Today is the 150th anniversary of the start of the US Civil War

[austinN4]

The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter on Friday, April 12th, 1861 at 4:30am.

It is hard for me to believe it was only 150 years ago.

[montanadave]

TIME magazine has an article on the Civil War in it's latest issue entitled The Way We Weren't by David Von Drehle. Here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html

A thread discussing the Civil War and its origins turned a tad contentious last week and was locked by the mods (although I did think Templar may have revealed a slight bias by referring to the "War of Northern Aggression" when he shut it down. :laugh:). Based on some of those earlier comments, there are going to be different opinions about the TIME article linked above. Regardless, it's worth reading.

[austinN4]

A thread discussing the Civil War and its origins turned a tad contentious last week and was locked by the mods (although I did think Templar may have revealed a slight bias by referring to the "War of Northern Aggression" when he shut it down. :laugh:).
LOL! I didn't intend this to be a political thread. Thanks for the link.

[6933]

The War of Northern Aggression is the proper name.

[BrianS]

IF anyone has not done so, now would be a good time to buy and read Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" a three volume narrative history about the Civil War covering the whole thing from roots to aftermath. IIRC I read these books in the summer of 07 or 08 and really learned a lot about the most formative war in American history.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_35?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=shelby+foote+civil+war+3+volume+set&sprefix=shelby+foote+civil+war+3+volume+set

Also the Civil War documentary series by Ken Burns is streaming on Netflix.

[montanadave]

Another excellent civil war history is Bruce Catton's trilogy (The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword, and A Stillness at Appomattox). I read it back in junior high. The detail with which Catton describes the battles and participants is outstanding. Although originally published in the sixties, Catton was the recipient of both a Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for A Stillness at Appomattox, which has been described as "the best book ever written on the Civil War." Catton wrote extensively on the Civil War. The trilogy I am referring to above is known as the Centennial History of the Civil War, not to be confused with his earlier (and exhaustive) Army of the Potomac trilogy.

http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Cattons-Civil-War-Boxed/dp/1898800227/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302648017&sr=8-2

[ALCOAR]

TIME magazine has an article on the Civil War in it's latest issue entitled The Way We Weren't by David Von Drehle. Here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html

A thread discussing the Civil War and its origins turned a tad contentious last week and was locked by the mods (although I did think Templar may have revealed a slight bias by referring to the "War of Northern Aggression" when he shut it down. :laugh:). Based on some of those earlier comments, there are going to be different opinions about the TIME article linked above. Regardless, it's worth reading.

Crazy...I just read that piece of shit article in TIME today. I should have burned that pinko smut rag in the optometrist's office.

State's Rights actually means something in the south...perhaps more so today than ever.

[6933]

Catton has a decidedly anti-South tone.

[Gutshot John]

Catton's trilogy is one of the best scholarly treatments. Shelby Foote is also excellent but narratives don't really do it for me.

I was always curious why it's called "Northern" aggression when the South fired the first shots.

[Spiffums]

The most balanced books I ever personally read are "Why the South Lost" and "Why the North Won". They were required for a History of the South class. There were "Yankees" in there who were surprised that SLAVERY wasn't the answer to every question on the tests when we covered the period of the Civil War.

[Scoby]

I was born and raised in the "Birthplace and the Deathbed of the Confederacy"........Abbeville, SC.

From Wikipedia:

Abbeville has the unique distinction of being both the birthplace and the deathbed of the Confederacy. On November 22, 1860, a meeting was held at Abbeville, at a site since dubbed "Secession Hill", to launch South Carolina's secession from the Union; one month later, the state of South Carolina became the first state to secede.

It was also the birthplace of noted states rights advocate John C. Calhoun.

At the end of the Civil War, with the Confederacy in shambles, Confederate President Jefferson Davis fled Richmond, Virginia and headed south, stopping for a night in Abbeville at the home of his friend Armistead Burt. It was on May 2, 1865, in the front parlor of what is now known as the Burt-Stark Mansion that Jefferson Davis officially acknowledged the dissolution of the Confederate government.

There is a small monument / plaque at the site of Secession Hill. The Burt-Stark mansion still stands. Mrs Mary Stark Davis, who died in the 80's I think, left the home to the City of Abbeville.

Abbeville was and is a great place to live.


Scoby

[Moose-Knuckle]

I was always curious why it's called "Northern" aggression when the South fired the first shots.

Due to the war crimes commited by the North during the course of the war. There is a reason why the war made men like Jessie James, William Quantrill, etc.


I'm sure this thread will be deep sixed sooner than later. This topic is very touchy for some and someone always gets butt hurt.

The area that most interest me about the "Civil War" is the role Europe and espeicaly her bankers played.

[Gutshot John]

Due to the war crimes commited by the North during the course of the war. There is a reason why the war made men like Jessie James, William Quantrill, etc.

You're kidding right?

Like the South never committed war crimes and Jesse James/Bill Quantrill were just victims?

Interesting perspective, a bit skewed and revisionist, but interesting.

[Low Drag]

The War of Northern Aggression is the proper name.

Huh? Didn't Confederate forces fire the first shots?

So, I punch a guy in the face. He then proceeds to knock the snot out of me. I then label him as the aggressor. Hummmm.......?

[Low Drag]

You're kidding right?

Like the South never committed war crimes and Jesse James/Bill Quantrill were just victims?

Interesting perspective, a bit skewed and revisionist, but interesting.

RE: Andersonville.

Elmira, NY was no picnic either but Andersonville takes the cake.

[William B.]

So, I punch a guy in the face. He then proceeds to knock the snot out of me. I then label him as the aggressor. Hummmm.......?


If he was in your house when you punched him in the face that would probably make a more accurate analogy.

[Gutshot John]

If he was in your house when you punched him in the face that would probably make a more accurate analogy.

Fort Sumter was a long established US military base that defended Charlestown SC, just like West Point defended the Hudson River or Fort McHenry defended the Chesapeake.

You might recall that the British laid siege to Charlestown during the American Revoution.

SC had no objection to its construction and there was no attempt by Fort Sumter to occupy Charlestown.

[Moose-Knuckle]

You're kidding right?

Like the South never committed war crimes and Jesse James/Bill Quantrill were just victims?

Interesting perspective, a bit skewed and revisionist, but interesting.

No, I'm not kidding and combine that with European middling.

William Quantrill was a cold blooded murdering son of a bitch, no doubt about it.

Of course my perspective is "skewed", after all I'm the great, great, grandson of a Confederate cavalryman. ;)

[Gutshot John]

RE: Andersonville.

Elmira, NY was no picnic either but Andersonville takes the cake.

Both could have been avoided had the Confederacy been willing to exchange black POWs.

Then there was the little known place known as Fort Pillow...oh yeah and Lawrence KS...oh yeah Saltville VA etc.

War really sucks but as a wise man once said - "don't start nuthin...won't be nuthin."

[Gutshot John]

Of course my perspective is "skewed", after all I'm the great, great, grandson of a Confederate cavalryman. ;)

I have family that fought on both sides of the conflict.

