Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Does anyone have a scholarly article from a credible institution with the phase "Lincoln was wrong" in regards to Lincoln's suspension of the writ? Please quote or give a post number. Thanks
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The outlaw Govt of VA, was the one that didn't represent the people of VA, & stole 50 counties unconstitutionally, & formed West Virginia, with the consent of Honest Abe.
It was effective. Did the CSA ever adjudicate the matter? Just wondering what court called it unconstitutional.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
It doesn't sound like new statehood was very democratically decided to me if it received majority support in only two counties

To understand the difference between a democratic republic and an all-out democracy, we have always been the prior.

Yet if the popular vote is the only thing you will accept, then note when Virginians statewide voted on the question of secession from the Union in 1861, 40,000 of 44,000 voting western Virginians voted against leaving the Union. It just was.

It's true that not nearly as many western Virginians voted for the next step; to become a new state in the Federal Union, so if it makes you feel better, focus on that vote and not the 1861 vote.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
This is not that complicated. Western Virginians democratically decided to defend themselves from the Confederacy by electing to form a new state with the Federal Union. There's no question at all that's what happened.
It is a stretch to say Western Virginians used the democratic process. The outcome is not the question as much as the process to get to the destination of independent statehood. It were that simple, other states with split allegiances could have easily done the same thing then or even today.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
rly
No need to do that.
You asked the question , or blew your own horn.
Read about deTocqueville if you want to know his thoughts

yes they did. And slavery, which both sections had in common at one time and which both profited from, also produced differences.
@OpnCoronet DeTocqueville pointed out differences in the white populations. How they became different , whether because of slavery, geography, or what ever is irrelevant to your question on whether a European would notice.
He noticed that southerners were more prone to hedonistic pleasures, leaving the work to lower classes.
@OpnCoronet Your rudeness is noted but I do not understand it.



I am only saying that the North and South of 1850 - 1860 had almost everything in common under the Constitution, except, the peculiar institution of Chatel Slavery, which defined the North from the South, and, was the most defining characteristic of the only real differences in their practice. in law and society.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Here is the voting patterns of the counties.
1554825142386.png

The pattern appears to follow slaveholding rather than coercion.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
It is a stretch to say Western Virginians used the democratic process.

There's no question Western Virginians used the democratic process -- perhaps you mean that they abused it, at which point we resume discussion about how politics took place generally at that time. So short of murder, treason, or wife-beating you'd have to demonstrate that the western Virginians' democratic process was more of a stretch than any other vote cycle of the era. Did we mention how Texas came into the Confederacy?
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
To understand the difference between a democratic republic and an all-out democracy, we have always been the prior.

Yet if the popular vote is the only thing you will accept, then note when Virginians statewide voted on the question of secession from the Union in 1861, 40,000 of 44,000 voting western Virginians voted against leaving the Union. It just was.

It's true that not nearly as many western Virginians voted for the next step; to become a new state in the Federal Union, so if it makes you feel better, focus on that vote and not the 1861 vote.

Sounds to me as if the 1861 election was the democratically decided one, not the later one where the proponents of separation from Virginia and new statehood only managed to win majority support in two counties but yet, still got their way.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
Sounds to me as if the 1861 election was the democratically decided one, not the later one where the proponents of separation from Virginia and new statehood only managed to win majority support in two counties but yet, still got their way.

sigh... both were decided on delegate votes, regardless of the popular count by county. Democratic Republics are what both the Union and Confederacy were. You may personally feel that the popular vote was the only valid one to consider here (and I'm somewhat with you on that) but we just can't go back in history and make that happen.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The first issue is the fact that you american use the word "state" for what is actually just administrative divisions of the state called USA.
And the words have historically been used in different ways compared to how it is used in an international legal undestnading.


In an international understanding Virginia or California are not states.
Main or even California can't send ambassadors to France or be a member of the UN.
Why we in danish call them "delstater" = partstates.

And the United Nations, despite the name, have member states. (UK, Russia, US, Denmark)

State = legal stuff like being recognized as such, being able to send ambassadors, being able to sign treaties, and today membership of the UN. (the UK is one state, so is Iraq and Belgium. But all 3 are made up of more than one nation.)


Nation = culture, language and similar.
(The Kurds is one nation., but they don't have their own state and live in more then one state.)

Look at the early 19th century Germany. Clearly a German nation existed, but there have always been more than one German state.
Before 1871 where a lot of Germans states. Then with the German empire you had one German state but a lot of Germans still lived outside that state. Many in Austria-Hungary.
For the 2nd half of the 20th century there where 3 Germans states.
(East and west Germany and Austria)


Country = poorly defined word that is pretty useless.

The USA is one (sovereign) state
The csa was never a de jury (sovereign) state
But did exist as some form of attempt at a de facto state for a limited period of time since it did a lot of the things that are normally limited to states
Like governing a territory, having an army and navy.

It can be debated if the US ever was one nation,(and not more) with very good reasons for a no,

But To me it make sense to say that there where a northern (white) nation, a southern white and a southern black nation.
(with the option of making even more divisions)
And the obvious (modern) political question is how many nations the US is made up of today...

