High Treason In The Confederacy

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ill.
You miss the main point. If the state is sovereign then the SC has NO authority to rule over it. The judicial ruling over state sovereignty was made by the Union Army on the field of battle, all the SC did was to squeak "me to, me to."
Nope! Didn't miss the point. There is No If, it Is-the states are not sovereign. The judicial ruling was made by the SC long before the war. The Union Armies convinced the Confederates that they had been in error.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Nope! Didn't miss the point. There is No If, it Is-the states are not sovereign. The judicial ruling was made by the SC long before the war. The Union Armies convinced the Confederates that they had been in error.
Pre CW the phrase was the US are..., post CW the phrase has been the US is. Plural vs singular.

But your response proves my point. If secession is not legal, permissible, allowed....cannot be allowed, then no state ever left the Union, they simply stopped participating. Furthermore if no state can be allowed to leave the Union, then there can be no conditions on their rejoining (re-participating) in the Union.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not praying for the success of the Confederacy. Every person on the face of the earth should get down on their knees thanking their God for the success of the Union. Had I sat in Lincoln's seat I pray to God that I would follow his policies. Suppose instead if every person serving under the Confederate flag had been barred from voting for the rest of their lives, would we have seen the rise of the KKK, Jim Crow and essentially the de facto reimposition of slavery for almost all of the South.
 

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ill.
If secession is not legal, permissible, allowed....cannot be allowed, then no state ever left the Union, they simply stopped participating. Furthermore if no state can be allowed to leave the Union, then there can be no conditions on their rejoining (re-participating) in the Union.
You are correct, no State left their geographic region as they are immovable. The people of those states stopped participating. Since the area of the states did not move they did not have to "rejoin" the union. It was the people of those various states that had to be readmitted, and in doing so it is be recognized that there are likely to be conditions that those "People" must accept to be allowed to again participate in the political structure of the United States. I don't understand why so many can not understand this. Or maybe they do, but refuse to admit it. Must be totally unreasonable for some folks. IMHO
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
You are correct, no State left their geographic region as they are immovable. The people of those states stopped participating. Since the area of the states did not move they did not have to "rejoin" the union. It was the people of those various states that had to be readmitted, and in doing so it is be recognized that there are likely to be conditions that those "People" must accept to be allowed to again participate in the political structure of the United States. I don't understand why so many can not understand this. Or maybe they do, but refuse to admit it. Must be totally unreasonable for some folks. IMHO
Today we, the people of the US (in large part because of the outcome of the CW) feel that a state is just a judicial fiction or a legal catchall for the people of a state. Up until the CW era a state was considered a physical entity. The state of Georgia, the state of New York, the state of Wisconsin was a separate physical entity apart from the general population of any given state. So much so that in the original Constitution, Senators were not elected by the general population but by the legislature of the state.

Fortunately or unfortunately, today if we had a machine that could peer into the deepest psyche of any American as we asked them the question, "How do you win an election". It would not matter if we were discussing Student President, Beauty Queen, Mayor, Congressmen or President--the deepest part of any American's mind would instantly say you get more votes than the other guy. 10 beats 9, 100 beats 98, etc.

Unfortunately the Constitution establishes the Electoral College. Consider the damage that this has caused. In 1860 Lincoln got a mere 38% of the popular vote vs 62% who voted for a Democrat AND WON!!!!! The result more deaths in the CW than ALL of America's COMBINED WARS from the Revolution to the latest death in Afghanistan. Douglas had 1.3 million to Lincoln's 1.8 while the other 2 Dems had .8 mill and .5 mill. Woodrow Wilson defeated TR and Taft by a similar margin and with his inept leadership blundered his way into WWI--a war which we were totally unprepared to participate in. Would TR have done the same. Part of the viciousness of todays politics is that Democrats are incensed that 2 of the last 4 Presidents are unjustly elected. Their opponent garnered a larger popular vote but lost because of the "SYSTEM".

I hope this passes muster from the moderator. I'm not trying to justify modern political issues either way. I'm just trying to emphasize that to understand political maneuvering in the 1860's you cannot apply modern standards.
 