I try to keep things in balance...of course I'm a bit underwhelmed by protestations of "liberty" by those who kept slaves.

[William B.]

Fort Sumter was a long established US military base that defended Charlestown SC, just like West Point defended the Hudson River or Fort McHenry defended the Chesapeake.

You might recall that the British laid siege to Charlestown during the American Revoution.

Fort Sumter wasn't even fully constructed at that time. The Union soldiers fled Fort Moultrie (which had been long established) because they felt that Sumter would give them a more advantageous position.


SC had no objection to its construction and there was no attempt by Fort Sumter to occupy Charlestown.

Regardless of those facts, the Union's right to occupy Fort Sumter was, at the very least, in question since South Carolina had just declared itself independent from the United States. Those soldiers were warned, had no orders from their government to stay, and had ample opportunity to leave South Carolina along with other Union units.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I have family that fought on both sides of the conflict.

I try to keep things in balance...of course I'm a bit underwhelmed by protestations of "liberty" by those who kept slaves.

None of my Confederate ancestors were slave owners, they cound't afford them. Many people have the misconception that EVERYONE in the South owned slaves. This couldn't be further from the truth. To own slave one needed to be a wealthy land owner. Johnny Reb didn't bleed the fields red so some wealthy plantation owners could keep his work force.

[Scoby]

Ya'll got it all wrong. Stephen Douglas called Hannibal Hamlins' mama a skank ho.....and it was on! ;)




State's Rights actually means something in the south...perhaps more so today than ever.

You're right, and to more and more people everyday has been my observation.

Scoby

[Gutshot John]

None of my Confederate ancestors were slave owners, they cound't afford them. Many people have the missconception that EVERYONE in the South owned slaves. This couldn't be further from the truth. To own slave one needed to be a wealthy land owner. Johnny Reb didn't bleed the fields red so some wealthy plantation owner could keep his work force.

I'm not talking about the average soldier. My family didn't own slaves either. Mostly they didn't want to lose what land they had. I would agree that many non-slave owning confederates volunteered or were drafted to protect the interests of rich slave owners who controlled the government. Men that were content to let poor men fight their battles for them.

I'm talking about the political reasoning justifying the war. War is politics by other means.

See how many times slavery is mentioned in SC's secession document. Or why the state of West Virginia came into being.

[Gutshot John]

Regardless of those facts, the Union's right to occupy Fort Sumter was, at the very least, in question since South Carolina had just declared itself independent from the United States.

There was no Constitutional authority to secede. Nullification had already been discredited several times. A government has full authority to put down an insurrection, that said there was no attempt on the part of Ft. Sumter to engage in military action.

Fort Sumter was on Federal land and the South fired the first shots. There was no Northern Aggression.

[William B.]

There was no Constitutional authority to secede. Nullification had already been discredited several times. A government has full authority to put down an insurrection, that said there was no attempt on the part of Ft. Sumter to engage in military action.

There was no Constitutional guidance on secession. Issues such as this one go all the way back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

An insurrection is different than an established government's formal withdrawal from a union of equal governments.

[ALCOAR]

You're kidding right?

Like the South never committed war crimes and Jesse James/Bill Quantrill were just victims?

Interesting perspective, a bit skewed and revisionist, but interesting.

Some might call what Sherman did to my actual family a "war crime"...I won't comment any further as I tend to have strong feelings over this topic given some of my family's history.

My family's home....before and after Sherman and his henchman came through with torches and flames....
http://i54.tinypic.com/nvxips.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/102qouu.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/qofxtv.jpg


I found all these Civil War bullets within a cpl. hundred yards of my Grandparents home in Buckhead, Atlanta...directly on the banks of the Chattahoochee River....
http://i55.tinypic.com/2zrg7s9.jpg

[variablebinary]

There was no Constitutional guidance on secession. Issues such as this one go all the way back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

An insurrection is different than an established government's formal withdrawal from a union of equal governments.


Insurrection, or secession, a hostile power along the border attacking federal territory was obviously not going to be tolerated, irrespective of the constitution's position on the matter.

[RyanB]

South Carolina transferred title to Ft Sumter permanently and the union never relinquished it's interest.

Or would you fools support the bombardment of Guantanamo by Cuban forces?

Furthermore the south began the war to protect the expansion of slavery westward, knowing that if Mr. Lincoln was able to arrest the expansion of the practice eventually free states would outnumber slave states and the Congress would outlaw it.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I would agree that many non-slave owning confederates volunteered or were drafted to protect the interests of rich slave owners who controlled the government. Men that were content to let poor men fight their battles for them.


POTUS's troops fired on civilians in New York during the draft riots 11-13 July 1865 to fill the ranks of the Union's forces. Ever see Scorsese's Gangs of New York? In it there is a scene with the elitist playing billiards laughing, "you can always get half of the poor to kill the other half".

[RyanB]

I find that many who think Sherman is a war criminal think nothing of the bombing of Tokyo. I submit that the citizens of Tokyo were not traitors against America, so if one has to be a war crime and not the other, let it be LeMay.

[ALCOAR]

I find that many who think Sherman is a war criminal think nothing of the bombing of Tokyo. I submit that the citizens of Tokyo were not traitors against America, so if one has to be a war crime and not the other, let it be LeMay.

I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous....

Following your incredibly twisted math here:

Sherman = W.W.II US airpower

The CSA = W.W.II Imperial Japan

WTF:confused:

General Lee and Prime Minister/General Tojo would equal each other using your wonderful math as well I guess.

[variablebinary]

I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous....

Following your incredibly twisted math here:

Sherman = W.W.II US airpower

The CSA = W.W.II Imperial Japan

WTF:confused:

General Lee and Prime Minister/General Tojo would equal each other using your wonderful math as well I guess.

If anything Davis and Hirohito were equally flawed. They decided to take on a larger, more powerful opponent.

"Don't start none, won't be none."

Either way, there is no inalienable freedom to enslave so the Confederacy was destined for failure.

[Gutshot John]

There was no Constitutional guidance on secession. Issues such as this one go all the way back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

An insurrection is different than an established government's formal withdrawal from a union of equal governments.

Actually it doesn't mention secession because there was never any notion that it could happen the entire Constitution was an affirmation of this principle, even the Articles of Confederation calls the United States a "perpetual Union." Not only did ratification not require 100% assent, but the notion that a single state could nullify Federal authority had already been destroyed as much by Southeners such as Andrew Jackson as anyone else. Additionally the supremacy clause makes it clear that Federal law supersedes state law.

Once the Union was formed the pretty clear idea was that states couldn't come and go as they pleased, especially when an election didn't go their way.

[Gutshot John]

POTUS's troops fired on civilians in New York during the draft riots 11-13 July 1865 to fill the ranks of the Union's forces. Ever see Scorsese's Gangs of New York? In it there is a scene with the elitist playing billiards laughing, "you can always get half of the poor to kill the other half".

