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'ba gonna havta disagree with youn'z on dis'n here. Dat jus ain't how tings is done round here. Let me axe you dis one mo question. Is you foe sure you want da gov'ment folks havin' all dat power and authority over you and your's?
I'm not.
Thanks you for your lack of reply to my prior post and demonstarting for certain that my centention was correct as to your ability to do so.
Now onto your latest, thats eaxactly how things were done in the WBTS, and thats eaxctly why states had the right to secede, when POTUS asumes and acts in an unconstional manner, thats one of teh options you can excercise in response, you do know the CSA sec of war describes Liber right?, how R E Lee described it?. How the europeans likened it to a return to horrors of the 30 years war right?.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
In the WBTS the pres orders, which is what Lieber is, was beyond the constition, just as the mil could and did kill civilains in collective punishment, under liebver, without fear of punishment from the US courts, as they were operating under a pres order that teh courts had no say in or over. The whole point of Liber wa sto alow that who wopuld prosecute a hard war to do so, and those who woulod not to continue to not do so, this gave the North its Hunter in the Valley, wanton murder and destruction of civilan property beyond the norms of mil need, EWing in Mo, ethnic cleasing, and so on.
Thats the other point, Lieber devolved authority downwards to those who were illsuited to be judge and jury, and self regulate themsleves, a recipe for excess.
Hanny, you are simply wrong. Nothing in the US is beyond the Constitution.
You are confusing specific events with overall law. Certainly there have been instances where officials -- even Presidents -- acted wrongly or exceded their authority. There have even been times when they were not prosecuted for their actions. That does not make them above the law or the Constitution, and it never will.
The "Lieber Code" is merely a military order. It is only given by the authority the Constitution has invested in the President and in those under him. If they act incorrectly, their orders have no force.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Art. 14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.
Nope, it says that the ends justifies the means, ie the succesfful prosecution of the war overides any provision in liber, and grants the authority to do that. Existing USA articles of war, and Hallecks instructions,allowed the taking of hostages and execution with a traial, Liber just took away all teh traial element.
Quote:
Nowhere in here do I see a right to murder prisoners of war.
Libier could not right that, but could right that you can do anything you want under the guise of mil neccisity.
[qoute]
Now,I do see a sideways result of a no prisoner order, to mean not keeping POW's as they would slow you down, therefor, a no prisoner order would entail a Paroling of prisoners. A group you don't have to carry on a campaign with you using your food, and your troops to keep them out of any further fighting, at least until properly exchanged.
To murder captives?? Art. 14 absolutely does not allow any such thing.[/quote]
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny, you are simply wrong. Nothing in the US is beyond the Constitution.
You are confusing specific events with overall law. Certainly there have been instances where officials -- even Presidents -- acted wrongly or exceded their authority. There have even been times when they were not prosecuted for their actions. That does not make them above the law or the Constitution, and it never will.
Tim
N0, i am simply correct, Liber is a pres order, in which for instance, it defines insurection as treason and provides punishment for it, anything the mil commander deems needed, if he wants , he can kill a civilian at place x for actions taken against the US at palce y, there are examples of this arbitry and summary execution of civilians as part of collective responsobilitty, all under Liber and immune from the US courts for acting so, as the order is a pres order and outside SCOTUS, when both are already defined in law, and repalces those laws as how the US mil will treat them, the constition gaurentees due process, the pres orders are not due process, but civilinas died under them and 000s were ethnicly cleansed from their homes under Lieber,etc.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
N0, i am simply correct, Liber is a pres order, in which for instance, it defines insurection as treason and provides punishment for it, anything the mil commander deems needed, if he wants , he can kill a civilian at place x for actions taken against the US at palce y, there are examples of this arbitry and summary execution of civilians as part of collective responsobilitty, all under Liber and immune from the US courts for acting so, as the order is a pres order and outside SCOTUS, when both are already defined in law, and repalces those laws as how the US mil will treat them, the constition gaurentees due process, the pres orders are not due process, but civilinas died under them and 000s were ethnicly cleansed from their homes under Lieber,etc.
Hanny,
It appears that you have no fundamental understanding of how US law is structured. Since it went into effect, everything comes from the authority granted under the Constitution. If you believe something else, then you are wrong about it, and you need to stop posting about this until you study the situation and learn how it works.
If the President issues an illegal order, that is a violation of the law. No one is required to obey it. If a member of the military firmly believes they have received an illegal or immoral order, it is actually their duty and responsibility to disobey it. That's a very high standard to expect, and most people will be unable to meet it; I doubt I would.
Beyond that, the Congress and the Courts have powers that can restrict and limit what the President does. They may or may not be used. They may or may not come into action quickly. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled against part of the system of terrorist detention the President had instituted -- proof positive that you have it wrong -- and we can cite other instances over time to show the same point.