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ill.
In 1860 Lincoln got a mere 38% of the popular vote vs 62% who voted for a Democrat AND WON!!!!!
Why lump the totals for the other 3 opponents in the 1860 election into 1 number. Lincoln had
the majority number of all 4 opponents in the election. And that higher total was interesting since
he received no votes from the states that seceded.
The rest of the post has nothing to do with the 1860 presidential election. IMHO
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Today we, the people of the US (in large part because of the outcome of the CW) feel that a state is just a judicial fiction or a legal catchall for the people of a state. Up until the CW era a state was considered a physical entity. The state of Georgia, the state of New York, the state of Wisconsin was a separate physical entity apart from the general population of any given state. So much so that in the original Constitution, Senators were not elected by the general population but by the legislature of the state.

Fortunately or unfortunately, today if we had a machine that could peer into the deepest psyche of any American as we asked them the question, "How do you win an election". It would not matter if we were discussing Student President, Beauty Queen, Mayor, Congressmen or President--the deepest part of any American's mind would instantly say you get more votes than the other guy. 10 beats 9, 100 beats 98, etc.

Unfortunately the Constitution establishes the Electoral College. Consider the damage that this has caused. In 1860 Lincoln got a mere 38% of the popular vote vs 62% who voted for a Democrat AND WON!!!!! The result more deaths in the CW than ALL of America's COMBINED WARS from the Revolution to the latest death in Afghanistan. Douglas had 1.3 million to Lincoln's 1.8 while the other 2 Dems had .8 mill and .5 mill. Woodrow Wilson defeated TR and Taft by a similar margin and with his inept leadership blundered his way into WWI--a war which we were totally unprepared to participate in. Would TR have done the same. Part of the viciousness of todays politics is that Democrats are incensed that 2 of the last 4 Presidents are unjustly elected. Their opponent garnered a larger popular vote but lost because of the "SYSTEM".

I hope this passes muster from the moderator. I'm not trying to justify modern political issues either way. I'm just trying to emphasize that to understand political maneuvering in the 1860's you cannot apply modern standards.
3 individual candidates lost to Lincoln in a system created and then manipulated to defeat him. Because that didn't work, they weren't then allowed to then pool their votes together as if they were one super-candidate. This wasn't pooling your money with your friends to share a dessert. It was a presidential election.
And that southern states couldn't handle the result of that election doesn't excuse the rebellion they started or being flip the blame to President Lincoln.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The was more to the antebellum southern economy than just cotton. Cattle ranching formed a considerable part of the antebellum southern economy, in addition to the raising of various agricultural crops including tobacco and indigo, and there were many small farmers in the Old South - a great overwhelming majority, in fact - who simply didn’t own any slaves.
And many of these small farmers and their sons deserted the Confedrate Army or enlisted in the Union Army or became Unionist guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
 

Piedone

Corporal
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
And many of these small farmers and their sons deserted the Confedrate Army or enlisted in the Union Army or became Unionist guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
That is correct - but as far as I know it was definitely a minority - even more such decisions were heavily influenced by secondary factors (family, neighbourhood, economical needs, all kind of personal ideas) especially in the poorer classes where political debates weren‘t that common. At least that‘s an impression I got from out of some books...
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The was more to the antebellum southern economy than just cotton. Cattle ranching formed a considerable part of the antebellum southern economy, in addition to the raising of various agricultural crops including tobacco and indigo, and there were many small farmers in the Old South - a great overwhelming majority, in fact - who simply didn’t own any slaves.
And many of these small farmers and their sons
That is correct - but as far as I know it was definitely a minority - even more such decisions were heavily influenced by secondary factors (family, neighbourhood, economical needs, all kind of personal ideas) especially in the poorer classes where political debates weren‘t that common. At least that‘s an impression I got from out of some books...
Certainly a minority although Union enlistment of in the South was higher per capita in counties that had the lowest rate if slave ownership. Coercion was a big factor in getting men to enlist has there were severe penalties for men who did not serve in the Confedrate Army unless they could arrange for an exemption.
Leftyhunter
 
Top