Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Oh, and as a footnote, once he didn't land the nomination, he reversed his stance entirely, and gave the majority opinion in Texas v White which stated that Texas never left the US and it's rebellion was not legal as it was not successful and wasn't done with the consent of the polity that Texas remained. Unilateral secession was overtly unlawful.

At the time, it wasn't considered a major ruling, largely overlooked. It was only with the passage of time did people come to understand that Chase ruled that the rebellion was unlawful - and while he didn't state it at the time, this certainly implies treasonous.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Oh, and as a footnote, once he didn't land the nomination, he reversed his stance entirely, and gave the majority opinion in Texas v White which stated that Texas never left the US and it's rebellion was not legal as it was not successful and wasn't done with the consent of the polity that Texas remained. Unilateral secession was overtly unlawful.

At the time, it wasn't considered a major ruling, largely overlooked. It was only with the passage of time did people come to understand that Chase ruled that the rebellion was unlawful - and while he didn't state it at the time, this certainly implies treasonous.
Which also in the context of the times, was again a slapdown to the radical republicans and reconstruction, who wanted a break from Lincolns position that they never left......they were wanting to treat the south as occupied provinces and not as US states.
 
Last edited:

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Which also in the context of the times, was again a slapdown to the radical republicans and reconstruction, who wanted a break from Lincolns position that they never left......they were wanting to treat the south as occupied provinces and not as US states.

Agreed, however that made them culpable of treason for their failed insurrection. However, they already had political cover over that due to Johnson.

In that regard, assassinating Lincoln was likely the worst thing that could have happened for the South, because it would have made such an amnesty far more palpable to the loyal states. With Johnson, it almost appeared as a cover up, as he was a Southerner himself.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
It meant the potential loss of political power and profits for the slaveholding class.

How does one invade a loyal state? How does one subjugate loyal citizens?

Indeed, had they remained loyal, VA would have been spared the worst calamities of the war, the war would have been shortened by years, and the dubious distinction of having the most battles of any state in the Civil War almost certainly averted. The purges of the Shenandoah Valley campaign and Mosby's Confederacy in Northern Virginia would have been spared, as well as the sieges of Petersburg and Richmond.

My state is redolent of corpses because of the lack of wisdom of that decision.

But then, I live near and work in Manassas.
Have you had a chance to see the Va battlefields from the Revolution ?
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Yes it could have been as I said the Chief Justice of United States suggesting there was no crime of treason committed against the US at all. would say that was a possibility, after all the Chief Justice of the United States has some weight

The three main reasons would be they think he is innocent and the charges were unwarranted, or that despite some personal conviction the realization that a conviction is unobtainable, which goes to innocence by a jury/public opinion, or that the charges themselves were in themselves a violation of law as in double jeopardy, again leaving the charges unwarranted.....

Not sure what other reason your suggesting, if are suggesting one, spell it out and the evidence to support it rather beating around some mysterious bush...….. Again what we do know beyond any doubt, is he was convicted of absolutely nothing, which proves guilt of nothing...…..
Just because a criminal charge is dropped against someone doesn’t mean they did not commit the criminal act. Being criminally charged is not always a prove of guilt as having criminal charges dropped does not always prove innocence.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Have you had a chance to see the Va battlefields from the Revolution ?

Sure.

It's a shame that their descendents perverted their intent of ending slavery peacefully over time, as espoused by several of the Founders. Alexander Stephens made the mistake of admitting that prior to his cornerstone speech.

It's more of a shame that the 1,709 dead that Virginia paid for the birth of a new nation was dwarfed by the 32,571 dead it lost in a fruitless war to ensure the enslavement of their fellow man, explicitly for the monetary gain of their ersatz nobility.

More than half again the total of all other wars Virginia has been involved in, a total of which is 20,486 according to the Virginia Military Dead Database.

It is clear to me that Virginia's leaders were foolhardy, unjust, and unwise. I can't travel five miles without passing a cemetery that proves their folly.
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
I disagree.