Presidents have, from time to time, acted in defiance of law and judicial action -- and have sometimes been successful and sometimes not. The system is not perfect; it is not an absolute process of black-and-white decisions; it has a lot of gray in it. But it certainly exists, and it is this system of checks and balances that keeps America free. It appears obvious you have not grasped how it works, and it is this failure to understand the system that makes your statements about it wrong.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
It appears that you have no fundamental understanding of how US law is structured. Since it went into effect, everything comes from the authority granted under the Constitution. If you believe something else, then you are wrong about it, and you need to stop posting about this until you study the situation and learn how it works.
Sadly its you who dont know your own countrys history.
Where in the constition is the prese delgated the authority by decrey, to redifine the laws of war, what is insurection and how it can be treated by the mil.
Quote:
If the President issues an illegal order, that is a violation of the law. No one is required to obey it.
Whic was why 6 states seceded when he did so, but the US il is not allowed that option in 1860, please pay attention to what the law was then, that allowed an immoral order to be refused, not what it is now.
Quote:
If a member of the military firmly believes they have received an illegal or immoral order, it is actually their duty and responsibility to disobey it.
Which was why Mac and Buell and the soft war democrates fell from high office and were repalced with hard war men, with authority to wage hard war.
Quote:
That's a very high standard to expect, and most people will be unable to meet it; I doubt I would.
its not a uniform standard, it devolved authority to the individual who could do as his morals allowed him to do.
Quote:
Beyond that, the Congress and the Courts have powers that can restrict and limit what the President does. They may or may not be used. They may or may not come into action quickly. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled against part of the system of terrorist detention the President had instituted -- proof positive that you have it wrong -- and we can cite other instances over time to show the same point.
Your not at war, the pres powers are not the same, if he invokes the war powers act, the court has squat jursidiction over his use of the same should he decide again that anyone can be deatined without trial.
No so, Pres orders today are not the same as Lincolns, its because of Lincolns action the courts can restrain pres orders. the Sc has amde its descion, now let it inforce it was not anew concept for lincoln, stanaton was fond of saying i hav eonly to ring my little bell....
Quote:
Presidents have, from time to time, acted in defiance of law and judicial action -- and have sometimes been successful and sometimes not. The system is not perfect; it is not an absolute process of black-and-white decisions; it has a lot of gray in it. But it certainly exists, and it is this system of checks and balances that keeps America free. It appears obvious you have not grasped how it works, and it is this failure to understand the system that makes your statements about it wrong.
Tim
No, i am correct, and you are wrong, several 00 CSA civilains were summarly executed under Lieber, and no one was ever brought to trail because Lieber code was outside the courts, no one was ever tried for anything commited under Lieber, that included, ethnic cleansing, and forced labour of civilains, starvation of pows by reducing rations, makeing them stand of blocks of ice till they got pnemonia, collective punishmnet and so on.
Dont post about the law to me, your not qualified to debate the issue.
All our prisoners had the benefit of a drumhead court-martial [hung]. Finding ordinary measures of little avail, I adopted a more rigorous style of warfare, burned their houses and barns, ate up their livestock, and took hostages from their families. This course we followed throughout the trip..."
Report of Brig. Gen. Edward A. Wild, U.S.Army (commanding 1st USCT and 2nd N.C. USCT), of raid in Virginia and North Carolina, December 1863.
From the OR Ser. I, Vol.43, Part II pp. 552-553:
HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Kingston, Ga., November 6, 1864.
Major General PHILIP H. SHERIDAN,
Commanding Middle Division:
DEAR GENERAL: I have been wanting to write to you for some days, but have been troubled by an acute pain in my shoulder resulting from recent exposure. I wish to assure you of the intense interest I feel in your personal and official success. If I have not caused the burning of as much gunpowder as our mutual friend Grant in your honor, I can assure you that our army down in Georgia have expended an equal amount of yelling and noisy demonstration at your success. I notice particularly the prominent fact that you in person turned the tide in the recent battle of Cedar Creek. You have youth and vigor, and this single event has given you a hold upon an army that gives you a future better than older men can hope for. I am satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory, so that hard, bull-dog fighting, and a great deal of it, yet remains to be done, and it matters little whether it be done close to the borders, where you are, or ****her in the interior, where I happen to be; therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results. I beg to assure you of my warm personal attachment and respect.
I am, with respect, your friend,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General.
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Abraham Lincoln
In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all Southerners would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."
October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."
Lieber himslef on no pows order, "Troops could refuse to give quarter "only by [order of] the commander in great straits making encumberment by prisoners impossible." This look hole was changed in 1874. You should also note that Liber does not require pow exchange.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Sadly its you who dont know your own countrys history...
No, Hanny. I gather you are not an American, perhaps, and you simply do not understand the United States and how it works. If you did, you would not post the things that you do.
No matter what you might choose to claim, all power the President has is derived from the Constitution. The minute you claim something else, you put yourself wrong.
History is very different than law. I happen to know a fair bit about US history, and politics, and a little bit about our laws. You seem to have a lot of pieces you have found that you think prove your points, but the fundamental gaps in knowledge and understanding revealed as you post also show why you are so consistently wrong.