Al in all it is a lot easier to talk about if the CSA existed as a (sovereign) state.. than if it was a nation, because culture is such a hard thing to count and measure.

In US English usage State is a US State, state is some sort of nation. That may also be true for international usage.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Personally, I use an international person or foreign recognization as determinate and not country or nation.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
To be shocked would require something more substantial than a jelly sound bite like "shady shenanigans." That's nowhere close to being a legal, let alone precise, definition in any way.

We'd need, in detail, how the people of western Virginia had no "right" to defend themselves against the Confederacy in the most effective way available to them. We'd accept nothing less than the advisement of a practicing constitutional lawyer for the naming of the specific laws of the United States that were broken in accepting West Virginia into the Union. Not the mere preferences or precedents, but the actual laws.

The caveat is that unless you're going to prove that murder, treason, or wife-beating were involved we're just not going to buy it.

Even if we did, we'd have to follow up with a discussion on how Texas came into the Confederacy, how that was "completely different."
All one has to do is, take off the bias goggles. Regardless of all other issues/causes/etc. 50 Counties were stolen from Virginia. It doesn't take a law degree to see the shady tactics employed. I'm sure ol Honest Abe is still smiling over that one (even he knew it was shady)....
 

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Location
Central Ohio
I'll be one of the first to say that the CSA should not have existed, but to dispel its actual existence with a wave of one's hand and a string of legalistic arguments is just silly (and provocative).

What it was: An attempt to create a separate country, with a separate legal system, powers of trade negotiation, armed services, a treasury, and the lot. And it came perilously close to becoming a lasting reality. As for recognition of the CSA as a separate entity, the Lincoln administration was between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The administration attempted to have it both ways: to deal with it as a separate entity while steadfastly denying that the entity had any legal existence (which accounts for most, if not all, of the discrepancies in statements made by Union officials).

The case that comes up most frequently in my reading is that of the debate between blockade (which is a wartime measure conducted against another country, under the legal understanding at the time) and port closure (which is a domestic policy mostly about trade and customs enforcement). Navy Secretary Gideon Welles argued strenuously for port closure, on the grounds that the CSA had no legitimate legal existence. However, this foundered on the very real rock of British opposition: as a sovereign nation, Britain was not bound to respect U.S. domestic law, and if they were to do so voluntarily, it would be in violation of their own position of neutrality (since they would then be adopting a policy directly supporting the Union). Faced with the impossibility of enforcing a port closure while avoiding an almost-certain military response from Britain, the Lincoln administration proclaimed a blockade (while pretending it was a port closure, incidentally). Ultimately, a pragmatic approach, rather than an idealistic one. (Pragmatism tends to work much better than idealism in wartime situations...)

(ETA: Something the "Died of a Theory" Confederacy also struggled with..)
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
All one has to do is, take off the bias goggles. Regardless of all other issues/causes/etc. 50 Counties were stolen from Virginia. It doesn't take a law degree to see the shady tactics employed. I'm sure ol Honest Abe is still smiling over that one (even he knew it was shady)....

Actually, it would take a law degree to establish that illegal tactics were employed. West Virginia's statehood and claim to some recalcitrant counties actually did pass legal review in subsequent years, but perhaps even now you can appeal, on the basis that was "shady." Great legal precedent there.

And you really don't understand Lincoln. He was against West Virginia coming in as a new state because it would have been a slave state as first proposed. Anyway Lincoln was not behind everything that happened to Virginia at that time, while Secessionists and the Confederacy were behind most of what happened to Virginia at that time.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
"Lost Schmauser"

I like! But what is a sSchmauser?

I was just thinking moments ago, how about "Lazy Causers," as in the spellbound followers of SC's losing Seceshers who in thinking that slavery was the only or primary cause think that logic still lives in those purveyors of "differences so incredible that we just have to secede for our own sanity's sake --not that we want to secede, not that we want economic independence from the North, etc. blah." "Lazy Causers" are simply too lazy to look beyond the pitifully thin offerings of the losers to find the real reasons for Secession and War. What do you think? Maybe let's try it out the next time someone falsely and lazily characterizes those of us who have a different view of the War's origins as "Lost Causers." I don't mind, of course, being falsely labeled except for the fact that such sobriquets avoid dealing with more comprehensive issues.

"Lazy Causers" it is until anyone cares to trump it.

James
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
I think the OP’s premise is faulty. Most of the loyalists here understand the disconnect (is that a proper word?) between the motives of the rebels and the Americans, that what the rebels were fighting for wasn’t what the Americans were fighting against: that the rebels were fighting to protect slavery but the Americans were fighting to suppress rebellion, not to destroy slavery.

I find the motive of fighting to preserve the United States noble enough and consider the destruction of slavery a useful and righteous consequence of preserving the nation. But preserving the nation was ample motive.

So, if preserving the nation was the cause, how has slavery become the cause?

By the way, I welcome all the disagreement anyone wishes to bring to my OP. But do you have a 2-3-4 syllable word to characterize those who espouse slavery as the primary cause? I just noticed that mine is 4-syllables. I overshot my own budget! If those of us who see other causes and other primary causes are "Lost Causers," what is a fair neologism to characterize the other side?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Top