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.
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.
That's what you get for believing liars like DiLorenzo. The Geneva Convention of 1864, not 1863, dealt with amelioration of the condition of the sick and wounded. It had nothing to do with noncombatants, and nothing to do with "war crimes for such."
The more you believe DiLiarenzo the more you simply embarrass yourself.
Thomas Jefferson called it an "error of opinion." "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." [Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural, 4 Mar 1801]
In the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina's Nullification ordinance contained a secession threat. This was a factor in no other southern state supporting her. She stood alone. Andrew Jackson replied as follows: "To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure. . . .
"Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution, but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated." [Andrew Jackson, Proclamation on Nullification, 10 December 1832]
And even more directly:
"By these various proceedings, therefore, the State of South Carolina has forced the General Government, unavoidably, to decide the new and dangerous alternative of permitting a State to obstruct the execution of the laws within its limits or seeing it attempt to execute a threat of withdrawing from the Union. That portion of the people at present exercising the authority of the State solemnly assert their right to do either and as solemnly announce their determination to do one or the other.
"In my opinion, both purposes are to be regarded as revolutionary in their character and tendency, and subversive of the supremacy of the laws anal of the integrity of the Union. The result of each is the same, since a State in which, by an usurpation of power, the constitutional authority of the Federal Government is openly defied and set aside wants only the form to be independent of the Union.
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain." [Andrew Jackson, Message to the Senate and House of Representatives Regarding South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance, 16 Jan 1833]
Jackson was not the only one. James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, was against secession as well:
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
"As late as 1846, southerners generally associated disunion with treason. Whatever attraction it may have had as an abstraction, they shrank from secession with patriotic revulsion." [David M. Potter, _The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,_ p. 123]
William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, in 1848, attempted to lead a walkout of southern delegates to the Democratic convention. He left with only one follower.
Even as late as 1850, "a majority of southerners, continuing to hope for safety for slavery within the Union, regarded the idea of disunion as disloyal, if not actually treasonable, and they deprecated the tactics of the fire-eaters. They usually took care to disclaim disunionist intentions, as they did at the opening of the Nashville Convention." [David M. Potter, _The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,_ p. 105]
Apparently...Whigworth's idea of insurrection...and the idea the framers of the Constitution had are two very different matters:
Virginia's ratification (first section):
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in 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 whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will..."
Leader of Virginia's ratification and voting Aye:
James Madison...aka "Father of the Constitution"
Apparently Battalion's grammatical analysis is as incompetent as his historical analysis. He has no understanding of the concept of "antecedent."
Last I checked the 'people of Virginia' or 'people of Georgia' etc, are also 'people of the United States.'
No, they aren't. They are a subdivision of the People of the United States.
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19 US 264, 389]
The Geneva Conventions had nothing to do with the Civil War.
Given that we have a dance that we can't pin down on any particular thread or forum, I am interested in Sherman's exchange with Hood outside of Atlanta wherein he did say, "read the book." To what book was he referring. Obviously not the Lieber Code nor any forthcoming Geneva Convention. Did the Army Manual mention anything about conduct?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
As incompetent an analysis as always. They didn't use imported clothing. They didn't use imported shoes. They didn't use imported iron. The tariff didn't apply to the vast majority of the items they actually used.
Regards,
Cash
So you can prove that all imported clothing, shoes, iron, etc, were purchased exclusively in the North?
Please show us this information...
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
So you can prove that all imported clothing, shoes, iron, etc, were purchased exclusively in the North?
It isn't necessary to prove all. The statement on the table says that 75 percent of the tariffs were paid by the south. That's what needs proof.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
So you can prove that all imported clothing, shoes, iron, etc, were purchased exclusively in the North?
Please show us this information...
I see your competence decreases with every post. It doesn't matter where they were purchased--the vast majority weren't imported and thus weren't subject to the tariff. They could have made the clothes at home or they could have bought them from the west. I don't care. The laughing is done by anyone who reads your posts and realizes you think you're being serious.
Even as late as 1850, "a majority of southerners, continuing to hope for safety for slavery within the Union, regarded the idea of disunion as disloyal, if not actually treasonable, and they deprecated the tactics of the fire-eaters. They usually took care to disclaim disunionist intentions, as they did at the opening of the Nashville Convention." [David M. Potter, _The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,_ p. 105]
Regards,
Cash[/quote]
NOW you are getting to the nut of the thing, sir! The very heart of it!
All that blather by Jackson (who, as Davis would have said, "feeling power, has forgotten what is right!")... and Madison, (whom you know good and well was converted by Mr. Jefferson, as time went on...)... was blather.
Jefferson had the right idea. Give them their error of opinion, and as he allowed it of the 15 yankee nations, as a Southern Conservative president, so should Lincoln have also done so, to avoid massive amounts of deaths.
The UNIONIST LOYALIST COTTON WHIG LIBERALS wanted to save SLAVERY through UNION...
So, how do you blame the Conservative Confederate Southern enemies of these "unionists" with trying to save slavery through secession?
Was it like Lincoln and the Constitution? We must destroy it to save it?
(You guys have a lot of strange beliefs, like that!)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
