Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[Quantrill]

Say no to drugs and read the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

Quantrill

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where in the Constitution?

Quantrill

It isn't there. That is my point!

 

[Quantrill]

It isn't there. That is my point!

Well, secession is there in the Tenth Amendment. I just wasn't sure if longly was addressing 'secession' from the U.S.

Quantrill

 

[longly]

Say no to drugs and read the Constitution.

I don’t get your point exactly. What are you saying?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, secession is there in the Tenth Amendment. I just wasn't sure if longly was addressing 'secession' from the U.S.

Quantrill

Please quote it for me because no one else can find it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don’t get your point exactly. What are you saying?

I highlighted your hilarious attempt to justify your comment. Read your own post and look for obvious delusions. There is nothing in the Constitution about what you claim is simple.

 

[longly]

I highlighted your hilarious attempt to justify your comment. Read your own post and look for obvious delusions. There is nothing in the Constitution about what you claim is simple.

Well, Admiral, I think you’re being nitpicky. I could have chosen another word instead of ‘simple,’ but what can I say — I was trying to keep it simple. You did see my modifier, right? I said if they could…

 

[Quantrill]

Please quote it for me because no one else can find it.

'No one else'. In other words you don't stand by your words. Typical yankee bullshit.

Article X of the amendments to the Constitution. (That's number 10 to you), just to help you out.

"The powers not delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There...I have quoted it.

Quantrill

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

'No one else'. In other words you don't stand by your words. Typical yankee bullshit.

Article X of the amendments to the Constitution. (That's number 10 to you), just to help you out.

"The powers not delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There...I have quoted it.

Quantrill

How does that apply to secession? It doesn't. SCOTUS said secession is illegal, but I am sure you already knew that but filed it away because it was an inconvenient truth. That's to be expected from someone who chooses a username such as yours.

 

[Quantrill]

How does that apply to secession? It doesn't. SCOTUS said secession is illegal, but I am sure you already knew that but filed it away because it was an inconvenient truth. That's to be expected from someone who chooses a username such as yours.

Bullshit. Note the word 'delegated'. Must I define it for you. Have you run out of laughing emogis.

Bullshit. SCOTUS never said any such thing. Show me where, I would like to know.

Quantrill

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Bullshit. Note the word 'delegated'. Must I define it for you. Have you run out of laughing emogis.

Bullshit. SCOTUS never said any such thing. Show me where, I would like to know.

Quantrill

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1869.
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas was and remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite it later purporting to join the Confederate States of America and despite it being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case.

To put it succinctly, Texas could never secede.

 

[longly]

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1869.
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas was and remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite it later purporting to join the Confederate States of America and despite it being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case.

To put it succinctly, Texas could never secede.

I knew about the Court’s decision, but I didn’t consider it valid — I saw it as constitutional overreach. I agree with an internet lawyer friend of mine that secession was not illegal, and it wouldn’t be illegal today. But it’s moot anyway, because in the final analysis secession would be a military decision, not a political or legal one.

There won’t be another civil war like the one in the 1860s. If America ever faces another secession crisis, it would be more like an insurgency — something closer to Northern Ireland or Iraq — with more isolated acts of murder than organized battles, though hopefully it never comes to that. All we have to do, as a people, is learn how to moderate ourselves. Don’t be an extremist; be willing to give a little. That’s how a society stays stable.

The Supreme Court has overreached before. For example, the decision that made abortion constitutional was later overturned, and the decision at the turn of the 20th century that upheld segregation was later reversed. These examples show how the Court can swing widely over time. Now that I think about it, the secession issue will never be revisited or reversed, but as I said, it’s really moot because the final outcome would be determined by force, not by the Court

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I knew about the Court’s decision, but I didn’t consider it valid — I saw it as constitutional overreach. I agree with an internet lawyer friend of mine that secession was not illegal, and it wouldn’t be illegal today. But it’s moot anyway, because in the final analysis secession would be a military decision, not a political or legal one.

There won’t be another civil war like the one in the 1860s. If America ever faces another secession crisis, it would be more like an insurgency — something closer to Northern Ireland or Iraq — with more isolated acts of murder than organized battles, though hopefully it never comes to that. All we have to do, as a people, is learn how to moderate ourselves. Don’t be an extremist; be willing to give a little. That’s how a society stays stable.

The Supreme Court has overreached before. For example, the decision that made abortion constitutional was later overturned, and the decision at the turn of the 20th century that upheld segregation was later reversed. These examples show how the Court can swing widely over time. Now that I think about it, the secession issue will never be revisited or reversed, but as I said, it’s really moot because the final outcome would be determined by force, not by the Court

That decision will never be overturned. You don't get to decide history. Nobody cares what you think or believe.

I suppose there is no sense trying to educate you on anything else where you are wrong. There are a few choice word to describe people like you, but I will simply place you on ignore and never engage your ignorance again on this topic.

 

[longly]

That decision will never be overturned. You don't get to decide history. Nobody cares what you think or believe.

I suppose there is no sense trying to educate you on anything else where you are wrong. There are a few choice word to describe people like you, but I will simply place you on ignore and never engage your ignorance again on this topic.

