Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
There's also the legal argument, which has political and moral connotations.

If it was a nation, then secession was at worst a fait accomplis, and at best lawful. If secession was lawful, then they were unrightfully oppressed. Texas v White brings this matter into focus in the right of revolution - as long as it is successful.

If it was a revolt, then it was appropriate to put down just as Washington had done with the Whiskey Revolt. And the fact that the leaders weren't hung as traitors is an act of supreme generosity.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Laws were put in place to tie blacks to the land and force share cropping.

When these laws were weakened, yes, millions of blacks did leave the South. Around 6 million, known as the Great Migration, starting in 1916.
"Some historians differentiate between a first Great Migration (1916–1940), which saw about 1.6 million people move from mostly rural areas in the south to northern industrial cities, and a Second Great Migration (1940–1970), which began after the Great Depression and brought at least 5 million people—including many townspeople with urban skills—to the north and west."

Interesting. So, 50-75 yrs later, some folks moved to other areas (like lots of people), & the majority of those who left, waited 75-100yrs to leave. Appears to be mostly future generations, not folks who grew up in the antebellum era, or those who suffered through the war.

Doesn't sound to me like anything abnormal, or driven by social exercises. Appears to be normal migration of folks looking for better jobs, etc. Plenty of folks grow up, & move away to experience something different in life, & or to spread their own wings.

The majority of the US Black population still lives in the South today
 
I think that's the core issue here, yes. It's the sequence of events.


I think there's a consistent argument that the question of whether secession was legal or not was unresolved at the time and that a case could certainly be made that Robert E. Lee considered himself to be not a US Citizen at the time.

The odd thing about it is that it's accepted that a successful secession is legal (or at least the secession of the Colonies to form the United States is considered to have legal force) but a failed one is not so accepted.
This leads to the odd interpretation that the worse someone is at fighting against the United States the more illegal it is - or, at least, the more likely it is to be considered illegal...

I wonder how this 1795 SCOTUS decision regarding citizenship would bear on Lee's citizenship? The Court ruled that Americans who gain citizenship of another country do not waive their U.S. citizenship status. The justices gave their opinions seriatim.

"The thing itself was a crime. Now it is an obvious principle, that an act of illegality can never be construed into an act of emigration, or expatriation. At that rate, treason and emigration, or treason and expatriation, would, in certain cases, be synonymous terms.

The cause of removal must be lawful; otherwise the emigrant acts contrary to his duty, and is justly charged with a crime. Can that emigration be legal and justifiable, which commits or endangers the neutrality, peace, or safety of the nation of which the emigrant is a member? As we have no statute of the United States, on the subject of emigration, I have taken up the doctrine respecting it, as it stands on the broad basis of the law of nations, and have argued accordingly. That law is in no wise applicable to the present case: for, Ballard, the time of his taking the command of the Ami de la Liberte, and of his capturing the Magdalena, was a citizen of the United States; he was domiciliated within the same, and not elsewhere; and, besides, his cause of departure, supposing it to have been a total departure from and abandonment of his country, was unwarrantable, as he went from the United States, in the character of an illegal cruizer. The act of the legislature of Virginia, does not apply. Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States. If the legislature of Virginia affects Ballard's citizenship, so far as respects that state, can it touch his citizenship so far as it regards the United States? Allegiance to a particular state, is one thing; allegiance to the United States is another. Will it be said, that the renunciation of allegiance to the former implies or draws after it a renunciation of allegiance to the later? The sovereignties are different; the allegiance is different; the right to, may be different."
Opinion by Justice Paterson
August 22, 1795
Talbot v. Janson
3 U.S. 133


"Whether the Virginia act of expatriation be now in force, is a question so important, that I would not wish unnecessarily to decide it. If it be, I have no doubt that a citizen of that State, cannot expatriate himself in any other manner. It seems most probable (but I think not certain) from this record, that Talbot was a citizen of Virginia. We are, however, undoubtedly to consider him as a citizen of the United States. Admitting he had a right to expatriate himself, without any law prescribing the method of his doing so, we surely must have some evidence that he had done it. There is none, but that he went to the West Indies, and took an oath to the French Republic, and became a citizen there. I do not think that merely taking such an oath, and being admitted a citizen there, in itself, is evidence of a bona fide expatriation, or completely discharges the obligations he owes to his own country. Had there been any restrictions by our own law on his quitting this country, could any act of a foreign country, operate as a repeal of these? Certainly not.