Yes, so? I didn't say that the Southern draft wasn't a logical response (though definitely illegal), only that the notion that it wasn't about slavery because not all confederate soldiers owned slaves is flawed. Many of those that were rich enough to own slaves could pay someone else to go in their place. The bulk of the political leadership, the ones that actually declared war, were slaveholders and wanted to keep the institution in place. The political reasons for secession and firing on Fort Sumter was the perpetuation of slavery.

Putting on the mantle of liberty, while preserving a policy of slavery, is fatally flawed. Had liberty been the prime motivation, the South would have emancipated the slaves, gained European support and might have won the war. They did not.

[Belmont31R]

The 10th Amendment opens the door to a states right to leave the union, and our country is based on the principle of government by the consent of the people. The Federal government was formed under the consent of the states. I have a hard time believing states, also, then don't have the right to withdraw their consent or don't at least have the right of succession. If someone wants to argue that a state doesn't have the right to leave then the same thing can be said of our revolution. We didn't have the right to declare independence from Britain and fight a war against them? Then you'd also say Britain has the right to come reclaim the US and fight a war to that end?




I think both sides were flawed, and history has been contorted to fit one side or the other.

[The_War_Wagon]

None of my Confederate ancestors were slave owners, they cound't afford them. Many people have the misconception that EVERYONE in the South owned slaves. This couldn't be further from the truth. To own slave one needed to be a wealthy land owner. Johnny Reb didn't bleed the fields red so some wealthy plantation owners could keep his work force.

Very true of my ancestors as well. 7 great-great-uncles (my great-great-grandfather was only 14 at war's end - all his older brothers served), and 21 of their first cousins all served in the Army of Nothern Virginia - all of them with NC units.

The two highest ranking family members among those 28, only made it to Captain - most likely because they were simply old. Most of my relatives were infantry privates, with a few NCO's sprinkled in, and two more Lt's. None of them owned slaves - none of them owned plantations. They fought to live in a confederation of states, with none being supreme - not a Federalist, top-down heirarchy, with D.C. supreme over all.

No one will ever know how the former system would have worked. We can certainly see that the latter has been no great shakes, though.

[Gutshot John]

The 10th Amendment opens the door to a states right to leave the union

Uhm no it doesn't, please show me the source of this reasoning in the writings of the founders. If that were the case than Union becomes instantly irrelevant and the Constitution even more so. The Founders were guided by the failures of other great Republics, many of whom failed exactly because of secession. The notion that it was somehow condoned in the Constitution would have been anathema to the Founders.

The Union is not one of mere convenience, the establishment of the Constitution, supplanting the Articles of Confederation (which itself mentioned "perpetual Union") enshrines this principle.

Even Patrick Henry acknowledged that this was the consequence of the Constitution, he opposed it exactly because it would irrevocably prohibit secession.


Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.

James Madison:


I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

Andrew Jackson:


But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.

The southern states also opposed proposed secession on the part of Northern Federalists who opposed the Louisiana Purchase and the expansion of slavery. Further the Hartford Convention was an attempt by New England to oppose the War of 1812 which was viewed as treasonous secession and ended in the dissolution of the Federalist party.

[Belmont31R]

Uhm no it doesn't, please show me the source of this reasoning in the writings of the founders. If that were the case than Union becomes instantly irrelevant and the Constitution even more so.

The Union is not one of mere convenience, the establishment of the Constitution, supplanting the Articles of Confederation (which itself mentioned "perpetual Union") enshrines this principle.




The 10th Amendment is open ended. Theres no limits on what is considered the right of the people or states. This is exactly why many of the founders didn't even want a BOR because they correctly forsaw what is happening now where people go "its not in the Constitution so its not a right". Half the people need alternating colors of crayons to read whats written in there.


As to the founder's writings on it...they did a little thing called succeed from Britain. I think that set enough precedence to where if a group of people want to leave their government they have the right to.


Have you read the Declaration of Independence?



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.




So if you want to say a state doesn't have right to leave then you have to say the Declaration of Independence was wrong and we should have stayed a possession of Britain.

[montanadave]

Not to quibble, but the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence and those codified in the United States Constitution vary significantly on many issues.

[Gutshot John]

The 10th Amendment is open ended. Theres no limits on what is considered the right of the people or states. This is exactly why many of the founders didn't even want a BOR because they correctly forsaw what is happening now where people go "its not in the Constitution so its not a right". Half the people need alternating colors of crayons to read whats written in there.

Secession was never in all of our history, considered any kind of "right". It isn't mentioned for the same reason that gay marriage isn't mentioned. Those that did entertain it were usually viewed as traitors or as goofballs. It was inconceivable and would indeed make the whole Constitution a dead letter.

Revolution is a right, and yes there is a right for revolution as spelled out by the DoI. The people may revolt, the states cannot. By the time of the Civil War that issue had already been spelled out repeatedly and even endorsed by slaveholders and the South.


Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

Indeed have you? Seen how many times it talks about slavery, and "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights."

There is no right to secede, especially in order to enslave other men, implied or otherwise.

[Belmont31R]

Not to quibble, but the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence and those codified in the United States Constitution vary significantly on many issues.



Sure. But looking at the entire history from the Declaration of Independence to the start of the Civil War I don't think anyone will find any overwhelming evidence that people believed secession was not something that could occur or that a state/colony could not leave whatever greater umbrella of governance it was under.


You can look at letters written by the founders in the post founding years, and they mostly all point towards a possible dissolution of bonds when the subject came up, and none I have read explicitly say a state cannot leave the union. I've read some about the nullification crisis that occurred, and although they don't always agree with the state's reasoning for nullification they never said 'we're going to war if they don't cow toe to us'. The period after our independence was seen as an experiment in government and shaky at best. Not something that was cemented in stone for all of eternity. Of course what the new leadership of the government did during that time is different than the founders view of it, and which is ultimately what led to the Civil War. In 1832 the Federal government authorized military force against South Carolina. The Library of Congress has some letters written by Madison during that time, and he basically said since the powers of the federal government are at the consent of the states if a state feels that consent has been violated the state has to decide what to do. His letters are basically saying secession is possible as a last resort if the consent the state gives has been violated.


What the founders created and what happened afterwards up into the Civil War isn't on par with the principles of our founding. The leadership quickly tried to trample over states rights and give the Federal government over riding control of the states no matter what, and ignore the fact the government operates out of the state's consent.


Even if you look at Benjamin Franklin's famous quote about a 'A republic. If you can keep it." implies there was uneasiness about the future of the US. I think most of the founders thought there was a good chance the US would break apart. The people that took the reigns afterwards went to war to keep it together, and hundreds of thousands died as a result. Now what we have today is a Federal government that ignores states rights all together, and its a culmination of ignoring the authority by which the government operates and ignoring the original boundaries the states set for it almost as soon as things kicked off. This is the inherent evil of government the founders warned us about.

[Gutshot John]

Sure. But looking at the entire history from the Declaration of Independence to the start of the Civil War I don't think anyone will find any overwhelming evidence that people believed secession was not something that could occur or that a state/colony could not leave whatever greater umbrella of governance it was under.

