Restricted Is a strong central Government necessary?

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
This thread is a branch-off from this ongoing discussion; No quarter giving by Union Guerilla Militia Regiments | South & Western Theaters | Page 3 (civilwartalk.com)

After reading these pages, I get the impression that the States with the weakest political establishment under Union authority had the most severe cases of outright horrors visited upon them. Missouri was weak and fractured politically. Kansas was unstable; Arkansas was a see-saw; Kentucky was a swipe; and Maryland was stepped on. Does this prove a strong central Government, whether State of Union is necessary?
Lubliner.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Nope, and it would seem the Federal interference just made things worse.

Using Missouri for example....why would it be weak and fractured? The suspension of basic American protections like habeas corpus and civil law left the state in control of essentially competing warlords in the provost marshall system rife with abuse, causing widespread dissent.

Our justice system is meant to be decentralized, kinda the point of a jury of your peers.......to reflect local community values.
 

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
@archieclement you do agree it was the people's choice of being ruled by a government to begin with in these western States; or do you feel the open territory should have remained under no rule?
Due to continual Indian harassment the people had requested the United States to protect them with military troops during settlement and before the war. Don't you think this territorial purchase from 1803 wanted representation and protection as it was settled?
The government owned the land and opened up as a territory to be settled. You do see some form of political conflict developing over the issue of States' Rights and Free Soil already; so the Government had absolute say on this land they sold but enforced the central government law oppressively and usurped the freedoms of the people in you view.
ThankYou,
Lubliner.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Yes they had elected a state and local government, they had also elected to remain in the Union overwhelming........something that seemed lost on the occupiers, who ignored all of those.

The sad truth that is rather inescapable, is those whose duty it was to enforce the laws to protect them, often was just abusing citizens at random or based on politics. I would expect dissent and resistance if the same things occured today. The rise of the guerrillas came from there was no one turn to when the "authorities" are the criminals. So they formed their own vigilantes.
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
The federal constitution restricts the power of the central gov't particularly in the realm of police powers which are in general reserved for the states. The insurrection act and the militia act give the central[federal] gov't sufficient authority to maintain order when state authority collapses. The US constitution creates a union of sovereign states not a unitary republic.
 

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Okay, very good.
We have a case here in point where @archieclement is speaking on behalf of Missouri, particularly; I'll come come back to this.

@atlantis you appear to have taken a side that smudges the line between sovereignty and Union control. May I ask you to clarify how your stance explains Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, which still maintained State power.

@danny the prejudices of the people in the New England States upset the prejudices of the Southern States. On behalf of the Central Government President Buchanan was willing to maintain a 'hands-off' approach. So your point is that relative biases determine whether or not a central government is necessary.

Okay very good.
As I questioned whether a central Government is necessary, should I have asked whether it be considered mandatory?

In the case of Missouri after the people had voted to remain in the Union, there was enough opposition to discreetly take up arms against that vote. The problem is intensified due to Government response under Harney's replacement by Nathanial Lyon. So we have case of an oppressive act by a Central Government demanding exclusive authority, after citizens are shot.
In Maryland we also have a similar case in point.
In Kentucky there is more of a stand-off approach and who will be the first to cross the line.

So, are these events endemic to each State, separately, thus making it absolutely necessary for a Federal government to step in?
Lubliner.
 

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Differences of opinion are omnipresent. I cannot consider Lyon as a local authority. The local populace smuggled in some weapons and removed themselves from the St. Louis vicinity a couple of miles to a training camp. Lyon would not allow the locals to choose their own preference. So you are saying Lyon had no right to step in, confiscate the weapons, and arrest the locals involved? The locals reacted violently to this act of authority, and it was returned with gunfire. Is my statement agreeable with yours, @archieclement?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
This thread is a branch-off from this ongoing discussion; No quarter giving by Union Guerilla Militia Regiments | South & Western Theaters | Page 3 (civilwartalk.com)

After reading these pages, I get the impression that the States with the weakest political establishment under Union authority had the most severe cases of outright horrors visited upon them. Missouri was weak and fractured politically. Kansas was unstable; Arkansas was a see-saw; Kentucky was a swipe; and Maryland was stepped on. Does this prove a strong central Government, whether State of Union is necessary?
Lubliner.
In the case of Missiouri a widespread insurgency by a dedicated minority of guerrllas is going to take a while to quell. The Union by the fall of 1864 managed to quell Confedrate guerrllas in Missiouri and Kentucky. Even by modern counterinsurgency campaigns that's not a bad outcome.
Legy
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Differences of opinion are omnipresent. I cannot consider Lyon as a local authority. The local populace smuggled in some weapons and removed themselves from the St. Louis vicinity a couple of miles to a training camp. Lyon would not allow the locals to choose their own preference. So you are saying Lyon had no right to step in, confiscate the weapons, and arrest the locals involved? The locals reacted violently to this act of authority, and it was returned with gunfire. Is my statement agreeable with yours, @archieclement?
Lyon simply did his job and and kept Missiouri in Union hands the insurgency was inevitable.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Differences of opinion are omnipresent. I cannot consider Lyon as a local authority. The local populace smuggled in some weapons and removed themselves from the St. Louis vicinity a couple of miles to a training camp. Lyon would not allow the locals to choose their own preference. So you are saying Lyon had no right to step in, confiscate the weapons, and arrest the locals involved? The locals reacted violently to this act of authority, and it was returned with gunfire. Is my statement agreeable with yours, @archieclement?
No it was all of Blair's making, the reason the state militia had been called up in the first place, was in response to citizens fears of the Germans forming an unauthorized private army.