That decision will never be overturned. You don't get to decide history. Nobody cares what you think or believe.

I suppose there is no sense trying to educate you on anything else where you are wrong. There are a few choice word to describe people like you, but I will simply place you on ignore and never engage your ignorance again on this topic.

Are you talking to me? Didn’t I say that I didn’t think the decision would ever be overturned? However, I am curious why you take this subject so personally. And as for you ignoring me — sure, that’s OK. You’re free to do whatever you want. I won’t hold it against you, not that you care.

 

[longly]

This topic was meant to be a historical discussion, but it turned into a debate about the Constitution, so I’ll take the opportunity to say this:

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, I believe they had three main objectives in mind.

They wanted a stronger union for the sake of security and economic stability. At the time, several states were close to conflict over trade issues, and the British were still occupying forts in the West, which put them in a position to potentially restart the war.

They wanted a system that protected the maximum amount of individual freedom. We know this because they chose a federal system rather than a centralized unitary government like many European kingdoms had. They could have created a single national authority with one head of state and one parliament, but instead they divided power between the states and the federal government. This division was meant to prevent any one entity from having a monopoly on power.

It’s worth noting that establishing an indivisible or permanently unified national government was not one of their primary objectives. They strengthened the Union, but they still envisioned a federal system in which the states retained significant authority.

That’s the historical context behind my earlier comments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Are you talking to me? Didn’t I say that I didn’t think the decision would ever be overturned? However, I am curious why you take this subject so personally. And as for you ignoring me — sure, that’s OK. You’re free to do whatever you want. I won’t hold it against you, not that you care.

I have a degree in history and taught the subject. You have at best a middle school level of understanding about Reconstruction. I took an entire class on just the Civil War and Reconstruction during college. That was also the name of the textbook. It was over 1000 pages. I had to read it cover to cover.

 

[Quantrill]

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1869.
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas was and remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite it later purporting to join the Confederate States of America and despite it being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case.

To put it succinctly, Texas could never secede.

To put it succinctly, more Yankee Bullshit. Much more. There is no end to the Yankee deception and lies of that time. That's what happens when your foundation is built on lies. You must continue to lie and deceive to protect your founding lies. Which you now must try and support.

1.) With Texas vs White, secession was not being argued. Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has never made a decision concerning secession.

2.) A simple statement by Chase in the Texas vs. White case didn't settle anything about the legality of secession.

3.) Texas vs white does not annul the Tenth Amendment.

4.) 1869 is 4 years after the War.

5.) Chase's statement about Texas never leaving the Union, was his Yankee wormy way of trying to make 'secession' illegal Constitutionally, when he already knew it wasn't. He and the North already shit all over themselves in the Trial of Jeff Davis which was the 'secession' trial of the century. They knew they couldn't win and instead let Davis go instead of having it go to trial and they be seen as the ones who actually were the traitors, and not the South.

6) Chase's statement about Texas never leaving the Union, was his Yankee wormy way of trying to justify the North's military victory with the Constitution. Which he couldn't do in trying Jeff Davis. Which was the real trial over secession.

7.) If Texas never left the Union, then the Reconstruction was a criminal act by the Yankee govt. And they owe the Southern States a lot of money for damages and deaths.

8.) If Texas never left the Union, then all the 'Reconstruction amendments are bullshit, including the 13th and 14th. Because Statehood was the leverage used by the North to force the Southern States to vote for them. In other words unless you vote the way the North wanted you to, you would not be admitted back into the union. Making the Reconstruction Amendments a joke, which they were anyway.

But keep succinctly perpetrating all those lies.

Quantrill

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To put it succinctly, more Yankee Bullshit. Much more. There is no end to the Yankee deception and lies of that time. That's what happens when your foundation is built on lies. You must continue to lie and deceive to protect your founding lies. Which you now must try and support.

1.) With Texas vs White, secession was not being argued. Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has never made a decision concerning secession.

2.) A simple statement by Chase in the Texas vs. White case didn't settle anything about the legality of secession.

3.) Texas vs white does not annul the Tenth Amendment.

4.) 1869 is 4 years after the War.

5.) Chase's statement about Texas never leaving the Union, was his Yankee wormy way of trying to make 'secession' illegal Constitutionally, when he already knew it wasn't. He and the North already shit all over themselves in the Trial of Jeff Davis which was the 'secession' trial of the century. They knew they couldn't win and instead let Davis go instead of having it go to trial and they be seen as the ones who actually were the traitors, and not the South.

6) Chase's statement about Texas never leaving the Union, was his Yankee wormy way of trying to justify the North's military victory with the Constitution. Which he couldn't do in trying Jeff Davis. Which was the real trial over secession.

7.) If Texas never left the Union, then the Reconstruction was a criminal act by the Yankee govt. And they owe the Southern States a lot of money for damages and deaths.

8.) If Texas never left the Union, then all the 'Reconstruction amendments are bullshit, including the 13th and 14th. Because Statehood was the leverage used by the North to force the Southern States to vote for them. In other words unless you vote the way the North wanted you to, you would not be admitted back into the union. Making the Reconstruction Amendments a joke, which they were anyway.