The DoI mentions Revolution under certain prescribed conditions. None of which applied to the Civil War.

Southern States were represented in the Congress, they got to vote in the Presidential election and otherwise were given the same rights as any other state.

Just because you don't like the outcome of the law/election, doesn't mean you get to take your marbles and go home.

If it did than the entire Constitution is irrelevant.

[Belmont31R]

Secession was never in all of our history, considered any kind of "right". It isn't mentioned for the same reason that gay marriage isn't mentioned. Those that did entertain it were usually viewed as traitors or as goofballs. It was inconceivable and would indeed make the whole Constitution a dead letter.

Revolution is a right, and yes there is a right for revolution as spelled out by the DoI. The people may revolt, the states cannot. By the time of the Civil War that issue had already been spelled out repeatedly and even endorsed by slaveholders and the South.



Indeed have you? Seen how many times it talks about slavery, and "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights."

There is no right to secede, especially in order to enslave other men, implied or otherwise.




Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.


Part of a 1804 letter by Thomas Jefferson.

[RyanB]

Any constituency in a federation may attempt to leave by force of arms. If they win, it will have been legal. If they lose it's treason.

[Belmont31R]

The DoI mentions Revolution under certain prescribed conditions. None of which applied to the Civil War.

Southern States were represented in the Congress, they got to vote in the Presidential election and otherwise were given the same rights as any other state.

Just because you don't like the outcome of the law/election, doesn't mean you get to take your marbles and go home.

If it did than the entire Constitution is irrelevant.


But if you keep bleating about how leaving the union is not a right then it doesn't matter what the conditions were. Its either a right or not. You can't say the founders were justified but the south was not because its not a right. Then the founders didn't have the right to leave Britain either.


Im not defending the south's reasoning for leaving just saying they had the right to, and whatever reasons they had were up to them. Obviously a reasonable person would say losing an election is not reasonable, and thats not why the decided to leave anyways. There were a series of acts by the Federal government from the late 1700's to the start of the Civil War that led the southern states to leave. Most of them had nothing to do with slavery.

[Gutshot John]

Part of a 1804 letter by Thomas Jefferson.

Again no mention of secession and certainly not by violence. For instance, the Union splits willingly by the assent of 2/3 states, might be permissable but that's not secession, and especially it's certainly not permissable when most states don't assent.

For it to occur, according to the structure of the Constitution, the Constitution would first have to be repealed by the amendment process.

I must have missed that little tidbit of history.

[Belmont31R]

Again no mention of secession and certainly not by violence. For instance, the Union splits willingly by the assent of 2/3 states, might be permissable but that's not secession, and especially it's certainly not permissable when most states don't assent.

For it to occur, according to the structure of the Constitution, the Constitution would first have to be repealed by the amendment process.

I must have missed that little tidbit of history.



Then the revolution was not permissible, either, since it didn't have popular support at first.



ETA: Jefferson was specifically talking about a split where there would be two countries, and the second country he was talking about was the area that the heart of the CSA. The CSA did try to split peacefully initially.

[Gutshot John]

Then the revolution was not permissible, either, since it didn't have popular support at first.

Apples and oranges.

All 13 colonies delegates (not a quarter, not half, not 2/3, not even 90%) but ALL signed the DoI.

All 13 colonies, who later became states, sent delegations to the Continental Congress.

This of course is different than the Constitution.

For the Union to split, at least 2/3rds of the states would have to vote to amend it.

[montanadave]

Thomas Jefferson, a polymath and patriot to be sure, spent most of his political career talking out of both sides of his mouth. Trying to decipher Jefferson's core principles regarding governance is a Sisyphean task.

From my readings, Jefferson reveals himself as the foremost politician among the founding fathers, a rather ignominious distinction in my estimation.

[Belmont31R]

Apples and oranges.

All 13 colonies delegates (not a quarter, not half, not 2/3, not even 90%) but ALL signed the DoI.

All 13 colonies, who later became states, sent delegations to the Continental Congress.

This of course is different than the Constitution.

For the Union to split, at least 2/3rds of the states would have to vote to amend it.



If you want to say the Continental Congress was the official governing body of the colonies at the time of the DOI then you have to say the CSA was the official governing body of the southern states.


RyanB is mostly correct. If the rebellion/secession succeeds then what can you do? The matter of secession was decided by the Civil War but in the future...any cases of rebellion will be again decided by who wins. Isn't history written by the victor? Its an issue that will never be decided once and for all because its like making war illegal. Whoever wins is "right".

[Gutshot John]

If you want to say the Continental Congress was the official governing body of the colonies at the time of the DOI then you have to say the CSA was the official governing body of the southern states.

Was it official? Sure. Was it Constitutional? Nope. Oceans of difference between the two words. More to the point the Southern states conceded that point.

The point about the Continental Congress wasn't to designate officiality. The point was that ALL of the states agreed on the DoI and the need for revolution.

The Confederacy didn't gain (nor did they even try) AT LEAST the 2/3rds majority necessary to Constitutionally permit fracturing the Republic.

The Constitution/Union didn't come into being because some states adopted it and others didn't. The Constitution came into being when 2/3rds ratified it, though eventually they all did.

Again dissolving the Union is constitutionally permissible by repeal, but it's a decision taken by the whole. Individual states do not (nor did they ever) have the power to secede from the union.

You can't in one breath invoke the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document with which the government should always act in consistency and in the next breath say that any state can make the Constitution worthless any time it wants.

[Cincinnatus]

