Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I have mentioned the Sand Creek massacre before surely it is not too much to ask that mention your example again.
I have mentioned to you man many times the massacre of Indians in the Indian Territory by Confedrate troops plus the source over the years.
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
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
I suspect the New England and New York slave traders loved slavery they certainly prospered from it.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I suspect the New England and New York slave traders loved slavery they certainly prospered from it.
Yes but they didn't fight and die over it and their descendents got rid of it without war vs Southern whites were willing to fight and die to own human beings.
Leftyhunter
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
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.​

@Andersonh1 ,

None of the above that you give as examples negates the fact that the States under the AOC were fully independent sovereign countries/nations.

What you show does underline the fact that those very same states found that the conditions/limitations of the AOC showed the desperate need for a more powerful, centralized, federal government.

This need and the eventual adoption of the Constitution showed that the individual states themselves saw that need and were happy to forgo the idea of even a weak form of individual state sovereignties for a firmer Union of states.

Trial and error resulted in a more perfect Union rather than the wreck of egos with individual states.
 

Greywolf

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
@Andersonh1 ,

None of the above that you give as examples negates the fact that the States under the AOC were fully independent sovereign countries/nations.

What you show does underline the fact that those very same states found that the conditions/limitations of the AOC showed the desperate need for a more powerful, centralized, federal government.

This need and the eventual adoption of the Constitution showed that the individual states themselves saw that need and were happy to forgo the idea of even a weak form of individual state sovereignties for a firmer Union of states.

Trial and error resulted in a more perfect Union rather than the wreck of egos with individual states.
I dont think anyone would argue that the constitution created a stronger central government, without question. Would not say the states were "happy" to jump into a more centralized government. The original intent was to amend the AOCs to help with some of the issues. Instead plenty were blindsided by completely gutting the AOCs. Yes, in the end the constitution was ratified. But if you have read through the debates and arguments it was not happy or a walk in the park. It took much effort to sell this idea to the States. Some of it in retrospect disingenuous by Hamilton and wishy washy by Madison.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I dont think anyone would argue that the constitution created a stronger central government, without question. Would not say the states were "happy" to jump into a more centralized government. The original intent was to amend the AOCs to help with some of the issues. Instead plenty were blindsided by completely gutting the AOCs. Yes, in the end the constitution was ratified. But if you have read through the debates and arguments it was not happy or a walk in the park. It took much effort to sell this idea to the States. Some of it in retrospect disingenuous by Hamilton and wishy washy by Madison.

I agree with the first of your statement and agree that for some, it was not a happy "walk in the park."

But after Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, the states were more than happy to see a stronger, centralized, federal government than the weak and often ineffective AOC.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
If all that is true then the ACW was all about slavery. On the other hand slaves can be used for mining and the Catholic Church in Southern California under the Spanish had a form of slavery called the Mission System.
Slaves can and were used in industry such has the Tredger Iron Works in Richmond , Virginia so why not use slaves in industrial applications any way.
The slave owners had just fought and lost a war in " Bleeding Kansas" so they definitely thought slavery was viable outside the South. Slaves were briefly used during the California gold Rush before the free miners objected.
As already mentioned General Silbey tried to siezed the Southwest for the Confederacy so secessionists certainly thought slavery was viable far from the South.
Leftyhunter
....and John Brown lost one in Virginia
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
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
Where did they desert or defect to? I find only 3 Union regiments coming from Indian Territory, and like the USCT they were commanded by white officers.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Location
PA
Just information not argument:

Washington and other patriots were placed under a bill of attainder for treason by the Crown. This included all those patriot seamen held in prison in Britain. The bill was never act upon in terms of execution.

A bill of attainder is an act declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without a trial. The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavor due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process. The United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder: in federal law under Article I, Section 9, and in state law under Article I, Section 10. The fact that they were banned even under state law reflects the importance that the Framers attached to this issue. The constitution of every state also expressly forbids bills of attainder or ex post facto laws (Retroactive or after-the-fact Laws).*

Under this understanding of the Constitution and law, any Confederate would have had to be tried in a proper court to determine their guilt -- a virtual 19th century Nuremberg Trial.** As professor Williams has pointed out, the issue of secession being illegitimate was far from clear. In fact the idea of a "perpetual union" was a recent product of northern propaganda from the 1850s -- by comparison the legitimacy of secession had been bounced about for several decades. A trial might well have found the Confederates legally not guilty of treason.

The atrocities committed at Andersonville Prison, commanded by Captain Henry Wirz, were determined at trial, and he was tried and executed after the war for war crimes. Since his execution, Wirz has become a controversial figure due to debate about his guilt and reputation, including criticism over his personal responsibility for the conditions and the quality of his post-war trial. He was on trial for conspiring to impair the lives of Union prisoners of war in violation of the common rules of war -- not treason. Wirz was one of only two men tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes during the Civil War, the other being Confederate guerrilla Champ Ferguson. Confederate soldiers Robert Cobb Kennedy, Sam Davis, and John Yates Beall were executed for spying, and Marcellus Jerome Clarke and Henry C. Magruder were executed for being guerrillas. None for treason!

The National Park Service lists 158 witnesses who testified at the Wirz trial. Imagine the circus that would have been created by attempting to try each of hundreds of Confederate officials and general officers! The whole question of the illegitimacy of secession (essentially won by the Federals on the field of battle) would have been re-litigated in the press. What if the South had been proven correct in its reading of the Constitution?

This possibility is not just historical ruminating, it actual came to practice. Two SCOTUS decisions on the meaning of the bill of attainder clause came immediately after the American Civil War. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the court struck down a federal law requiring attorneys practicing in federal court to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. In Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), the Missouri constitution required anyone seeking a professional's license from the state to swear they had not supported the rebellion. The Supreme Court overturned both the Federal law and the state constitutional provision, arguing that these people were being subject to penalty without judicial trial. The lack of judicial trial was the critical affront to the Constitution, the Court said. The bill of attainder has come before the SCOTUS five time (most prominently in the Nixon Tapes case of 1977), but that is another topic. A number of cases which raised the bill of attainder issue did not reach or have not reached the Supreme Court, but were considered by lower courts.

* New York used a 1779 bill of attainder to confiscate the property of Loyalists as both a penalty for their British sympathies and means of funding the rebellion. American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1789.
**Winston Churchill favored a BoA and summary execution for Nazi's during WWII, but was dissuaded by US and Soviet politicians.
 
Last edited:

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
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.
So let's induce slave owners to come to the territory even though the territory isn't conducive to having slaves. And let's secede because the North is opposing the extension of slavery into territories where our slaves won't do us any good. 2+2 = 9. The lengths some posters will go to in order to maintain the "slavery had nothing to do with the war" myth is astonishing.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
So let's induce slave owners to come to the territory even though the territory isn't conducive to having slaves. And let's secede because the North is opposing the extension of slavery into territories where our slaves won't do us any good. 2+2 = 9. The lengths some posters will go to in order to maintain the "slavery had nothing to do with the war" myth is astonishing.
I knew it would difficult to find a slave in the NM Territory when the Census couldn't find one - but keep looking! Sooner or later you will find one...
 
Top