Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When I was in the Electronic Security Command, I saw many officers whom I considered outstanding get RIF’d. Perhaps I was biased because I knew these men, but it seemed to me that the Air Force went out of its way to separate some of its best officers. A great deal of talent was lost as a result.

I was steam engineer and the Navy only had a few classes still powered by steam. They only need a few to fill CO and XO billets because they want them familiar with the propulsion plants and there were far too many of us.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Because they entered into a Contract with the other States to form a Union, and you can't back out of a Contract unilaterally without either A) a defined procedure to do so or B) the consent of the other party or parties.

That was not even remotely understanding of the Union when it was formed. Not even Madison or Hamilton claimed that a state would be unable to revoke its ratification without the consent of the other states. If any such doctrine had been put forward by the advocates of ratification, several states would not have ratified the Constitution.

If the framers had intended the federal government to have the right to use force to keep states from leaving, they surely would have included this right in the Constitution and would have specified this in the ratification debates. Instead, Madison said the federal government would not have the right to use force to compel the obedience of a state, as I've documented:

Proof that the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

Two, if the framers had intended the U.S. to be an entity that you could never leave, they surely would have said so in the Constitution and would have made this clear in the ratification debates. Again, if they had said any such thing in the ratification debates, a number of states would not have ratified the Constitution.

Moreover, several states stipulated in their ratification ordinances or state constitutions that they retained the right to resume full sovereignty, precisely because they were not sure how the new federal union would pan out, and not one of the founding fathers objected to that stipulation.

Finally, it is a demonstrable fact that the framers believed the Colonies had a natural right to secede from England, even though there were no provisions in British law for a colony to leave the empire. So to argue against the right of secession is to argue that the founders gave the federal government a right that they bitterly condemned the British government for claiming to have.

 

[longly]

That was not even remotely understanding of the Union when it was formed. Not even Madison or Hamilton claimed that a state would be unable to revoke its ratification without the consent of the other states. If any such doctrine had been put forward by the advocates of ratification, several states would not have ratified the Constitution.

If the framers had intended the federal government to have the right to use force to keep states from leaving, they surely would have included this right in the Constitution and would have specified this in the ratification debates. Instead, Madison said the federal government would not have the right to use force to compel the obedience of a state, as I've documented:

Proof that the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

Two, if the framers had intended the U.S. to be an entity that you could never leave, they surely would have said so in the Constitution and would have made this clear in the ratification debates. Again, if they had said any such thing in the ratification debates, a number of states would not have ratified the Constitution.

Moreover, several states stipulated in their ratification ordinances or state constitutions that they retained the right to resume full sovereignty, precisely because they were not sure how the new federal union would pan out, and not one of the founding fathers objected to that stipulation.

Finally, it is a demonstrable fact that the framers believed the Colonies had a natural right to secede from England, even though there were no provisions in British law for a colony to leave the empire. So to argue against the right of secession is to argue that the founders gave the federal government a right that they bitterly condemned the British government for claiming to have.

That’s an exceptionally persuasive observation — perhaps the strongest insight raised so far.

 

[longly]

I was steam engineer and the Navy only had a few classes still powered by steam. They only need a few to fill CO and XO billets because they want them familiar with the propulsion plants and there were far too many of us.

If you’d stayed in, I think you would have made at least Rear Admiral. You’re definitely smart enough, in my opinion.

 

[IM2]

Let' not be dishonest about why this was needed.

 

[longly]

Let' not be dishonest about why this was needed.

I assume you're talking about the occupation. In that case, I’ll say this: what we learned from Reconstruction is simply this—whenever you have to conduct an occupation, you should do everything you can to make it appear as little like an occupation as possible.

Allow the people to conduct their own affairs and run their own local government, as long as basic principles are maintained and basic law and order are upheld. Otherwise, stay out of the business of the locals.

If we had followed that advice in Iraq, we would have had a better outcome.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you’d stayed in, I think you would have made at least Rear Admiral. You’re definitely smart enough, in my opinion.

Flattery will get you everywhere!

 

[longly]

Flattery will get you everywhere!

I’m not perfect, and I’ll be wrong now and then, but I stand by what I believe and I speak honestly. I don’t take things here personally — After all no one here is paying my salary, especially since I don’t even have one anymore. If I say something, it’s because I mean it.

 

[martybegan]

No, dumbass, I showed that it does.

All you do is 'say' it doesn't.

So, prove me wrong.