Folks, let's please keep this as professional as possible and not quote Wikipedia for anything shall we? That makes sense for obvious reasons.
As to refighting the Civil War, let's also try to keep this from degenerating into a bunch of angry arguing too so this thread doesn't get locked by the mods.
I think we can intelligently, respectfully, and maturely discuss the whole spectrum without plunging off the deep end. (Please bear with me, I am trying to write here without sounding too much like a stuffed shirt, an ass, or a "pointy-headed intellectual.") :)
I too have strong opinions on the subject of States' Rights, but have the benefit of a scholarly background in the whole subject, and so I try to treat the matter objectively for the simple reason that it is a requirement of my profession (historian). Civil War/Reconstruction is one of my major areas for my Doctoral examinations.
For those who are extremely proSouthern in their leanings (my own bias tends that way), it will be instructive to look up something called "the Lost Cause," again, NOT on Wikipedia, in particular analysis of this subject by Gary Gallagher and C. Van Woodward is very useful--they pretty much destroy the whole mythology of the Lost Cause that has grown up since the Civil War. (Even so, I tend to lean South since that is where my family and roots are from, though for reasons I have intellectually pried away from Lost Cause sentimentalism). For example, yes, States' Rights was important in the coming of the war, but the spread of slavery to the territories was also an major underlying cause; here I should point out that the underlying causes of a war are not identical or necessarily even similar to the reasons people fight in a war. For example, regardless of the causes, many Southerners fought to defend home and hearth when the Union armies began coming South. Many Northerners fought to preserve the Union, and in their own minds had nothing whatever about slavery in mind. This does not mean it was not an underlying cause.
For those of you who are proNorth, it would be instructive for you to also consider the whole history of States' Rights and Nullification. For example, the whole history of Nullification is often misconstrued, even by many historians (it is no secret that most historians have a distinctly porNorthern bias for all the usual PC reasons of slavery and race). Nullification actually began in American usage DURING the American Revolution when the American Continental Congress Nullified the Intolearable/Coercive Acts. Therefore, nullification, in this sense is as traditionally a part of our founding values as was the Declaration of Independence. It should also be pointed out, that the original articulation of the doctrine of nullification was penned by no less than the author of the the Declaration, Jefferson himself, and the "father of the Constitution," James Madison, in the Virginia/Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (and this was PRIOR to any precedent being established by the courts that they alone get to determine Constitutionality). Now it must also be said that Jefferson and Madison never wnet so far as to advocate taking Nullification to the extent of secession, and in fact, Madison, who was still alive during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when Calhoun and SC threatened secession, condemned it.
However, consider this: did not the Americans in 1776 secede from the English empire? Was not the sovereignty of the crown as valid as the sovereignty of Washington in 1861? To say that secession is anti-American and inhenerntly illegal is, in one point of view, to invalidate the very act of the American Revolution itself, and in fact, many Southerners believed they were not destroying the U.S., but rather seceeding from a Northern majority that had, again in their view, perverted the founding ideals of the country. In other words, they were acting on the very words in the Declaration of Independence that pronounced the principle that free people have the right to rebel against an unjust government. (By the way, as to defining what government is and is not unjust, Jefferson established the principle of the sovereignty of the people and that it is the governed that decides when government has gone too far, not the government itself; because of course a tyrant is never going to admit he has gone too far.)
Going back to the other side, it must also be pointed out that Northerners did have point in condemning the Compact Theory of the Constitution--this is the theory upon which States' Rights depends--by stating clearly that the preamble to the Constitution said "we the people" not "we the States." So in other words, the people collectively of the U.S. created the Constitution, not the States themselves.
Please disregard my typos above and take this for what it is worth as I once was a hard core States-righter, but having considered the actual historical record, have altered my postion quite a bit to where I can see the point of both sides in the Civil War. This is especially true concerning the Lost Cause for the simple reason that Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens said very different things about the fundamental reasons for the founding of the Confederacy pre-1865 than they did after the war. For instance, DURING the war and especially, during actual secession and the formation of the Confederate government, Stephens gave what's called the Cornerstone Speech where he flat out stated that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was slavery and white supremacy. Also, Davis himself had a very different tone on the centrality of slavery to the Confederacy before 1865 than he did in trying to argue the merits of the Confederacy's stance from the ashes of defeat and argue that legal and ideological factors had a mcuh bigger role than slavery. (On this, please see James M. McPherson's introduction to the latest edition of Jefferson Davis's memoir.)

[Belmont31R]

Was it official? Sure. Was it Constitutional? Nope. Oceans of difference between the two words. More to the point the Southern states conceded that point.

The point about the Continental Congress wasn't to designate officiality. The point was that ALL of the states agreed on the DoI and the need for revolution.

The Confederacy didn't gain (nor did they even try) AT LEAST the 2/3rds majority necessary to Constitutionally permit fracturing the Republic.

The Constitution/Union didn't come into being because some states adopted it and others didn't. The Constitution came into being when 2/3rds ratified it, though eventually they all did.

Again dissolving the Union is constitutionally permissible by repeal, but it's a decision taken by the whole. Individual states do not (nor did they ever) have the power to secede from the union.

You can't in one breath invoke the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document with which the government should always act in consistency and in the next breath say that any state can make the Constitution worthless any time it wants.




All the representatives of the Continental Congress agreed to it, sure. Thats because they were all against British rule not because they represented everyone in the colonies. There were many people who wanted to remain a British possession. At the time of the DOI the Continental Congress was no more legitimate than the CSA was at any point. If the rebellion had lost the war they would have gotten the exact same treatment as the CSA did in the reconstruction era.


Thats what makes winning or losing the war the important part. If the illegitimate government wins then they become legitimate. If they lose they will be viewed as illegitimate just as British rule and the CSA was viewed post war.

[Cincinnatus]

All the representatives of the Continental Congress agreed to it, sure. Thats because they were all against British rule not because they represented everyone in the colonies. There were many people who wanted to remain a British possession. At the time of the DOI the Continental Congress was no more legitimate than the CSA was at any point. If the rebellion had lost the war they would have gotten the exact same treatment as the CSA did in the reconstruction era.


Thats what makes winning or losing the war the important part. If the illegitimate government wins then they become legitimate. If they lose they will be viewed as illegitimate just as British rule and the CSA was viewed post war.

You have a very good point here. Ultimately, might does make "right" in the determination of the legitmacy of the Civil War in particular.

[Gutshot John]

Well I didn't mention it before because I didn't want to seem like an intellectual ass, but since you went there first and if we're going to trade credentials my first Masters was History and in particular I'm an Americanist with a thesis in the development of the "American Way of War" from the 17th to the 19th centuries. That said you don't need to have a MA in history to be able to offer an argument that all sides should take seriously. While I might disagree with Belmont's conclusion, I don't think his argument is less because he isn't a history scholar.

The "secession" of the 13 colonies was different in that they lacked representation in the parliament (outside of a few at-large members who had no particular authority) and were being subjected to taxes not imposed on the British homeland. Additionally the Intolerable Acts were not nullified, they were very much in force which made them intolerable.

The Southern states had full representation in the US Congress, had participated in the election of 1860 (and every election previously) and had a hand in making all laws that were applied. The Supremacy Clause, and indeed the Constitution, is meaningless if individual states can nullify laws which the National government passes.

Once again the only Constitutional way for the Union to be dissolved is through the repeal of the Constitution, which theoretically would take 2/3rds of the states to agree.

Individual states do not have any right to secede once they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union, especially when most of the remaining states object.

[Gutshot John]

All the representatives of the Continental Congress agreed to it, sure. Thats because they were all against British rule not because they represented everyone in the colonies. There were many people who wanted to remain a British possession. At the time of the DOI the Continental Congress was no more legitimate than the CSA was at any point. If the rebellion had lost the war they would have gotten the exact same treatment as the CSA did in the reconstruction era.


Thats what makes winning or losing the war the important part. If the illegitimate government wins then they become legitimate. If they lose they will be viewed as illegitimate just as British rule and the CSA was viewed post war.


Agreed but then that kind of proves the point.

[Belmont31R]

Well if we're going to trade credentials my first Masters was History and in particular I'm an Americanist with a thesis in the development of the "American Way of War" from the 17th to the 19th centuries.

The "secession" of the 13 colonies was different in that they lacked representation in the parliament (outside of a few at-large members who had no particular authority) and were being subjected to taxes not imposed on the British homeland. Additionally the Intolerable Acts were not nullified, they were very much in force which made them intolerable.