Nowhere is this more evident than in this mistake you are making about the relaltive position of the President and the Constitution. Until and unless you correct this flawed assumption of yours, everything you post on this will be wrong.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
No, Hanny. I gather you are not an American, perhaps, and you simply do not understand the United States and how it works. If you did, you would not post the things that you do.
since a) no im not an Amewrican, and B) i post because of what the evidence will support, i find that c) i p[ost what i do because thats what the facts will support.
Quote:
No matter what you might choose to claim, all power the President has is derived from the Constitution. The minute you claim something else, you put yourself wrong.
And when he acts contary to the delagated power/rights etc he is acting without legal authority, which was the point.
Quote:
History is very different than law.
Which is what shows the point, Lincoln did not act in acordance with constitional law and what pwers POTUIS was delagated, but on general principle of the pres preserving the Union as would a roman conol do, ie without resistriction of any law. the most important thing aboput breaking any law, is to do it while cl;aiming to act legally.
Quote:
I happen to know a fair bit about US history, and politics, and a little bit about our laws. You seem to have a lot of pieces you have found that you think prove your points, but the fundamental gaps in knowledge and understanding revealed as you post also show why you are so consistently wrong.
And yet you cannot counter them, and what you think you know is an unkown to me, i can only comment that what you post contradicts your claim to know a a fair bit about law and history.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Where in the constition is the prese delgated the authority by decrey, to redifine the laws of war, what is insurection and how it can be treated by the mil.
Hanny, the "Lieber Code" of 1863 was the first written attempt to codify these matters in modern world history. You cannot redefine what has not yet been defined. It predates the Geneva Conventions, for example, and The Hague Convention, and all the others.
The whole reason for the "Lieber Code" was that the military wanted guidance on these matters; it was actually requested by the head of the Army at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
Whic was why 6 states seceded when he did so, but the US il is not allowed that option in 1860, please pay attention to what the law was then, that allowed an immoral order to be refused, not what it is now.
Completely wrong.
I have, by the way, discussed this matter with several West Point graduates (only three of them relatives) at various times over the years. Their opinion is opposed to yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
Which was why Mac and Buell and the soft war democrates fell from high office and were repalced with hard war men, with authority to wage hard war.
There were certainly men opposed to McClellan and Buell, but they were not relieved for fighting "soft" war. McClellan's relief was primarily caused by McClellan's failure to be a good commander, as well as his obnoxious personal behavior (which many military men would consider insubordination and some might call borderline treason). Buell suffered much the same, but to a lesser degree: while his operations are generally sound, he had no skill at dealing with civilian Volunteers and so failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
its not a uniform standard, it devolved authority to the individual who could do as his morals allowed him to do.
Actually, nowadays it is carefully explained to soldiers in our Army. Then it was more informal -- but in 1860 the laws of war had not yet been codified or made the subject of international agreements, nor had we passed through the Nurnberg trials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
Your not at war, the pres powers are not the same, if he invokes the war powers act, the court has squat jursidiction over his use of the same should he decide again that anyone can be deatined without trial.
You are, once again, wrong on this. I suggest you refrain from commenting on how US law works until you understand the fundamental relationship of the Constitution to everything that is done by the American government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
No so, Pres orders today are not the same as Lincolns, its because of Lincolns action the courts can restrain pres orders. the Sc has amde its descion, now let it inforce it was not anew concept for lincoln, stanaton was fond of saying i hav eonly to ring my little bell....
Stanton could say a lot of things. Truth is that in the long run all of our government is subject to the Constitution. Getting that done, of course, can require a great deal of turmoil and personal sacrifice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
No, i am correct, and you are wrong, several 00 CSA civilains were summarly executed under Lieber, and no one was ever brought to trail because Lieber code was outside the courts, no one was ever tried for anything commited under Lieber, that included, ethnic cleansing, and forced labour of civilains, starvation of pows by reducing rations, makeing them stand of blocks of ice till they got pnemonia, collective punishmnet and so on.
Meaningless. Nothing is outside the law and the Constitution in the US, nothing is outside the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
Dont post about the law to me, your not qualified to debate the issue.
Since you are setting yourself up as a judge here, what are your qualifications? For myself, I only took one course in US Constitutional Law. Others you have derided here I believe are actually attorneys in the US, and undoubtedly know more than I on the subject -- and probably more than you.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Which is what shows the point, Lincoln did not act in acordance with constitional law and what pwers POTUIS was delagated, but on general principle of the pres preserving the Union as would a roman conol do, ie without resistriction of any law. the most important thing aboput breaking any law, is to do it while cl;aiming to act legally.
You will find that --despite opinion to the contrary -- what Lincoln did was generally approved by the Congress and the courts, including Chief Justice Taney's Supreme Court, which sustained Lincoln's actions frequently despite the pressure Taney exerted.
Lincoln was also more of a lawyer than any other President, and his actions were supported by closely reasoned legal logic (whether convincing or not) that would show well in court. That is one of the reasons for his record of success in his actions.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