Quantrill

You haven't shown jack shit.

If the founders wanted a way out for States to leave unilaterally they would have put it in explicitly.

 

[martybegan]

That was not even remotely understanding of the Union when it was formed. Not even Madison or Hamilton claimed that a state would be unable to revoke its ratification without the consent of the other states. If any such doctrine had been put forward by the advocates of ratification, several states would not have ratified the Constitution.

If the framers had intended the federal government to have the right to use force to keep states from leaving, they surely would have included this right in the Constitution and would have specified this in the ratification debates. Instead, Madison said the federal government would not have the right to use force to compel the obedience of a state, as I've documented:

Proof that the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

Two, if the framers had intended the U.S. to be an entity that you could never leave, they surely would have said so in the Constitution and would have made this clear in the ratification debates. Again, if they had said any such thing in the ratification debates, a number of states would not have ratified the Constitution.

Moreover, several states stipulated in their ratification ordinances or state constitutions that they retained the right to resume full sovereignty, precisely because they were not sure how the new federal union would pan out, and not one of the founding fathers objected to that stipulation.

Finally, it is a demonstrable fact that the framers believed the Colonies had a natural right to secede from England, even though there were no provisions in British law for a colony to leave the empire. So to argue against the right of secession is to argue that the founders gave the federal government a right that they bitterly condemned the British government for claiming to have.

There was NO included way to remove States or for States to leave, but there was a way to add States or even divide States.

You would think if they considered it so important it would have been added.

The natural right to leave is still there, you just have to fight for it as the Colonies did during the Revolution.

 

[Quantrill]

You haven't shown jack shit.

If the founders wanted a way out for States to leave unilaterally they would have put it in explicitly.

They did. It's called the Tenth Amendment.

See post #(77) and (79) and prove me wrong?

Quantrill

 

[longly]

There was NO included way to remove States or for States to leave, but there was a way to add States or even divide States.

You would think if they considered it so important it would have been added.

The natural right to leave is still there, you just have to fight for it as the Colonies did during the Revolution.

When the Articles of Confederation were written, they were intended to form a ‘perpetual union.’ When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they left out that phrase. They must have done so for a reason. Do you think it simply wasn’t their main objective, or that they didn’t consider it?

If the states had a natural right to fight their way out of the Union, then no honest person could consider that treason. I say again: individuals commit treason; sovereigns cannot.

 

[martybegan]

They did. It's called the Tenth Amendment.

See post #(77) and (79) and prove me wrong?

Quantrill

The. 10th. doesn't. say. that. you. *******. idiot.

 

[martybegan]

When the Articles of Confederation were written, they were intended to form a ‘perpetual union.’ When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they left out that phrase. They must have done so for a reason. Do you think it simply wasn’t their main objective, or that they didn’t consider it?

If the states had a natural right to fight their way out of the Union, then no honest person could consider that treason. I say again: individuals commit treason; sovereigns cannot.

It's only not treason if you win. Same rules as the revolution itself.

 

[Quantrill]

The. 10th. doesn't. say. that. you. *******. idiot.

It does say that as I showed in post #(77), and (79).

Go back and read.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let' not be dishonest about why this was needed.

And let's not dishonestly deny that some of the Radical Reconstruction measures had nothing to do with civil rights but were acts of vindictive subjugation, theft on a gigantic scale, and illegal usurpation of political power, the very things Lincoln wanted to avoid. The Radicals' reconstruction terms trampled on Lincoln's reconstruction plan.

Let's also remember that Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, New York, and other Northern states did not allow blacks to vote until 1870.

 

[martybegan]

It does say that as I showed in post #(77), and (79).

Go back and read.

Quantrill

Only in your deranged neo-confederate empty head.

 

[Quantrill]

Only in your deranged neo-confederate empty head.

Go back and read and show me where I am wrong.

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

Go back and read and show me where I am wrong.

Quantrill

As a zealot, you can't be convinced otherwise.

Nothing in the 10th Amendment talks about secession.

 

[Quantrill]

As a zealot, you can't be convinced otherwise.

Nothing in the 10th Amendment talks about secession.

I could be convinced if you could show me where I am wrong in my post #(79). Instead all you do is just say I am wrong.

Resuming that which was delegated is secession. The State resumes the powers it delegated to the Federal government. That means the State is no longer part of the Union. The Union now has no legal power over the State. Secession, Tenth Amendment.

Quantrill