Secession; Always Viewed As A Right?

[OpnDownfall]

One little 'detail', Battalion, the threat to the physical well being of southerners, was the direct result of secession.
If the southern leaders had not 'Acted' as though they were above the Constitution in the 'first' place; there would have been 'no' threats of any kind to their fellow citizens in the 'second' place.
As in most important questions, the devil is in the 'detail'.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

But the Federal government of the 1860s came to burn down homes and cities and would put those in jail (men, women and children) even suspected of favoring or aiding secession.

[/font][/size]

*** usual you are hnting and pecking; shall we forget what happened to those who remained loyal to the US in the CS? Just a news flash for you; Civil Wars aren't. Ours or anybody elses. So before you start pointing fingers remember there are three pointed right back at ya.

BTW Texas, is a whole nother country. Big enough for four states. A fact that was originally written into Texas acceptance into the US. Do you know why the slaveocracy never pushed for Texas to be split into four or five slave states? They knew full well a popular referendum for slavery might not be in their favor and if Texas was partitioned shrewdly enough the Slaveocracy might find itself outnumbered... again. Amazing that given the choice Americans have a tendancy to do things that smack of morality and decency. Maybe that's the real reason vote fraud was so prevelant in the Secession votes.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

One little 'detail', Battalion, the threat to the physical well being of southerners, was the direct result of secession.
If the southern leaders had not 'Acted' as though they were above the Constitution in the 'first' place; there would have been 'no' threats of any kind to their fellow citizens in the 'second' place.
As in most important questions, the devil is in the 'detail'.

I was unaware that the Federal government was to EVER have any contact with the civilians of its states, directly!
Jefferson wanted the Federal branch to represent the 'collective' abroad, and all Domestic was to be handled by the various and several states...

Domestic is another word for Civilians, and their interactions with their own personal states. It would be unthinkable, nay treasonous, to one's State, to back the Federal government against one's State!

Surely this was known to the Invaders of the period, although history has toned it down to so great a degree that it hardly can be heard now, at all!

The Geneva Convention forbade such treatment of the civilians, so long as they were not actively hurting the army. Having enough food to eat and a warm house would certainly not be classed as trying to sabotage the Union war effort!

The Union, after all, was nothing more (at the time) than an aggregate of Northern states, in total! So, the Northern states, operating under the name of the Federal government, was still obliged to follow protocol!

Beowulf

[unionblue]

Beowulf,

When I asked the following concerning your assertion that the majority of federal tariffs were being spent in the North.

"Your proof, please.

Unionblue"

You replied in your post #248:

"Post 243 - what Battalion said!"

Battalion's post 243 showed the voting results in the House of Representatives on the Morrill Tariff vote of 1860.

It does not provide any proof that the majority of the tariff revenues were being spent in the North nor does it give any figures on such spending.

In other words, you don't have any proof.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Beowulf,

You state in your post #263 above:

"The Geneva Convention forbade such treatment of the civilians, so long as the were not actively hurting the army."

Really? Could you please tell me when the Geneva Convention came into effect and where it listed such among its accords during the Civil War?

"Having enough food to eat and a warm house would certainly not be classed as trying to sabotage the Union war effort!"

I'm sure the citizens of Chambersburg, PA, would agree with you, but their warm homes and having enough to eat went up in flames because they couldn't scrape up enough cash to prevent them from being burned to the ground. Or weren't they civilians too?

War is a terrible thing. One shouldn't start one if it seems it will incur too high a price.

"The Union, after all, was nothing more (at the time) than an aggregate of Northern states, in total!"

Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, California, etc., might disagree with that designation that they were "an aggregate of Northern states", in total or separately.

"So, the Northern states, operating under the name of the Federal government, was still obliged to follow protocol!"

First, find the protocols they were supposed to be operating under and then produce evidence that they were not doing so.

And don't make Battalion do all the work, he's busy enough.

Unionblue

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Beowulf,

You state in your post #263 above:



Really? Could you please tell me when the Geneva Convention came into effect and where it listed such among its accords during the Civil War?



I'm sure the citizens of Chambersburg, PA, would agree with you, but their warm homes and having enough to eat went up in flames because they couldn't scrape up enough cash to prevent them from being burned to the ground. Or weren't they civilians too?

War is a terrible thing. One shouldn't start one if it seems it will incur too high a price.



Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, California, etc., might disagree with that designation that they were "an aggregate of Northern states", in total or separately.



First, find the protocols they were supposed to be operating under and then produce evidence that they were not doing so.

And don't make Battalion do all the work, he's busy enough.

Unionblue

How many regiments came in from California?

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri... We have stars for all three of these, don't we? I think we claim them.

Maryland was arrested for political dissidence. I think they were us, too. (Hard to tell when there's a gag order on you!) Hey, even Delaware has a couple thousand rebel soldiers they are trying to honor, now!

I was in Chambersburg and read about Early's deal with Hagerstown for $20,000 and Chambersburg, itself. They told me Chambersburg LAUGHED at him, when he demanded $100,000, so he took the torch to them...

And I believe it also was done in answer to yankee terrorisms, previous. The rest of the South's ventures into the North were for shoes, forage for the horses, and liberation for the states. Even Early, mean as he was, didn't demand that the state become Confederate!

Of course, Early did not try and take every scrap and crumb away from the REST of the state, and leave them all to die from want... (ahem). I did not hear of a single casualty from this exchange, either. (Except for that woman in Gettsyburg who would not stop cooking long enough for the war to go by her house... Not sure who got her, but we all know her! THE JENNY WADE HOUSE!

