The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Equat]

Watching Sunni Man squirm like a worm, while I the Cowboys beat up on the Saints. Wow! And there is my honey with the soft drinks and the popcorn. Wow! Can't get much better than this.

Stick with the subject respecting the Confederacy.

 

[Equat]

You will be ignored by me proletarian.

I refuse to engage in a conversation with someone who uses vile slurs, as you do,
to describe African Americans.

So don;t expect any response from me.

I'll ignore him as well for the same reasons and because he adds nothing of substance to the topic at hand. Some others in this forum with whom I disagree offer some form of reasoning howerver convoluted.

 

[Equat]

Wow! The holocaust deniers manifest the same type of pathologies as do truthers. I wonder what motivates a Sunni Man, a Eots, a Proletarian to believe as they do. Amazing.

FYI- I am a Psychologist by profession.

Belief or denial in the holocaust, or any other historical event, is not in any way pathological or indictive of any medical condition as you intimate.

Do you know Dr. Hassan ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...iman_who_preached_to_911_hijackers_in_su.html ) from Ft. Hood who shares your vocation? When I took Psych in college, our profs claimed that the feid attacks such characters.

 

[Equat]

My folks, some of them in Tennessee, were "tories" according to the secesh. When the Home Guard came for my ancestors, they were done unto as they planned to do unto mine. True justice that!

The South was not monolithically for secession, that numerous swaths of it were held by unionists. By 1864, northwest and west Texas as well as the Big Thicket were the domain of unionists and anti-secesh. Confederate and state troops were dealt with in the way common to all traitors. That led to a generation of feuding after the war. The Texas Germans of the Hill Country simply lynched their opprressors after the war. Good reads by Terry Jordan and David Smith are available for those who are interested.

Thanks for that info Jake.

Other fine reads are Randolph Campbell, Walter Buenger, and Randolph Campbell for the period in Texas.

Those interested in Texas Mormon history of that era should read Davis Bitton, ed., The Reminiscences and Civil War Letters of Levi Lamoni Wight (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1970), and the epilogue in Melvin C. Johnson, Polygamy On The Pedernales: Lyman Wight's Mormon Villages in Antebellum Texas, 1845 to 1858 (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006). The Mormon Texas men overwhelmingly supported the South against the North.

Thanks for the info. I've lived in Texas for a score.

 

[Polk]

Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.

I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people? If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened. Look at West Virginia for example.

Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.

 

[Equat]

In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.

Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now. The weight of evidence is against you.

So freedoms can be suppressed during war? What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war? I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.

What agressor (e.g. S.C. upon Sumter) or nation under war occupation has not been denied freedom? That's the nature of war = "Hell. You cannot refine it." in the words of our national hero - Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman.

 

[Polk]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.

 

[Equat]

The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.

The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.

Kevin, give it up. You cannot win this argument, ever. The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.

It didn't? Then why was slavery practiced in five states that remained in the Union?

Again, there were five slave states that remained in the Union. And the north did suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press under President Lincoln, for its supposedly free citizens.

The slave states that were wise enough not be choose the path of treason didn't chastize the Union for not suppressing Constitutional rights as Jake mentions. Though some slave states remained with the Union due to loyalty and wisdom, the Union as a whole was generally anti-slavery. The slave states that remained with the Union were simply not as foolish as the rest.

 

[Polk]

The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.

The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.

Kevin, give it up. You cannot win this argument, ever. The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.

It didn't? Then why was slavery practiced in five states that remained in the Union?

Again, there were five slave states that remained in the Union. And the north did suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press under President Lincoln, for its supposedly free citizens.

The slave states that were wise enough not be choose the path of treason didn't chastize the Union for not suppressing Constitutional rights as Jake mentions. Though some slave states remained with the Union due to loyalty and wisdom, the Union as a whole generally anti-slavery. The slave states that remained with the Union were simply not as foolish as the rest.

As a technical point, two of them (Missouri and Kentucky) voted to leave but were denied exit by force of arms.

 

[Equat]

No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.

So were WWII soldiers. Historians note more than 10,000 rapes were committed by soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945.

Brutal assholes exist in every war.

Kinda veering aren't we Kevy?

They certainly were. But I fail to see how I'm veering. I'm simply trying to address all the points everyone is bringing up.

Have you heard of Abu Graib and Mi Lai?

 

[Equat]

They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire

False conclusion, proletarian. Leaving the Union was breaking it up. The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire. The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire. The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.

How is it different? If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?

The US never tried to "crush" the British Empire. The US was too weak to do so. We needed the French as demonstrated in the War of 1812 when we got our tails kicked, our capital burned to the ground, and accomplished non of our initially expressed objectives.

 

[Equat]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.

 

[Polk]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.

Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond.

 

[Equat]

If you mean the value to keep humans as property, the value to suppress democratic expression and press and freedom of assembly ~ then the South, in the name of decency and dignity, in the course of human rights ~ was most appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.

Then you should be calling for the same of the north. The north should also have been appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again. You see, the north was just as guilty of everything the south was guilty of. Slavery and suppression of natural and constitutional rights for its supposedly free citizens.

For the second time I agree with you on the point that the union was guilty of many of the same evils. However, it repented before the south and tried to promote change. All mainline protestant churches in the south went south by seperating from the American churches singularly over the issue of slavery during the 1830s. The US judged and punished the rebs - who seceded over slavery - for attacking the US at Sumter.

 

[Equat]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.

Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond.

Amen!

 

[Equat]

In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.

Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now. The weight of evidence is against you.

So freedoms can be suppressed during war? What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war? I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.