The Southern states had full representation in the US Congress, had participated in the election of 1860 (and every election previously) and had a hand in making all laws that were applied.

Once again the only way for the Union to be dissolved is through the repeal of the Constitution, which theoretically would take 2/3rds of the states to agree.

Individual states do not have any right to secede once they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union.



Theres not a lot of distinction between having no representation and having a majority of the representation that consistently votes against your favor.


Rights are a gray area. I mean someone can say you don't have that right, and if you want to excercise it you either hope legal channels work or if they don't you either pick up a gun or tuck tail. Of course the US government is never going to say a state can leave the union. Its not in the government's interest, as a whole, to lose the trade, tax base, land, ect. There was never any clear cut language in the Constitution about secession. Insurrection, yes, but I don't think that really applies to an entire state. I think more of the Whiskey Rebellion when I think of insurrection.


I think it boils down to grey area in the Constitution and state's rights that were being ironed out from almost the very moment the Constitution was ratified. There were several cases of nullification attempts, and during the 1832 nullification Congress approved use of force to impose its will. Tensions built until ultimately it led to an entire secession of the south and several hundred thousand dead.

[The_War_Wagon]

Not bad, for a troubador from Chicago. He understood it.

http://youtu.be/V8P6D7wujeU

[Gutshot John]

Theres not a lot of distinction between having no representation and having a majority of the representation that consistently votes against your favor.

Incorrect but by all means give examples of such "consistent votes." It is demonstrably incorrect by examples such as Kansas Nebraska act was a southern creation to perpetuate slavery beyond previously agreed upon limits and thereby insure that the political dominance of slave states over non-slave and was a main precipitation for the creation of the Republican party. The election of 1860 was a free and fair election in which the South participated though some Southern states refused to allow Lincoln on the ballot.

There are of course other examples of legislation that the South participated in and significantly many Southerners opposed secession. It was hardly universal. Sam Houston for instance in Texas thought it was an epically stupid idea.

That said if you are in the minority, than you lose. That's a fundamental concept of representative democracy. Losing a vote, or even several votes or being in the minority doesn't entitle secession.

To highlight the flaw in such an argument, many Southern states had unionists and unionist sections that ardently opposed secession and despite some very narrow votes were still compelled to join. If secession as a principle exists and that if you don't like what the majority does or the majority goes against your interest than you can withdraw from a state, whether National or Federal, than per the above logic those counties had a right to remain loyal to the Union and secede from secession. Do you really think the CSA would have endorsed such a fracture of their "unions"?

[Gutshot John]

Not bad, for a troubador from Chicago. He understood it.

http://youtu.be/V8P6D7wujeU

Nah he just wrote a song.

No more than Joan Baez gave a rip about secession when she sang "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down."

[Cincinnatus]

Well I didn't mention it before because I didn't want to seem like an intellectual ass, but since you went there first and if we're going to trade credentials my first Masters was History and in particular I'm an Americanist with a thesis in the development of the "American Way of War" from the 17th to the 19th centuries. That said you don't need to have a MA in history to be able to offer an argument that all sides should take seriously. While I might disagree with Belmont's conclusion, I don't think his argument is less because he isn't a history scholar.

The "secession" of the 13 colonies was different in that they lacked representation in the parliament (outside of a few at-large members who had no particular authority) and were being subjected to taxes not imposed on the British homeland. Additionally the Intolerable Acts were not nullified, they were very much in force which made them intolerable.

The Southern states had full representation in the US Congress, had participated in the election of 1860 (and every election previously) and had a hand in making all laws that were applied. The Supremacy Clause, and indeed the Constitution, is meaningless if individual states can nullify laws which the National government passes.

Once again the only Constitutional way for the Union to be dissolved is through the repeal of the Constitution, which theoretically would take 2/3rds of the states to agree.

Individual states do not have any right to secede once they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union, especially when most of the remaining states object.

For clarification, I nowhere said one had to be a scholar to make their opinion matter. In fact, being around scholars all the time, I find that the smartest people I know and have ever known have never attended a university, much less have a degree.

[Cincinnatus]

Some might call what Sherman did to my actual family a "war crime"...I won't comment any further as I tend to have strong feelings over this topic given some of my family's history.

My family's home....before and after Sherman and his henchman came through with torches and flames....
http://i54.tinypic.com/nvxips.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/102qouu.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/qofxtv.jpg


I found all these Civil War bullets within a cpl. hundred yards of my Grandparents home in Buckhead, Atlanta...directly on the banks of the Chattahoochee River....
http://i55.tinypic.com/2zrg7s9.jpg

Thanks for putting that up. I agree with you that allot of Sherman's march to the sea was, especially by today's definitions, unjustified. In fact, it was Sherman's methods that most inspired the British during the Boer War in Kitchener's campaign of burning farms and homes of women and children. No one has ever made a good argument for how burning down a family's home and destroying their livelihood and then causing them to die of starvation or exposure is somehow not criminal at all--only killing them directly is.

[Gutshot John]

How many civilians died from starvation after Sherman's march? How many of those deaths were directly attributable to Sherman's actions? How many were actually killed by Sherman's men? How about some hard numbers?

They are available by the way but any number I provide will be disputed so look them up yourself. You've made the claim, show me the evidence for that claim.

Suffice to say, that the numbers don't match the myth. It should also be noted that Southern soldiers contributed to starving their own citizens by doing the same thing that Sherman's men did.

Strategic war means you attack the means by which an enemy fights. That means you attack him economically if possible since the strength of his economy is the strength of his military. If your has an agricultural economy, you burn his farms, crops and kill livestock. If your enemy has an industrial economy, you burn his factories, oil refineries etc. It's a no brainer that the civilian economy provides, food, weapons, transportation and other goods that are then used by the military so it's definitely a legitimate target of war and has been for most of the history of modern warfare.

Sure property and livestock was destroyed, but that continues in warfare to this day. Tell me logistic infrastructure is not a legitimate target of war. I'll take the destruction of property over lives any day of the week. And the numbers of civilians that died at the hands of Sherman are virtually nil. It happened, but the numbers are ridiculously small when taken as a totality.

Foraging was never a war crime and was done extensively by both sides during the war. How is what Sherman did any different than what we did to Germany or Vietnam? In fact Sherman was far more restrained. He saved most of his venom for SC, but NC remained virtually unmolested.

I know it's a convenient narrative that somehow Sherman was some sort of monster belched from hell, and the Southerners certainly made the most of it, but in general, it's mostly a myth.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." W.T. Sherman

How many of you actually disagree with this when it comes to our enemies? I know I've heard many people here proclaim that we should lay waste to Muslim countries. Sherman would probably agree.

Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.

[Cincinnatus]

How many civilians died from starvation after Sherman's march? How many of those deaths were directly attributable to Sherman's actions? How many were actually killed by Sherman's men? How about some hard numbers?