It is precisely because the CSA, with all it's victories and bravery of it's soldiers, could not, over a four year period, duplicate Washington and the Continental army's endurance thereby bringing on the recognition of France, Spain, etc.

And, we must not forget their ongoing Financial and most importantly, Military assistance. It is another ongoing Myth...that "WE" won IT alone through sheer American pluck and persistance.

How the British Won the American
Revolutionary War
by Gene Procknow


No, I have not lost my mind. Of course, the Americans won their freedom from British rule. However, what started in 1775, as an American rebellion against British rule in the thirteen colonies evolved into a far-reaching global war among world’s most powerful nations. Fighting between Britain and American allies including France, Spain and The Dutch Republic spread to the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and Asia.
Britain fared well in many of the conflicts waged outside the thirteen colonies, especially those fought after 1781. Consequently, there were significant favorable outcomes of the American Revolution for Britain, especially when viewed in context of the late 18th century state of affairs.

On June 17, 1778, when Jean Isaac Timothée Chadeau, Sieur de la Clocheterie French commander of the frigate Belle-Poule formally touched off the global conflict by refusing the customary “presenting his ship” to a 20 ship British fleet, commanded by Adm. Augustus Keppel while sailing off the southern coast of England.[1] Admiral Keppel responded to this affronting slight by opening fire on the Belle-Poule, which suffered a 40 percent casualty rate.[2] The French had a causus belli (an act which justifies war) to openly support the Americans, which it had been covertly doing with increasing intensity. With the French intervening in the American rebellion, the North American war became a global conflict.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Just because a criminal charge is dropped against someone doesn’t mean they did not commit the criminal act. Being criminally charged is not always a prove of guilt as having criminal charges dropped does not always prove innocence.
At least here in my state, criminal charges aren't dropped until guilt cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Sure.

It's a shame that their ancestors perverted their intent of ending slavery peacefully over time, as espoused by several of the Founders. Alexander Stephens made the mistake of admitting that prior to his cornerstone speech.

It's more of a shame that the 1,709 dead that Virginia paid for the birth of a new nation was dwarfed by the 32,571 dead it lost in a fruitless war to ensure the enslavement of their fellow man, explicitly for the monetary gain of their ersatz nobility.

More than half again the total of all other wars Virginia has been involved in, a total of which is 20,486 according to the Virginia Military Dead Database.

It is clear to me that Virginia's leaders were foolhardy, unjust, and unwise. I can't travel five miles without passing a cemetery that proves their folly.
They died for what they believed in just the same as all other wars.
 

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
They certainly expected sympathy, hence the commissioners of secession and the conceit that King Cotton could win the support of Great Britain and France. They of course were misguided about this and many other things.

As to honor, I put it in quotes intentionally. This is the same type of prideful honor that led to Sumner's caning, the fugitive slave law, and the war itself. The narrative of the slave holding class is they were gentlemen, that God was on their side as slavery is explicitly condoned in the Bible, and that being looked down for being slave holders was the worst kind of iniquity. This 'honor' remained even after their defeat, and was the wellspring of the Lost Cause, which attempted to rehabilitate their integrity by using the overtly dishonorable means of lying about what the war was about.

As to Mosby, he joined the Virginia militia thinking he would be fighting FOR the Union. But when Virginia voted for secession after Wise's manipulation at the convention by putting troops in the field to attack US resources and announcing that any who opposed him would have to assassinate him on the spot, Mosby like many went along with his state. He certainly did not believe in the primacy of the political reasons for his state's actions, instead placing loyalty to the state over his own principles. When relieved of that burden after Appammattox, he returned to his natural inclinations.