So, let's put things in perspective, here.


The Geneva Convention:

I believe it was in 1863, based upon the laws codified by Vattel and the Laws of Nations, with relationship to non-combatants and war crimes for such.

And perhaps with all your sources, you might list the outlay of Federal monies to the several states, for improvements, and the like...

I know we had the transcontinental railroad planned through the South and that plan was undone by a certain politician's group!

[timewalker]

Beowulf, you have set up a classic straw man. The question is the legality of secession and you cite actions taken by the Union after secession. In other words, you have now put the effect before the cause and said that the effect justifies the cause.

[unionblue]

Beowulf,

In your post above you ask:

"How many regiments came in from California?"

http://www.civilwararchive.com/unionca.htm

http://members.aol.com/bgandersen/civ_war/index.html

"Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri... We have stars for all three of these, don't we? I think we claim them."

And the flag of the United States had 33 stars and never removed a one of them, so let's be serious, shall we? The States of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland retained state governments loyal to the Union and remained loyal. Putting stars on a flag doesn't make a state "yours."

"Maryland was arrested for political dissidence."

The ENTIRE State was arrested? Does it feel good or somehow build up a case for you to make such inflated, distorted claims? Members of the legislature were arrested for advocating treason and rebellion and the State remained loyal to the Union, contributing far more troops to the Union than the CSA.

"(Hard to tell when there's a gag order on you!)"

While you may think of this comment as cute or clever, again, it is not accurate in a historical sense. I do wish you would back up such wild claims and statements with a source quote, document or perhaps even a period wild rumor. Or at least have the guts to admit this is simply your personal, unsupported view of the matter.

"Hey, even Delaware has a couple thousand rebel soldiers they are trying to honor now."

Any chance of you and others in the South getting together to honor the 400,000 men from the South who joined the Union to fight against the South and secession? Regimental sized units from every Southern State except South Carolina?

"I was in Chambersburg and read about Early's deal with Hagerstown for $20,000 and Chambersburg, itself. They told me Chambersburg LAUGHED at him, when he demanded $100,000, so he took the torch to them..."

So it's alright to burn harmless civilians out of their homes and let them go hungry for a period of time if you wear a gray uniform and have no sense of humor.

"And I believe it also was done in answer to yankee terrorisms, previous."

Again, two wrongs make a right in your view. It's wrong for the federal government and it's armed forces to do a thing, yet it's OK for southern armed forces to do so in revenge.

"The rest of the South's ventures into the North were for shoes, forage for horses, and liberation for the states."

And extorting money by threatening to burn down homes, stealing gold, horses, food, clothing, free blacks and taking them South to make a profit on selling them as slaves.

"Even Early, mean as he was, didn't demand that the states become Confederate!"

Yeah, I imagine he couldn't after 'Maryland, My Maryland,' showed him and Lee the door by not rushing to the Confederate side during their invasion of the North.

"Of course, Early did not try and take every scrap and crumb away from the REST of the state, and leave them all to die from want... (ahem)."

Lack of opportunity should not be counted as lack of desire to do so. And I see you have neglected to mention all the Union army efforts to feed Southern civilians with army rations and supplies when it happened in the South, both in the eastern and western theaters of operations...(ahem).

"I did not hear of a single casualty from this exchange, either (snipped for boredom)."

I guess taking free men captive to sell as slaves doesn't count on any casualty list.

"So, let's put things in perspective, here."

Gladly. After you.

"The Geneva Convention:

I believe it was in 1863, based upon the laws codified by Vattel and the Laws of Naions, with relationship to non-combatants and war crimes for such."

What you believe and what you can prove are two completely different things. Do some research and provide the specific passages from the 1863 Geneva Convention that relate to what you "believe" then we can have a serious discussion.

"And perhaps with all your sources, you might list the outlay of Federal moniew to the several states, for improvements, and the like..."

Meaning you can't.

Beowulf, if you can't back it up or don't have access to prove when you make an unsubstansiated claim, why do you continue to do so?

"I know we had the transcontinental railroad planned through the South and that the plan was undone by a certain politician's group!"

Sigh. Fine, if we are going to continue the game of claiming one thing without any source or proof to back up such, I might as well return the favor.

You are correct in your statement above about the planned railroad. There was an effort by SOUTHERN investors to build such a railroad from a location in the South and it was ruined by a certain political group. Southern secessionists. The secession movement frightened away foreign investment from a plan by Upper South businessmen to build such a railroad.

Unionblue

[OpnDownfall]

Until Beowulf, can make an intelligible argument concerning Timewalker's #267 post there is really no point in the rest of us being led around from point to point by Beowulf's other posts. Most the ills he points out are the direct result of secession, without that action, his supposed ills would have never existed.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Oh, sorry, I am well aware of the economic theory which predicts that consumers and producers may 'share' the payment of a tariff depending on the elasticity of demand for the product. Its nonsense, merchants simply take the item, apply their markup...the only reason why they begin to drop markups is if the supply of merchants themselves increases.

I think you neglect the producers, both foreign and domestic, and the competition that exists between them to sell their product in the US market. I'm afraid I don't know of any merchant who "simply takes an item and applies his markup." He places his orders in a competitive market where he can get his best value. The foreign supplier needs to compete in the US 'duty included.' How fat or slim a margin he sells on to meet the US competition, or his willingness, does depends on elasticity.


Cedarstripper