Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Yes I made a typo I corrected by it big deal.
Read @Eric Calistri excellent find just how kindly the Confederacy would treat Indian's. What happened in 1850 is irrelevant as Silbey was trying to annex the New Mexico Territory and Southern California at least present day San Bernardino and Los Angeles County.
Leftyhunter
He must have been trying to annex Southern California as part of the California Gold Fish.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
@Andersonh1 ,

You're stepping WAY outside the dance hall to prove the unprovable.

The States were never, fully independent, tiny, countries.

They did not have the power to raise armies or navies, to execute treaties with other sovereign countries (even tiny ones), or to do those things fully independent and sovereign powers are wont to do.

I've read the AOC and plainly see these limitations on sovereignty plainly and fully.

And that is what makes sense to me.

Unionblue

The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. And note that they do not declare that they are a "free and independent STATE" (singular). The language is always plural.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.​
The Articles of Confederation confirm that they "retain" all of this except what they "delegate" to the United States, and as I've already noted in an earlier post, they could not retain what they did not have, and could not delegate without first being in authority. It's very clear that the States were in the driver's seat under the Articles. They were confederated, which means they were in an alliance, or as they put it, in "a firm league of friendship." They were not consolidated under a single ruling government. There were certain things the States agreed to do jointly and not singly, but there was no mechanism to force this.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I also detailed in my aforementioned thread that Confedrate troops massacred Indian Civilians. US troops and also Southern milita fought Indians in the Antebellum era. Southern whites had no problems with US Indian policy before during or after the ACW. Yes the Confedracy had Indian allied troops although deserted and or defected to the Union.
Leftyhunter
Can you cite a Confederate atrocity as bad as the one at Sand Creek?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. And note that they do not declare that they are a "free and independent STATE" (singular). The language is always plural.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.​
The Articles of Confederation confirm that they "retain" all of this except what they "delegate" to the United States, and as I've already noted in an earlier post, they could not retain what they did not have, and could not delegate without first being in authority. It's very clear that the States were in the driver's seat under the Articles. They were confederated, which means they were in an alliance, or as they put it, in "a firm league of friendship." They were not consolidated under a single ruling government. There were certain things the States agreed to do jointly and not singly, but there was no mechanism to force this.

Hence the inability to be a fully, independent, sovereign nation.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Hence the inability to be a fully, independent, sovereign nation.

What prevented them from resuming the use of those delegated powers? A sovereign state can exercise power, or it can choose not to exercise power or it can allow someone else to act in its behalf. It's that third option that we see under the Articles.

In order to claim that the States were not sovereign, despite the fact that they claimed to be, you will have to show where there was a greater power that they were subject to. There wasn't one, which was why those at the Constitutional Convention created and offered a whole new system with a stronger Federal government.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
What prevented them from resuming the use of those delegated powers? A sovereign state can exercise power, or it can choose not to exercise power or it can allow someone else to act in its behalf. It's that third option that we see under the Articles.

In order to claim that the States were not sovereign, despite the fact that they claimed to be, you will have to show where there was a greater power that they were subject to. There wasn't one, which was why those at the Constitutional Convention created and offered a whole new system with a stronger Federal government.
You are aware that the US Supreme Court citing antebellum law already addressed this issue in Texas v. White. If states had the right to break away they would of resorted to the courts instead of violence towards the federal government.
Leftyhunter
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
What prevented them from resuming the use of those delegated powers? A sovereign state can exercise power, or it can choose not to exercise power or it can allow someone else to act in its behalf. It's that third option that we see under the Articles.

In order to claim that the States were not sovereign, despite the fact that they claimed to be, you will have to show where there was a greater power that they were subject to. There wasn't one, which was why those at the Constitutional Convention created and offered a whole new system with a stronger Federal government.

@Andersonh1 ,

No, I do not have to show a greater power than they were subject to, as the surrender of certain powers expressed in the AOC show they were not fully sovereign nations/countries, except within their state borders, by their own surrender of such powers.