When he goes there, they know nothing of him, perhaps, but from his own representation. He becomes a citizen of the new country, at his peril. The act is complete, if he has legally quitted his own; if not, it is subordinate to the allegiance he originally owed. By allegiance, I mean, that tie by which a citizen of the United States is bound as a member of the society. Did any man suppose, when the rights of citizenship were so freely and honorably bestowed on the unfortunate Marquis de la Fayette, that it absolved him, as a subject or citizen of his country? It had only this effect, that whenever he came into this country, and chose to reside here, he was ipso facto to be deemed a citizen, without any thing farther."

Opinion of Justice Iredell
August 22, 1795
Talbot v. Janson
3 U.S. 133
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Then you posted a falsehood since the article does state that a President may suspend habeus corpus.
Leftyhunter

Then you posted a falsehood, as there is no constitutional scholar pre-1861 who held that the president had the right to suspend habeas corpus. Post 1861 opinions attempting to justify Lincoln's 1861 junta are a dime a dozen.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
I think the OPs added paragraph exposes the ruse. Southern Slavery is a much More Nobel Of a Cause than what the Republican Goal Of 1860 truly was. Ridding the West Of any Non-Whites and replacing them with Whites. Not too Nobel Of a Cause. During Grant’s term, Natives were chased off and Nordic Whites we’re recruited as their Replacements.

As far as the Lost Cause, by the end of Reconstruction, the North had adopted it along with Hammond’s Mud Sill Theory. So, whose Lost Cause was it anyway?

If we continuously talk about Southern Slavery, the focus stays away from Yankee Human Trafficking and Dope Dealing which continued even Post Civil War. If there is a Moral to this story, it is that Farming can’t compete with powerful Merchants who control Shipping, Finance, Human Trafficking and Dope Trading. The South was on the wrong side of Nation Building.

Thanks for leading us into this great discussion.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Then you posted a falsehood, as there is no constitutional scholar pre-1861 who held that the president had the right to suspend habeas corpus.
What's wrong with post 1861 legal scholarship? Suspension of habeus corpus was not an issue prior to the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
What's wrong with post 1861 legal scholarship? Suspension of habeus corpus was not an issue prior to the ACW.
Leftyhunter


It's politicized and corrupt propaganda. If the right to suspend habeas by the president is so very, very, obvious, there should be an abundance of evidence indicating that's exactly what the framers intended. But there is none. Zero. Zip. Nada.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
It's politicized and corrupt propaganda. If the right to suspend habeas by the president is so very, very, obvious, there should be an abundance of evidence indicating that's exactly what the framers intended. But there is none. Zero. Zip. Nada.
I already been provided plenty if evidence that your above statement is false.
Leftyhunter
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
In this context let me add that those responsible for exalting slavery to a primary cause, i.e., those antebellum Seceshers who offered that sorry Saran-Wrap-thin and phony excuse for what they contemplated and then did, were actually joined in their hermeneutical gymnastics by Northerners AFTER the war. Those Northerners had to come up with something noble to explain to grieving mothers, fathers, sisters, and brother, and everybody else --like my spinster grade school teachers and other non-thinkers-- that their loved ones did not die in vain or for something as grubby as greed for western land and railroads. No, no, no! Good heavens, NO!! Gotta have a noble cause. Gotta extrapolate one! In fact, I think Northerners were probably even more responsible for the "Lost Cause of Slavery Primacy" argument, as it is so atypical for Northerners to take at face value the arguments of any Southerners, especially Southerners long since dead and their dead cause with them. Just a thought, not an argument --yet.

Great. All you have to do is prove that the secessionists were lying when they told everyone that they were upset with the threat to slavery.

As they repeated over and over again, not only in their public statements, but in their private deliberations.

And your attempt to rebrand what the Lost Cause means is an overt case of propaganda. No, up is not down, war is not peace. The Southerners themselves branded their attempt to rehabilitate their behavior with that appellation.

Faith dies hard, but in reasonable people, reason prevails.
 

Saphroneth

Major
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
I wonder how this 1795 SCOTUS decision regarding citizenship would bear on Lee's citizenship? The Court ruled that Americans who gain citizenship of another country do not waive their U.S. citizenship status. The justices gave their opinions seriatim.
It's interesting, but I think the fact that the US accepted the idea that Lee waived his citizenship means it doesn't apply.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
It's interesting, but I think the fact that the US accepted the idea that Lee waived his citizenship means it doesn't apply.