But keep succinctly perpetrating all those lies.

Quantrill

Anyone choosing Quantrill as a username is an idiot from the get-go. What name do you use on other sites? Charles Manson? Benedict Arnold? Some other criminal or traitor?

Your 10th Amendment argument failed when you could not cite the ability to secede in the Constitution. I doubt you could even tell me what it said if you didn't have Google.

You can cut the bullshit act now and put away your battle flag. The war has been over for 161 years. Put a sock in it! You are not even the slightest bit entertaining.

 

[Quantrill]

Anyone choosing Quantrill as a username is an idiot from the get-go. What name do you use on other sites? Charles Manson? Benedict Arnold? Some other criminal or traitor?

Your 10th Amendment argument failed when you could not cite the ability to secede in the Constitution. I doubt you could even tell me what it said if you didn't have Google.

You can cut the bullshit act now and put away your battle flag. The war has been over for 161 years. Put a sock in it! You are not even the slightest bit entertaining.

Gee, all those 'inconvenient truths" I listed and you could only speak to one.

The Tenth Amendment is the Constitutional support for secession. I have already told you what it says. And you ignored it till now. Why? Because I just showed in post #(77) that your Texas vs White case did not make a ruling on secession. Which you claimed it did. That claim is total bullshit. So now you want to go back to the Tenth Amendment.

Typical Yankee bullshit. You would like me to shut up while you continue. You like to have your say, but when the Southernor fires back you say, 'why can't yall just leave it alone that was 161 Years ago'.

The Tenth Amendment states that the powers of the State are 'delegated' to the Federal government.

So, that which is delegated can be resumed if and when those powers cause harm. See the ratification statements of the Constitution by Virginia. "We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...Do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Even the ratification statements of the Constitution by New York: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments thereof, remains to the people states, or to their respective State governments, to whom they have granted the same."

You can find the ratification statements under the Yale Law School Avalon Project.

The powers were 'delegated', not surrendered to the U.S. government. That which has been delegated can be resumed. The founders chose their words wisely. When those powers are resumed, that is 'secession'.

I'm not trying to entertain you. Just trying to show you are mistaken.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Most people don’t realize this, but during the period known as Reconstruction in the South, it was effectively an occupation—an Army occupation. The first two years were a strict military occupation, and the remainder was a modified occupation.

There were many resistors throughout the South, but only in the Trans‑Mississippi region—mostly Texas and Louisiana—was the resistance especially extreme. Two of the most famous of these resistors were John Wesley Hardin and William “Wild Bill” Longley.

Both men killed members of the Texas State Police, which at that time was largely composed of Black Union soldiers, along with “scalawags,” carpetbaggers, and Republican politicians. They were essentially fighting a clandestine war against the Reconstruction‑era Texas State Police.

However, the two men were treated very differently by the courts. Longley was captured during Reconstruction and tried by Reconstruction courts, while Hardin was captured later, in the 1890s, and tried by a “free” Texas court after Reconstruction had ended.

Longley was sentenced to hang, while Hardin received 20 years, was eventually pardoned by the governor, became a lawyer, and returned to live with his wife in the Florida Panhandle.

The two men were very different characters. If you remember, there was a 1950s TV Western called The Texan that was loosely based on Wild Bill Longley, but in reality he was nothing like that. In modern terms, he might be considered a psychopath—he killed for political reasons, personal reasons, revenge, and sometimes simply for crime.

Hardin’s killings, by contrast, were more personal and more political, and there is no proof he ever robbed anyone or killed anyone unconnected to the occupation.

Both men were eventually captured, but Longley was, in my opinion, executed more for revenge than for justice, whereas Hardin was sentenced to 20 years. The difference is that Longley was tried under Reconstruction, while Hardin was tried in post‑Reconstruction Texas.

Both men remain controversial figures in Texas history because of their resistance to Reconstruction. But in my opinion, the same people who condemn these men as “outlaws” are often the same people who argued that we should understand why Iraqis resisted our occupation. Texans were resisting an occupation as well.

As the old saying goes: it depends on whose ox is being gored.

This is a complicated issue. Radical Reconstruction was disgraceful and caused deep bitterness and hate that lasted for decades. It bore no resemblance to Lincoln's mild, merciful reconstruction terms. On the other hand, Southern leaders, yet again, gave the Radicals the perfect excuse to demonize and attack the South by enacting draconian Black Codes. This gave the Radicals strong justification to do what they wanted to do anyway, which was to ditch Lincoln's reconstruction approach and to impose their own extreme version.

Now, yes, granted, the Southern Black Codes were a significant step up from slavery and were not all that different from some of the pre-war Northern Black Codes, but they were too harsh and were incredibly foolish under the circumstances. Some Southerners realized this and warned that the codes were too severe and would invite a drastic Radical Republican response, but most Southern leaders ignored these sound warnings--and along came Radical Reconstruction.

Radical Reconstruction was not all bad in every aspect. Some good things were done during it, but those things could have been done without all the punitive, exploitative measures that the Radicals imposed.