The Rebs seceded their freedoms to the US by attacking Sumter as the Japs did by attacking Pearl Harbor. Both seceded their freedoms in surrender as well.

 

[Equat]

No one has said they weren't, Kevin! But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. For that is was murdered and slavery ended. Good riddance, say I, to both.

The south was not guilty of treason or trying to break up the Union. The south was "guilty" only of trying to practice their right to self government as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Confederacy did nothing more than our founders did when they seceded from Great Britain. It was the Confederacy that was fighting for traditional American values, and Lincoln destroyed those values.

You forget that the US Declartion of Independence predated the first government under the Articles of "Confederation," which was a failure. That is why the US's second government came about under the Constitution which ceeded rights of sovereign states under a Federal government.

 

[Equat]

My question was in response to Jake's post where he seems to rationalize away the Union's use of rape as a means of terrorizing southern women as simply being a form of warfare, but condemning the southerners who raped their slaves.

Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.

Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference. If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.

If the Rebs didn't want to get raped, then they should have thought about that prior to attacking Sumter. Unfortunately "War is Hell. You cannot refine it" and the Rebs choose HELL! Notwithstanding, I do condemn rape, whoever comits it. I know many Vietnam Vets who admit to rape, genocide, torture, etc. Although I condemn their evil, I don't condemn them. Do you? I forgive them. It's relatively easy for me since they didn't rape, torture, or commit genocide to me or anyone whom I directly knew.

 

[Equat]

Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man. And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women. No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist. That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.

So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?

No it wasn't OK, you dunderhead.

• According to the "List of US soldiers executed by the United States military authorities during the late war" (established in 1885 - National Archives) 24 US soldiers were executed :

• Execution of pvt William H.Johnson 23rd USCT
  
  Petersburg, Va, probably 20 june 1864 for attempted rape (not on the official list !)​
• 
  
  [*]Bell John, 23 years old, born in Va, farmer, pvt, Co I, 2nd Ks Cav, hanged 11 july 1862 for the rape of Mrs Elizabeth Haywood, (a soldier's wife of 9th Ks vol.), near Iola (Ks) on 4 july night.
  [*]Callaghan (or Callahan) John, 18, b.Ireland, Pvt Co.H, 2nd NJ cav. / Snover Jacob F., b. NJ 1823, farmer, married, 4 children, pvt Co M, 2nd NJ cav./ Johnson Thomas, 22, b. England, saddler, pvt co.D, 2nd NJ Cav. all three shooted 10 june 1864 at Memphis (Tn) for the gang rape of Mrs Margaret J. Brooks (married, 2 young children) in the afternoon of 12 march on the road near Memphis.
  [*]Carroll (Carrol) John, 38, pvt, Co D, 20th Ws, shooted 11 november 1864 for attempt of rape on Mrs Mary Gidon (colored) and others crimes at Brownsville (Tx) 19 november 1863.
  [*]Dawson Thomas, 32, b.ireland, laborer, pvt, Co H, 20th Mass., hanged at Stevensburg (Va) 20 april 1864 for desertion and rape of Mrs Frances West (60) near Morrisville (Va)
  [*]Geary Daniel, 18, pvt, co G, 72nd NY Vol. / Gordon Ransom S. 23, pvt, Co E, 72nd NY vol. both hanged 15 july 1864 for the rape of Mrs Mary Stiles (b.1835, married, 2 children, seamstress) near Prince george Courthouse (Va) on the night of 18 june.
  [*]Preble James, 22, b.Batavia (NY), pvt, co K, 12 NY cav., shooted at Goldsboro (NC) 31 march 1865 for attempted rape on Mrs Rebecca Drake (23) and Miss Louise Jane Bedard, her cousin (17) and rape of Miss Letitia Craft her aunt (58) near Kingston (NC) on the afternoon of 16 march 1865.
  [*]Sperry Charles, 29, b. Ireland, printer, sgt, co E, 13th NY cav., executed in Old Capitol prison, Washington DC, 3 march 1865 for attempted rape of Miss Annie Nelson (15) in Fairfax county (Va) in the night of 18 june 1864.
  [*]Catlett Alfred, 20, from Richmond (Va), farmer, pvt, co E, 1st heavy Art. USCT / Colwell Alexander, 26, farmer from NC, pvt same unit / Turner Charles, 18, farmer from Charleston (SC), pvt same unit / Washington Jackson, 22, farmer from NC, pvt co K same unit / The four was shooted at Asheville (NC) 6 may 1865 for the gang rape of "a young white woman" (in OR S1 vol XLIX part II).
  [*]Brooks Dandridge, 22, driver, b.Va, sgt, Co G, 38th USCT / Jackson William, 24, laborer, b Va, cpl co G, 38th USCT / Sheppard John, 20, laborer, b Va, cpl co I, 38th USCT / hanged at Brownsville (Tx) 30 july 1865 (Sheppard 13 october) for the gang rape of Miss Eliza Harriet Woodson (14) and Mrs Fannie Crawford near Richmond (Va) during the night of 11 april 1865. The 38th USCT was transfered to Texas where the three men was executed. A fourth was never seized.

Great substantive information!

 

[Equat]

Following that logic any defense of the Union is a defense of slavery.

How do you figure? The Union didn't war against Brittan nor fight a war to preserve slavery like the racist treasonist Rebs.

I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War. So if you defend them you're defending slavery. But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well. The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S. So maybe they did have the moral high ground?

Wrong! The US didn't secede from England over slavery as the Rebs stated that they did in their Declaration of Causes of Secession .