Or, as is in line with the US stated legal position on the issue, it was understood that Lee engaged in treason, as did all Confederate soldiers, and they were stripped of their citizenship once they waged war on the US.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
I think the OPs added paragraph exposes the ruse. Southern Slavery is a much More Nobel Of a Cause than what the Republican Goal Of 1860 truly was. Ridding the West Of any Non-Whites and replacing them with Whites. Not too Nobel Of a Cause. During Grant’s term, Natives were chased off and Nordic Whites we’re recruited as their Replacements.

As far as the Lost Cause, by the end of Reconstruction, the North had adopted it along with Hammond’s Mud Sill Theory. So, whose Lost Cause was it anyway?

If we continuously talk about Southern Slavery, the focus stays away from Yankee Human Trafficking and Dope Dealing which continued even Post Civil War. If there is a Moral to this story, it is that Farming can’t compete with powerful Merchants who control Shipping, Finance, Human Trafficking and Dope Trading. The South was on the wrong side of Nation Building.

Thanks for leading us into this great discussion.

Thanks for your seconding of the motion.

I am still searching for a 2-3 syllable neologism to offset once and for all the childish response of "Lost Causer" that is repeatedly offered by those who are still under the stale and sterile Merlinish spell of SC's Seceshers and still can't fight their way out of that easily rippable wet paper bag. Help me!
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
I don't have a link but...

From the Proceedings the of Virginia State Convention of 1861, Volume I, February 13 - March 16, Twenty-First Day, Saturday, March 9, pp. 524-528:

"The grievances for which several of the States have withdrawn from the Union and overthrown the Federal Government within their limits, are such as have affected the people of Virginia to a greater extent than any of the seceded States, and it is their determined purpose to require such guarantees for the protection of the rights of the people of the slaveholding States as in the judgment of Virginia will be sufficient for the accomplishment of that object.

Virginia having initiated measures to obtain such guarantees, a proper self-respect impels her to demand of all the parties that they shall refrain, during the pendency of her efforts for amicable adjustment, from all action tending to produce a collision of forces; therefore,

1. be it Resolved and declared by the people of the State of Virginia, in Convention assembled, that the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties, and in adopting that instrument the people of each State agreed to associate with the people of the other States, upon a feeling of exact equality. It is the duty, therefore, of the common Government to respect the rights of the States and the equality of the people thereof, and within the just limits of the Constitution to protect with equal care the great interests that spring from the institutions of each.

2. African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the States wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the Federal authority, or by the authorities of the other States, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous.

3. the choice of functionaries of a common Government, established for the common good for the reason that they entertan opinions and avow purposes hostile to the institutions of some of the States, necessarily excluded the people of one section from participation in the administration of the Government, subjects the weaker to the domination of the stronger section, leads to abuse, and is incompatible with the safety of those whose interests are imperillied; the formation therefore, of geographical or sectional parties in respect to Federal polities is contrary to the principles on which our system res and tends to its overthrow.

4. the Territories of the United States constitute a trust to be administered by the General Government, for the common benefit of the people of the United States, and any policy in respect to such Territories calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one part of the United States than on the people of another part, is contrary to equality, and prejudicial to the rights of some for whose equal benefit the trust was created. If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory, excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper development.

5. the sites of the Federal forts, arsenals, &c., within the limits of the States of this Union, were acquired by the Federal Government, and jurisdiction over them ceded by the States, as trusts, for the common purposes of the Union, during its continuance; and upon the separation of the States, such jurisdiction reverts of right to the States, respectively, by which the jurisdiction was ceded. Whilst a State remains in the Union, the legitimate use of such forts, &c., is to protect the country against foreign force, and to aid in suppressing domestic insurrection. To use, or prepare them to be used to intimidate a State, or constrain its free action, is a perversion of the purposes for which they were obtained; they were not intended to be used against the States, in whose limits they are found, in the event of civil war. In a time, of profound peace with foreign nations, such as now exists, and when no symptoms of domestic insurrection appear — but whilst irritating questions of the deepest importance are pending the States--to accumulate within the limits of a State, interested in such question an unusual amount of troops and munitions of war, not required for any legitimate purpose, in unwise impolitic and offensive.

6. Deeply deploring the present distracted condition of the country, and lamenting the wrongs that have impelled some of the States to cast off obedience to the Federal Government, but sensible of the blessings of Union, and impressed with its importance to the peace, prosperity and progress of the people, we indulge the hope that an adjustment may be reached by which the Union may be preserved in its integrity, and peace, prosperity and fraternal feelings be restored throughout the land.

