Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Hal, I have before and they were ignored by you. I don't really feel like duplicating the effort over and over again for you. Prove to me that he honored those oathes and I might give you a bit of credence; until then he will always be a Treasonous... well you all know the term I favor for the man. Until then I will leave you with the oath he swore upon becoming an officer in the US Army.
He gave this oath not once, but several times. He also gave a similar oath at West Point, upon taking office in the Congress and upon his appointment to Secretary of Defence. I understand that some do not think an oath or a mans word is binding, especially if given to someone they feel is unworthy... I am not of that brand. Forgive me if I hold in contempt those whose word of honor was worthless.
"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."
I might suggest this link to get an understanding about what the oath means to an officer. While the author is USAF most of the tenant apply.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
This is perhaps true. Though I doubt it. But if so, I ignored them unintentionally.
Quote:
I don't really feel like duplicating the effort over and over again for you.
I don't blame you. I get tired of doing it also.
Quote:
Prove to me that he honored those oathes and I might give you a bit of credence; until then he will always be a Treasonous... well you all know the term I favor for the man. Until then I will leave you with the oath he swore upon becoming an officer in the US Army.
He gave this oath not once, but several times. He also gave a similar oath at West Point, upon taking office in the Congress and upon his appointment to Secretary of Defence. I understand that some do not think an oath or a mans word is binding, especially if given to someone they feel is unworthy... I am not of that brand. Forgive me if I hold in contempt those whose word of honor was worthless.
Does this deep and abiding contempt hold for those dishonorable creatures on both sides of the Mason-Dixon, or just for those south of it?
I have ancestors who switched sides during the war, from south to north, out of comfort and convenience. Do you hold them in the same da*nable contempt as you do one that picked one side based on principles of honor and stuck with it, come thick or thin?
Quote:
"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."
Does this oath obligate one to obey the orders of the President or superior officers once one is no longer an officer in that army?
Bill, No... United States, them, all plural in reference to the people. Of the people, for the people and by the people.
Hal, I hold liars in equal contempt I care not which side of the Mason Dixon they reside. You have repeatedly ignored threads or posts that you didn't want to or couldn't deal w/. I believe I posted the entire contents of every oath taken by Mr Davis on the old board. I went to great pains to acquire the text of his oath at West Point and that sole bit is what convinced me that Davis and every other West Point grad that served the CS commited the most hideous of treason. They turned on the very people they had sworn an oath to defend.
Any officer who resigned his commision to fight the very people they swore an oath to defend... spit.
Ask any Marine, once a Marine always a Marine. That is not an atitude solely reserved for the USMC today or in the past. Davis gave his oath not once or twice but numerous times and then he worked against that oath. I swore an oath upon joining the USAF... my word is worth something and I still abide by the oath I gave. I guess I have something that Davis didn't.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
United States, them, all plural in reference to the people. Of the people, for the people and by the people.
Sorry, but every country in the world has people in the plural sense. But one does not refer to France or Germany as "them". A single nation is habitually referred to in the singular.
The United States today is a collection of 50 different political entities (plus a few territories) who agreed to live together under a central political contract. This was first tried as a Confederation, but it did not work too well, so the Founders went back to the drawing board with the result being a Constitution.
Before the CW, people felt more identified with their home states rather than a central "American" identity. Thay would call themselves an "Mainer", a "Texan", or a "Missourian" first, then call themselves an "American." General Robert E. Lee, even though a Colonel in the US Army, felt a higher duty to Virginia, so that he had to refuse the offer of the unified Union command in 1961. It still must have pained to break his oath.
It was following the CW that attitudes changed to a more "American" identity, although it still took time.
I've read the Constitution several times and I still have not found a clause that said that any state could leave. I've stated on other threads that it is my opinion that the issue was decided in April of 1865.
The oath that a military member, or an elected official, is taken is to the nation and its people ("serve them honestly and faithfully"), not a central state.
I think the change was coming for a long time, pity it took a war to settle it.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
Sorry for being so thick, but if the United States was one nation rather than a loose alliance of several why does the oath read:
"I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully"
Shouldn't it read "I will serve it honestly and faithfully"?
"United States" is a collective noun, Bill. Surely you, of all people, would know the proper usage when referring to a collective noun in British English, which is what American English was evolving from at the time.
collective noun n. A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
Usage Note: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
When the oath was written, American English was still in the process of evolving from British English, hence the collective noun was treated as a plural.
Hal, I hold liars in equal contempt I care not which side of the Mason Dixon they reside. You have repeatedly ignored threads or posts that you didn't want to or couldn't deal w/.
Wow. I see. I'm a liar. Gee, that's so nice to hear you say.
Quote:
I believe I posted the entire contents of every oath taken by Mr Davis on the old board. I went to great pains to acquire the text of his oath at West Point and that sole bit is what convinced me that Davis and every other West Point grad that served the CS commited the most hideous of treason.
I'm sorry I missed that post. I am sure I would have enjoyed commenting on it.
Quote:
They turned on the very people they had sworn an oath to defend.
Any officer who resigned his commision to fight the very people they swore an oath to defend... spit.
So, you are saying if he defended the people of the northern States, that is his duty, but if he decided to defend the people of the southern States, even if his family, home and hearth are there, then he is lower than say, me?
Does not that seem a tad harsh and unreasonable to you?
What about the part I asked about in response to your challenge? Are you going to drop the challenge so quickly?
Do you think one is obligated to obey the orders of the President and other army officers once he is no longer part of that army?
And what about my I have ancestors who switched sides during the war, from south to north, out of comfort and convenience. Do you hold them in the same da*nable contempt as you do one that picked one side based on principles of honor and stuck with it, come thick or thin?
Quote:
I swore an oath upon joining the USAF... my word is worth something and I still abide by the oath I gave.
Do you still obey orders from USAF officers?
(This could get my father in lots of trouble, because he no longer listens to them once he got out 40+ years ago.)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