The timeline is rather clear on that.
 

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
In the case of Missiouri a widespread insurgency by a dedicated minority of guerrllas is going to take a while to quell. The Union by the fall of 1864 managed to quell Confedrate guerrllas in Missiouri and Kentucky. Even by modern counterinsurgency campaigns that's not a bad outcome.
Legy
Lyon broke rules by going over Harney's head and convinced Washington to replace him. Lyon illegally confiscated some shipments into St. Louis off the boat, and followed through with a descent upon a peaceful gathering of local Militia. I cannot deem these acts as 'simply doing his job'.
Lubliner.
 

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
No it was all of Blair's making, the reason the state militia had been called up in the first place, was in response to citizens fears of the Germans forming an unauthorized private army.

The timeline is rather clear on that.
Lyon and Blair conspired against a keeper of the peace, found in Harney. The militia that was called up by Lyon was to guard the armory from takeover by citizens. The 'other half' of the State militia had shipped in their own supply from New Orleans. The locals that witnessed Lyon's descent upon their encampment reacted violently. Are you saying this was all a German response?
Lubliner.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Lyon and Blair conspired against a keeper of the peace, found in Harney. The militia that was called up by Lyon was to guard the armory from takeover by citizens. The 'other half' of the State militia had shipped in their own supply from New Orleans. The locals that witnessed Lyon's descent upon their encampment reacted violently. Are you saying this was all a German response?
Lubliner.
The fact is Camp Jackson was called up on May 1st. Blair and Lyon were arming the Home Guard and had emptied the arsenal before that............so they were not in fact reacting to the state.....the state had to react to them forming an unauthorsed army. The only reason Camp Jackson existed was because of their own actions. Prudence even today would call out national guard in a similar situation. As in my lifetime have seen guard called up in response to known demonstrations a city police force would incapable of handling alone.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Lyon broke rules by going over Harney's head and convinced Washington to replace him. Lyon illegally confiscated some shipments into St. Louis off the boat, and followed through with a descent upon a peaceful gathering of local Militia. I cannot deem these acts as 'simply doing his job'.
Lubliner.
Neither Lincoln nor Congress had a problem with what Lyon did. Lyon was lauded as a hero upon his death.
Leftyhunter
 

Lubliner

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
The fact is Camp Jackson was called up on May 1st. Blair and Lyon were arming the Home Guard and had emptied the arsenal before that............so they were not in fact reacting to the state.....the state had to react to them forming an unauthorsed army. The only reason Camp Jackson existed was because of their own actions. Prudence even today would call out national guard in a similar situation. As in my lifetime have seen guard called up in response to known demonstrations a city police force would incapable of handling alone.
Lyon pretty well hand-picked that Home Guard himself. He had a strong net of intelligence gathering from what I have discovered so far. He put the arms under supervision of his 'personal recruits' and continued gathering information against the regular State Militia enrollments. I have a thread written almost two years ago here; Potosi News | South & Western Theaters (civilwartalk.com).
The confederates attacked Potosi in return on August 10, the same year. Of course the Lincoln administration agreed with Lyon @leftyhunter, due to Blair's influence.
Lubliner.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Lyon pretty well hand-picked that Home Guard himself. He had a strong net of intelligence gathering from what I have discovered so far. He put the arms under supervision of his 'personal recruits' and continued gathering information against the regular State Militia enrollments. I have a thread written almost two years ago here; Potosi News | South & Western Theaters (civilwartalk.com).
The confederates attacked Potosi in return on August 10, the same year. Of course the Lincoln administration agreed with Lyon @leftyhunter, due to Blair's influence.
Lubliner.
In the St Louis timeline, I can understand how their statements were spun as propaganda at the time, one of the first things they did was take over the press.

Its rather inexcusable that some still repeat them, as one only has to look at actual dates to see they don't add up. I think its part due to west being a somewhat forgotten theatre.

German home guard was not a response to Camp Jackson, as it never existed until called up as a response to the formation of the Home Guard.

And Camp Jackson was not attacked to protect the arsenal.......as it was empty.

Yet one sees these mythical false talking points repeated.

But back to the OP, central authority should exist to supplement state/local authority, not to usurp it.
 

Similar threads

Top