point of my question.

Brace yourself for the replies you're about to receive.

Superbelt

01-16-2005 01:58 PM

Lincoln was one of the greats in hindsight, not at the time. His decisions, though blatantly unconstitutional proved to be, I believe good decisions in the best interest of the nation.
I, and many like me, contend that Bush will not hold up to the test of time as Lincoln did.

Justsomeguy

01-16-2005 03:19 PM

I'm glad to see that college priorities are right on track !

Tophat665

01-16-2005 09:33 PM

Look, maybe the south should try seccession again. Take Texas when you go. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

<small>Why oh why couldn't we just let these people go when we had the chance? Gee, thanks Abe. Screwed by republican president #1</small>

The_Dunedan

01-16-2005 09:46 PM

We tried that once, seems we got shot, bombed, and occupied straight out of the idea!

I think this time we should just kick New York, Massachusetts, California, Illinios, and Connetticut out!

Konichiwaneko

01-16-2005 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

We tried that once, seems we got shot, bombed, and occupied straight out of the idea!

I think this time we should just kick New York, Massachusetts, California, Illinios, and Connetticut out!

I need the north there to remind me why i"m happier down here.

Superbelt

01-17-2005 04:45 AM

You also need us here to award you our federal taxes ;)

The_Dunedan

01-17-2005 10:01 AM

More like you need us here to pay those Federal taxes. You folks pay more per-capita, but we pay far more in dollar amount, as I understand it. Not to mention grow most of your food, produce most of your electricity, produce and refine most of your petro-chem, mine most of your coal, bauxite, graphite, and building-stone, and provide you with cheap labour.

Superbelt

01-19-2005 10:09 AM

sob: I didn't waver, I have completely changed my position after reading the philosophy of the paradox of democratic secession.
The document would not be made illegal because of an agreement made before the signing of the contract. The signers should have realized they would have had no true right to secceed before signing. They would still be bound by the contract but would be barred from performing the illegal action that they were granted from outside the contract.

I take the position that once the states became one nation, individual states do not have the right to break away because they are american citizens first and state resident second. We don't go abroad and identify what state we are from, we identify that we are americans.
The south attempted to seceede because of decisions our government was making were unfavorable to them. Tough titty, under the umbrella of democracy we vote on issues as a nation and make decisions that affect us all. They knew this going in, they shouldn't have expected to be in the drivers seat on every issue forever. It is just not realistic and not democratic.

We are and always were american citizens, by the time of the civil war, everyone who was alive was born an american citizen. We make decisions together, the south did not even try to get together and vote with the rest of the nation on whether or not they would be allowed to leave (the only way they could seceede in a democracy) as such, they didn't have the right.

on Habeas:
You could make a case that suspending a part of the constitution is the same as suspending the whole thing. For a president to suspend any one part of it makes the rest of it just as vulnerable.

dunedan:
What the hell.
We pay more per capita and we have more people, that means we pay more in dollar amount as well.
But I never want this nation to be broken apart anyway. We need the south and midwest for their food production and the south and midwest needs the NE and West coast for our economic strength.
BTW, I am from PA, we have plenty of coal, building-stone, etc up here as it is.

Per dollar given to the Fed, this is how much each of these states get back. Those are the ten highest.
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

But this a whole different issue that we already covered here.

smooth

01-25-2005 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Constructive, no. However, it's quite revealing of the mindset and lack of accurate historical knowledge of those denigrating the Confederacy in this thread.

It would have been more accurate to have added the word "anymore" after the word "disagree."

Superbelt, in post #24, made the claim that the South betrayed their country. When his statement was proven false, he quickly changed his story to the position that they didn't secede in the way "Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union." I pointed out that this is inaccurate as well, and it is pretty [edit: "much"] my basis for the following statement: How can a person be labeled a "traitor" or a "criminal" or "dishonorable" for exercising their legal rights?

My response is based on this interpretation of the above: you're unsure that Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution.

Lincoln ignored the right of the states to secede (a condition some states stipulated before they would sign on), suspended Habeas Corpus, made a shambles of the 9th and 10th amendments, proclaimed that Southern states couldn't have slaves (but Northern ones could), made plans to ship slaves out of the US, and made war against women, children, and the elderly by destroying their food so they would starve. Don't forget, according to Lincoln, those were citizens of HIS country. How much more do you need?

I hope you're not one of those who clings to their opinion in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

"Why is that, because you say so? I think we've been having an interesting debate over just that, but noone from any perspective has brought up anything that does what you claim. Are you one of those who says 'my side has some evidence so we must be 100% right without question!' ? I would hope not."

I'm very unsure why this was brought up again, but in an effort to get back to the topic of the thread, my "clincher" would be the following.

When I lived in another town, a movement was underway to change the name of a street to "Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd."

Some people and businesses on this street opposed the move. They did not like the thought of having the name of a documented philanderer and plagiarist in their address.

Would those who support the eradication of references to the Confederacy side with the residents and businesses? Or is it only minorities that are allowed to be offended?

So I'm sitting here reading my copy of the constitution again for my legal reasoning and it hits me:

a lot of people don't really know what the constitution says. Sometimes they think they do, because they have some knowledge of the amendments. But the actual Articles? I think not...

Quote:

Article 1, section (9):
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

Quote:

Article 3, section (3):
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Apparently, habeas corpus can be suspended according to the constitution, and my definition of treason seems to adhere to the definition embedded in the constitution.

So there's my thoughts on the matter, I must admit I was happy they meshed with the document that created our nation. :)

...back to studying.

fibber

01-25-2005 08:26 PM

" We don't go abroad and identify what state we are from, we identify that we are americans."
-Superbelt

Just for the record..... we do In Texas.
;)

I miss the Oilers.
-fibber

smooth

01-25-2005 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibber

" We don't go abroad and identify what state we are from, we identify that we are americans."
-Superbelt

Just for the record..... we do In Texas.
;)

I miss the Oilers.
-fibber

lol, likewise for us Californians.
At least, my friends who travel internationally recommended I follow that advice when abroad.

irateplatypus

01-25-2005 09:01 PM

just as a sidenote (i hope this hasn't been said in this thread already):

i'm in alabama for a short while... i actually heard someone call the "civil war" the "war of northern agression" in plain speech. that is to say, without the aire of the expression being a novelty of any sort. also, a person i met down here originally from Maine has told me he was once kicked out of a bar once the patrons heard his northern accent. wow.

alabamans (alabamians?) have been great to me so far... but i sure was surprised that any of that sentiment was still around.

drakers

01-25-2005 09:56 PM

Their is still a lot of talking back and forth between the northerners and southerners, wonder if they will get pissed at the federal government again for taking their rights away (bibles out of classroom) lol.

End of Sarcasm.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360