They are available by the way but any number I provide will be disputed so look them up yourself. You've made the claim, show me the evidence for that claim.

Suffice to say, that the numbers don't match the myth. It should also be noted that Southern soldiers contributed to starving their own citizens by doing the same thing that Sherman's men did.

Strategic war means you attack the means by which an enemy fights. That means you attack him economically if possible since the strength of his economy is the strength of his military. If your has an agricultural economy, you burn his farms, crops and kill livestock. If your enemy has an industrial economy, you burn his factories, oil refineries etc. It's a no brainer that the civilian economy provides, food, weapons, transportation and other goods that are then used by the military so it's definitely a legitimate target of war and has been for most of the history of modern warfare.

Sure property and livestock was destroyed, but that continues in warfare to this day. Tell me logistic infrastructure is not a legitimate target of war. I'll take the destruction of property over lives any day of the week. And the numbers of civilians that died at the hands of Sherman are virtually nil. It happened, but the numbers are ridiculously small when taken as a totality.

Foraging was never a war crime and was done extensively by both sides during the war. How is what Sherman did any different than what we did to Germany or Vietnam? In fact Sherman was far more restrained. He saved most of his venom for SC, but NC remained virtually unmolested.

I know it's a convenient narrative that somehow Sherman was some sort of monster belched from hell, and the Southerners certainly made the most of it, but in general, it's mostly a myth.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." W.T. Sherman

How many of you actually disagree with this when it comes to our enemies? I know I've heard many people here proclaim that we should lay waste to Muslim countries. Sherman would probably agree.

Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.

What you have said here regarding Sherman's march is certainly what the current opinion of the profession in general supports, in particular the works of Glatthaar and Royster.
I do agree with you that logisticas and supply, even the civilian population itself, are legitimate targets in certain circumstances, even many circumstances. From the perspective you present, I would have to concede that you are probably right. My own opinion on the matter is still tainted by my still lingering pro-Southern bias.
Neverthless, I still think there is something of a doublestandard among historians when it comes to glossing over some of the things actually done by Sherman's men compared to the outrage among historians over similar British actions taken in the Boer War.

[6933]

In Kingston, Georgia, Sherman wrote to U.S. Major General Philip H. Sheridan, "I am satisfied...that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory, so that hard, bull-dog fighting, and a great deal of it, yet remains to be done....Therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results."

Sherman, in Milledgeville, Georgia, issued Special Order no. 127, "In case of...destruction (of bridges) by the enemy,...the commanding officer...on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby....Should the enemy burn forage and corn on our route, houses, barns, and cotton-gins must also be burned to keep them company."

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: "Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."

The ultimate attempt at total genocide by the U.S. troops under Sherman would have to be the multiple cases of troops sowing salt into the soil of an area in which they were about to leave. Thus, leaving the entire area unfit to grow any crops in the near future.

When Sherman had reached Savannah he was ordered to board ship and sail to Virginia to join Grant outside Virginia. Sherman rebelled in rage. He pledged, "I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state."

[Cincinnatus]

The "secession" of the 13 colonies was different in that they lacked representation in the parliament (outside of a few at-large members who had no particular authority) and were being subjected to taxes not imposed on the British homeland. Additionally the Intolerable Acts were not nullified, they were very much in force which made them intolerable. .
According to the British and the unwritten English Constitution, the Americans were "virtually represented" according to Parliament. neither, by the way, did the colonists WANT to be represented in Parliament. Yes, the colonists were being taxed with specific acts not targeted at the homeland, but from that perspective, they were actually taxed far less than native Britons. Southerners, furthermore, believed they were too be ruled in a sense without their consent simply by virtue of the fact that nowhere in the South was Lincoln even on the ballot, but he still won the election. In the opinion of the first states to secede, they were objecting at a certain level to be governed "without their consent." This view was not accurate in technical terms, but was perhaps as valid as that of the colonists protesting British taxation "without representation."
As to the Intolerable Acts, nowhere has it ever been a claim of nullifiers that Nullification must actually cause a law to cease to be implemented to be "nullified." Nullification is frankly no more than the strength of a legislative resolution of the body issuing such decree unless and until the law is revised to reflect the objections of the nullifiers. Nullifiers still believed the Force Act of 1833 to be void as well as the Tariffs of 1832 and 1828, whether or not they were implemented.



The Southern states had full representation in the US Congress, had participated in the election of 1860 (and every election previously) and had a hand in making all laws that were applied. The Supremacy Clause, and indeed the Constitution, is meaningless if individual states can nullify laws which the National government passes. .
That is the customary assesment of academia concerning Nullification. However, this would only be true if anything and everything could be nullified. In point of fact, nullifiers insisted that not just any law could be nullified but only those with some substatial basis for being claimed to be unconstitutional. So in other words, it was a "last resort" measure not intended to be used lightly or often--keep in mind Nullification was conceived before the precedent of Judicial Review was ever established (1802) and many many years before that precedent would be widely accepted.



Once again the only Constitutional way for the Union to be dissolved is through the repeal of the Constitution, which theoretically would take 2/3rds of the states to agree. .
Under the English system, there was no such thing as a "legitimate" way for the colonies to leave British rule either, unless it be by the consent of the rulers--which completely contradicts the Lockean principle of government by the consent of the governed; no tyrant is ever going to admit their tyranny and allow the Hebrews to depart Egypt in peace, so to speak.




Individual states do not have any right to secede once they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union, especially when most of the remaining states object.
That is definitely the prevailing wisdom of the Unionists in the Civil War and of most historians, but I think Belmont is right about the veracity of this being a case of "right makes might" and the victor sets the rules. In a purely intellectual sense, this would destablish the fundamental reason for creating the Constitution in the first place--individual liberty--because it would force states to remain in the Union against their consent. In point of fact, it was not the widespread opinion of most antebellum Americans that anyone COULD legitimatley force any state to stay in the Union. it was widely held that the Union was one of "consent, not of coercion." To use coercion to force a state to stay in the Union is the equivalent of preventing a divorce with a shotgun. Where is the liberty in that equation?

[Gutshot John]

What you have said here regarding Sherman's march is certainly what the current opinion of the profession in general supports, in particular the works of Glatthaar and Royster.

I drew on Glatthaar extensively in my thesis. Your interpretation differs than mine. Mostly because the sections that deal with the accounts of cruelty were usually from the bottom up, in other words the foraging parties themselves that certainly saw hunger but again, war is cruelty and civilians often suffer most. Sherman went out of his way to make sure that the destruction was not indiscriminate.

Ultimately Glatthar shows the Sherman tried to restrain his men and that while he was trying to destroy the south's ability to wage war, his overt commands at all times were to spare the civilian population whenever possible. In particular I'd look at Partners in Command on pages 144, 153 and 158. Additionally March 136-137 are just a couple of footnotes that I found in perusing my paper.

All told during the entirety of the war, throughout the entirety of the South the commonly accepted figures is that about 50K civilians died from starvation. Sherman potentially represents a small fraction of that, especially when taken in comparison to the 15K Union soldiers that died in Andersonville alone.