And of course being assassinated is not a natural death, and certainly not for advocating for reconstruction and unity in the US and an end to open bloodshed. The assassins in the South did continue said bloodshed for many generations, as evidenced by the thousands of lynchings and open battles against Unionists, such as the White League's insurrection in New Orleans that Longstreet led a force to oppose.
I did not characterize assassination as a "natural death". The only "natural inclinations" I can attribute to Mosby were contention, and his own self interests. That natural contention probably would cause a lot of people to think "it had to happen sometime" if he were felled by a bullet.
As to being "relieved of that burden" after Appomattox, I ain't buying it. He negotiated the surrender of his battalion, but decided he would stay in the saddle. He hadn't had enough. Contention. He dug a pretty deep hole for himself. US Grant pulled him completely clear, and for that Mosby gave Grant his loyalty. But, Mosby the Republican only extended as far as the National Party. He didn't think much of Virginia Republicans.... more contention.
South Carolinians could be contentious, too. And they said what they thought others might appreciate.
 
And, we must not forget their ongoing Financial and most importantly, Military assistance. It is another ongoing Myth...that "WE" won IT alone through sheer American pluck and persistance.

How the British Won the American
Revolutionary War
by Gene Procknow


No, I have not lost my mind. Of course, the Americans won their freedom from British rule. However, what started in 1775, as an American rebellion against British rule in the thirteen colonies evolved into a far-reaching global war among world’s most powerful nations. Fighting between Britain and American allies including France, Spain and The Dutch Republic spread to the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and Asia.
Britain fared well in many of the conflicts waged outside the thirteen colonies, especially those fought after 1781. Consequently, there were significant favorable outcomes of the American Revolution for Britain, especially when viewed in context of the late 18th century state of affairs.

On June 17, 1778, when Jean Isaac Timothée Chadeau, Sieur de la Clocheterie French commander of the frigate Belle-Poule formally touched off the global conflict by refusing the customary “presenting his ship” to a 20 ship British fleet, commanded by Adm. Augustus Keppel while sailing off the southern coast of England.[1] Admiral Keppel responded to this affronting slight by opening fire on the Belle-Poule, which suffered a 40 percent casualty rate.[2] The French had a causus belli (an act which justifies war) to openly support the Americans, which it had been covertly doing with increasing intensity. With the French intervening in the American rebellion, the North American war became a global conflict.

Thanks for the link. I did not know any of this.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
And, we must not forget their ongoing Financial and most importantly, Military assistance. It is another ongoing Myth...that "WE" won IT alone through sheer American pluck and persistance.

How the British Won the American
Revolutionary War
by Gene Procknow


No, I have not lost my mind. Of course, the Americans won their freedom from British rule. However, what started in 1775, as an American rebellion against British rule in the thirteen colonies evolved into a far-reaching global war among world’s most powerful nations. Fighting between Britain and American allies including France, Spain and The Dutch Republic spread to the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and Asia.
Britain fared well in many of the conflicts waged outside the thirteen colonies, especially those fought after 1781. Consequently, there were significant favorable outcomes of the American Revolution for Britain, especially when viewed in context of the late 18th century state of affairs.

On June 17, 1778, when Jean Isaac Timothée Chadeau, Sieur de la Clocheterie French commander of the frigate Belle-Poule formally touched off the global conflict by refusing the customary “presenting his ship” to a 20 ship British fleet, commanded by Adm. Augustus Keppel while sailing off the southern coast of England.[1] Admiral Keppel responded to this affronting slight by opening fire on the Belle-Poule, which suffered a 40 percent casualty rate.[2] The French had a causus belli (an act which justifies war) to openly support the Americans, which it had been covertly doing with increasing intensity. With the French intervening in the American rebellion, the North American war became a global conflict.

Excellent read, thank you!
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Just because a criminal charge is dropped against someone doesn’t mean they did not commit the criminal act. Being criminally charged is not always a prove of guilt as having criminal charges dropped does not always prove innocence.
Which means what?

Nor does a charge being dropped indicate guilt, your going in circles chasing your own tail...….what does indicate guilt or innocence is verdicts, barring none your just spinning opinion and conjecture...…. and lack of charges mean lack of verdicts, which leaves you at presumption of innocence under our system. Again what is a known and not conjecture, is he was convicted of nothing...….

If your suggesting we should have some entirely different justice system, think its beyond the scope of this thread
 
Last edited:

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
"As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress."...

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers
conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top