7. to remove the existing causes of complaint much may be accomplished by the Federal and State Governments; the laws for the rendition of fugitives from labor and of fugitives from justice may be made, more effectual, the expenditures of the Government may be reduced within more moderate limits, and the abuses that have enfered into the administrative departments reformed.--the State authorities may repeal their unfriendly and unconstitutional legislations, and substitute in its stead such as becomes the comity and is due to the rights of the States of the same Union. But to restore the Union and preserve confidence the Federal Constitution should be amended in those particulars wherein experience has exhibited detects and discovered approaches dangerous to the institutions of some of the States.

8. the people of Virginia recognize the American principle that Government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new Governments for their better security, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority.

9. the exercise of this right by the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas, without the assent of the other states, has given rise to new conditions, and presented questions touching those conditions intimately affecting the rights and safety of the other States. Among these are the free navigation of the Mississippi River, the maintenance of the forts intended to protect the commerce of the Gulf of Mexico, and the power to resire in smuggling along the interior borders of the seceded States; but the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States as parties to the Government compact to take lawful action touching them.

10. without expressing an opinion as to the question of power, but in deference to the opinion of the Federal authorities, the people of Virginia hereby declare their desire to confer upon the Government of the United States the powers necessary to enable its proper authorities to deal peaceably with these questions, and, if it shall become necessary to recognize the separate independence of the seceding States, and to make such treaties with them, and to pass such laws as the separation may make proper.

11. this Convention, composed of delegates elected by the people in disticts, for the purpose of considering the existing difficulties in our Federal Relations, represents the desire and earnest request of the people of Virginia, to meet as directly as possible the people of her sister States, and to them appeal for satisfactory adjustment.--Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote, or in Convention similar to her own, to respond, at their earliest convenience, to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions, and the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States hereunto appended. And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will fell compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the U. States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights.

12. the people of Virginia will await any reasonable time to obtain answers from the other States, to these propositions, aware of the embarrassments that may produce delay, but they will expect, as an indispensable condition, that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, and that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority, nor to reinforce the forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States, or re-capture the forts, arsenals, or other property of the United States within their limits, nor to exact the payment of imposts upon their commerce; nor any measure resorted to justly calculated to provoke hostile collision.

13. in the opinion of this Convention, the people of Virginia would regard any action of the Federal Government, tending to produce a collision of forces, pending negotiations for the adjustment of existing difficulties as aggressive and injurious to the interests, and offensive to the honor of this Commonwealth; and they would regard any such action on the part of the seceded or confederated States as hurtful and unfriendly, and as leaving them free to determine their future policy.

14. the peculiar Relations of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas to the other States, make it proper, in the judgment of this Convention, that the former States should consult together and concert such measures for their final action as the honor, the interests and the safety of the people thereof may demand, and for that purpose the proper authorities of those States are requested to appoint Commissioners to meet Commissioners to be appointed by this Convention on behalf of the people of this State, at Frankfort, in the State of Kentucky, on the last Monday in May next."

Edit to add my comment:

On March 9, 1861 the Virginia Convention proposed the following ultimatum that was to be made upon the Federal government. If the ultimatum was not accepted, Virginia would then secede. On April 13th, before the Convention had ended and the ultimatum could be served, the delegates found out that Ft. Sumter had been attacked. The Convention continued to finalize some fine points in the ultimatum as well as a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution until word arrived on April 15th, that Lincoln had called for 75,000 volunteer troops to put down the rebellion. On April 16th, the Convention met in secret session and voted on the following day to secede from the Union.

Thanks for your detailed and lengthy post. However, even before the ultimatum was drafted, the Virginia General Assembly had already passed an anti-coercion resolution in early January 1861. This resolution stated that the federal government did not have the authority to make war against the states and any attempt at coercion would be resisted by Virginia by any means in its power. Subsequently, after Lincoln's call for troops to coerce the states, the Secession Convention went into special session. The next day they voted overwhelmingly to secede and their opposition to federal coercion as expressed in the resolution was the basis for their decision to leave the Union.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Great. All you have to do is prove that the secessionists were lying when they told everyone that they were upset with the threat to slavery.

As they repeated over and over again, not only in their public statements, but in their private deliberations.

And your attempt to rebrand what the Lost Cause means is an overt case of propaganda. No, up is not down, war is not peace. The Southerners themselves branded their attempt to rehabilitate their behavior with that appellation.

Faith dies hard, but in reasonable people, reason prevails.

That the Seceshers were liars has already been demonstrably proven. See other threads.

Do you have a neologism to correctly capture the essence of those who hype "Lost Causer" every time someone advances an argument other than slavery?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Top