They could not function as France, Spain or England when it came to expressing full sovereignty. They were restricted from doing so and complied with those restrictions, willingly. This does not fit the idea/reality of full nationhood. I also am not aware of any of the States under the AOC exchanging ambassadors or signing separate trade treaties, etc., with any other nation, another restriction placed upon them.

Furthermore, even when they were colonies and had issued the DOI, they did not function as independent sovereign nations. None of them could have rebelled on their own and they fully recognized this as it took all of them together to become a new nation.

No, the AOC is not an escape clause for the States becoming independent countries nor can it be applied to the Confederacy as a "gateway" method of secession.

Unionblue
 

Belfoured

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
No slaves in NM.
Really? In fact slavery had existed in NM despite its illegality under Mexican law and it became lawful with the purchase and then the Compromise. I assume you're not familiar with the Act for the Protection of Slave Property which was enacted by the NMT in the late 1850's. I also recall that the territorial Governor actually owned slaves. There was good reason why one of the grounds for secession was northern opposition to the extension of slavery in the territories. Read the pitch by the Alabama Secession Commissioners to North Carolina, for example, which focused on this issue and northern attempts to undermine the Dred Scott decision.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
@Andersonh1 ,

No, I do not have to show a greater power than they were subject to, as the surrender of certain powers expressed in the AOC show they were not fully sovereign nations/countries, except within their state borders, by their own surrender of such powers.

They didn't "surrender" anything, they "delegated". Their word, not mine, and the difference between the two is significant.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.​
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
They didn't "surrender" anything, they "delegated". Their word, not mine, and the difference between the two is significant.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.​

Apples, etc., the fact remains these were not fully independent countries because of self-imposed restrictions that prevented them from being such.

Why is it so hard to recognize those limitations that prevents full sovereignty?
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Apples, etc., the fact remains these were not fully independent countries because of self-imposed restrictions that prevented them from being such.

Why is it so hard to recognize those limitations that prevents full sovereignty?

Why is it so hard to recognize that the only thing that limited the States under the Articles was their own willingness and intent to abide by their agreements?

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-articles-of-confederation-failed-104674

The weaknesses of the Articles would quickly lead to problems that the Founding Fathers realized would not be fixable under the current form of government. Many of these issues were brought up during the Annapolis convention of 1786. These included:​
  • Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size.
    • Congress did not have the power to tax.
      • Congress did not have the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
      • There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress.
      • There was no national court system or judicial branch.
      • Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote.
      • Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress.
      • States could levy tariffs on other states' goods.
Under the Articles of Confederation, each state viewed its own sovereignty and power as paramount to the national good. This led to frequent arguments between the states. In addition, the states would not willingly give money to financially support the national government.​
The national government was powerless to enforce any acts that Congress passed. Further, some states began to make separate agreements with foreign governments. Almost every state had its own military, called a militia. Each state printed its own money. This, along with issues with trade, meant that there was no stable national economy.​
In 1786, Shays' Rebellion occurred in western Massachusetts as a protest against rising debt and economic chaos. However, the national government was unable to gather a combined military force among the states to help put down the rebellion, making clear a serious weakness in the structure of the Articles.​
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Really? In fact slavery had existed in NM despite its illegality under Mexican law and it became lawful with the purchase and then the Compromise. I assume you're not familiar with the Act for the Protection of Slave Property which was enacted by the NMT in the late 1850's. I also recall that the territorial Governor actually owned slaves.
The Act was to induce slave owners to immigrate to the territory. If there were any slaves the number was so small that the census made no notice of them as none were recorded in 1860.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Slavery was legal in the United States until 1865.
Yes but you argued that the Colonial Rebels fought to preserve slavery eventhough slavery was legal in the British Empire until 1837 and there was not a serious abolitionist movement in the British Empire in the 1770s. The Colonial Rebels did not mention how much they loved Slavery the secession certainly did.
Leftyhunter
 
Top