[Gutshot John]

The ultimate attempt at total genocide by the U.S. troops under Sherman would have to be the multiple cases of troops sowing salt into the soil of an area in which they were about to leave. Thus, leaving the entire area unfit to grow any crops in the near future.

Are you kidding me? Total Genocide? :haha: I don't think that word means what you think it means. By all means tell me how many Southerners died as a result of this "genocide." Don't be silly.

If you want to talk about genocide a far better example would be what the Southern states like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama did to Native Americans. Those efforts make Sherman look like a piker by comparison.

[Cincinnatus]

I drew on Glatthaar extensively in my thesis. Your interpretation differs than mine. Mostly because the sections that deal with the accounts of cruelty were usually from the bottom up, in other words the foraging parties themselves that certainly saw hunger but again, war is cruelty and civilians often suffer most. Sherman went out of his way to make sure that the destruction was not indiscriminate.

Ultimately Glatthar shows the Sherman tried to restrain his men and that while he was trying to destroy the south's ability to wage war, his overt commands at all times were to spare the civilian population whenever possible. In particular I'd look at Partners in Command on pages 144, 153 and 158. Additionally March 136-137 are just a couple of footnotes that I found in perusing my paper.

All told during the entirety of the war, throughout the entirety of the South the commonly accepted figures is that about 50K civilians died from starvation. Sherman potentially represents a small fraction of that, especially when taken in comparison to the 15K Union soldiers that died in Andersonville alone.

Your thesis sounds like an interesting read. And everything you have said here is supported by prevailing scholalry interpretation. I am sure you probably used Weigley's book on The American Way of War. I am not always fully accepting of the "numbers" given about the Civil War, however, for the simple reason that I find it hard to accept that these things were ever accurately measured or even measurable. For instance, people in the backs woods could starve and die and be buried in a nameless grave--who is record that statistic? Nineteeth century numbers basically represent educated guesses based on the evidence we DO have still extant. What my problem with those numbers is, is what about all the stuff we don't know that has been lost?

[Gutshot John]

Your thesis sounds like an interesting read. And everything you have said here is supported by prevailing scholalry interpretation. I am sure you probably used Weigley's book on The American Way of War.

Weigley, Grenier and Chet. All base their work in the historiography of the American Way of War. My work focused on the development of strategic/economic war when faced with a tactically superior opponent such as the Native American. Sherman was pivotal in that he applied those techniques against Whites.


I am not always fully accepting of the "numbers" given about the Civil War, however, for the simple reason that I find it hard to accept that these things were ever accurately measured or even measurable. For instance, people in the backs woods could starve and die and be buried in a nameless grave--who is record that statistic? Nineteeth century numbers basically represent educated guesses based on the evidence we DO have still extant. What my problem with those numbers is, is what about all the stuff we don't know that has been lost?

I don't entirely disagree but ultimately the numbers are the best that we can arrive at and actually they are a lot better than many think. If you'd feel more comfortable, double it to 100K and the same conclusion isn't that far off. Given that upwards of 250K confederate soldiers died of battle, disease/starvation.

[6933]

Sowing salt prevents crops from being raised for years. This prevents people from eating. This leads to starvation. The quote says "attempt." What else is the sowing of salt other than hoping to starve masses of people, ultimately leading to death?

[6933]

Sherman went out of his way to make sure that the destruction was not indiscriminate.

General William T. Sherman also issued the following military order at Big Shanty, Georgia (presently Kennesaw) on June 23, 1864: "If torpedoes (mines) are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by a wagon load of prisoners, or if need be a citizen implicated in their use.

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. John Eugene Smith at Allatoona, Georgia, on July 14, 1864: "If you entertain a bare suspicion against any family, send it to the North. Any loafer or suspicious person seen at any time should be imprisoned and sent off.

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: "Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."

Yea, went out of his way alright.

[Gutshot John]

Sowing salt prevents crops from being raised for years. This prevents people from eating. This leads to starvation. The quote says "attempt." What else is the sowing of salt other than hoping to starve masses of people, ultimately leading to death?

I'm going to call BS on this one, since the only reference I can find online uses the exact words you used, except you didn't use quotations or citations and is what we would call plagiarism in the history field, and those sources are from websites such as "yankwarcrimes.com" hardly unbiased, academic or legitimate sources. Show me one documented primary or secondary source that backs this up.

If you can find me an actual account of Sherman ordering the salting of the earth, and then put it in the context of when/how it was done you'd have something. But quoting errornet rumor doesn't equate to historic fact.

PS. That isn't genocide, attempted or otherwise and again pales in comparison to say what the state of Georgia did to the Cherokee.

[Gutshot John]

General William T. Sherman also issued the following military order at Big Shanty, Georgia (presently Kennesaw) on June 23, 1864: "If torpedoes (mines) are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by a wagon load of prisoners, or if need be a citizen implicated in their use.

So? Torpedos (mines) were considered a crime of war at the time. You can damn well bet I'd have done the exact same thing. Funny thing is that once it was reported that this was the response, mines ceased to be laid. Interesting. Hardly genocide.


General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. John Eugene Smith at Allatoona, Georgia, on July 14, 1864: "If you entertain a bare suspicion against any family, send it to the North. Any loafer or suspicious person seen at any time should be imprisoned and sent off.

You're kidding right? You mean like the Civil War version of Gitmo?


General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: "Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."

Yea, went out of his way alright.

Wow it seems like most of the quotes, without any quotes or attribution were taken from "yankeewarcrimes.com" which itself doesn't have any attribution. Is that what substitutes for historic research where you are from?

So please again, tell me how many civilians were murdered under Sherman's orders? How about a reputable source this time.

From Mark Grimsley, a noted professor from Ohio State who wrote "The Hard Hand of War."

From a presentation....


Civil War historians have long known that stories of widespread rape and murder by Union soldiers lack much historical foundation. There is simply very little evidence to support them. But until quite recently historians did tend to dwell heavily on the destructive aspects of Sherman's marches, and the dominant portrayal was one of hardened veterans no longer animated by moral considerations.

That assessment is one that I too shared for a number of years. But eventually I became troubled, for official Union policy plainly did not contemplate such indiscriminate destruction. And although wanton depredations certainly occurred, I discovered almost no instances in which white Southerners were killed, assaulted, or raped.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

[TOrrock]

No one participating in this thread is going to have their minds changed about the Civil War.

If you guys want to continue arguing, please do it off board.

As far as depredations by Union troops, I can only go by my own family history, my great great grandfather, off the boat from Scotland, was arrested by Union troops and almost hung for being in civilian clothes in 1864, and our family farm razed. He was not a soldier at the time, but joined shortly afterwards. He was captured, and survived being imprisoned at Point Lookout in MD.

There are more stories but it really doesn't matter, as people's minds won't be changed.

In any case, we can agree it was a terrible time in US history, with more men killed than in all our other wars.

[Iraqgunz]

This is another good example of why this forum needs to die and quick and painful death.