‘’HISTORY’’, my Journey

[popper]

Pops - if you were there you'd see/know only the stuff immediately around you. Like her relative - yanks killed and ate their blind mule, chased them off the property. After, they moved to Ar and always voted Dem. Kinda funny that the daughter married a yank MOH guy. But I do understand your thought.

 

[General Zod]

Lincoln stepped on the constitution? Real question - is the Constitution still valid in a civil war? Who obeys it? South obviously didn't.

I'd be interested to know which part of the Constitution you figure the South violated. And even if they had, when did "Well they were doin' it!" become a valid excuse?

"Is the Constitution still valid in a civil war"? Is the nation still named the United States of America with the Constitution as its founding document? In what circumstance is it acceptable to toss out rule of law and let the President make it up as he goes along?

Do you know what the first thing the Confederacy did was when they decided on secession?

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

They wrote and ratified a Constitution. One very similar (and in some cases identical) to the US Constitution. Because it's that important.

 

[msharley]

Haven't researched it near as much, but I get pretty much the same outlook. Industrial north vs. agricultural south, tax issues, and other cultural differences. Slavery was a very minor point. Lincoln pissed on the US Constitution more than any previous US president. Makes you understand Major Randolph's postwar point of view a lot better!

Trade war.

Pure & simple...

To the "oligarchs" go the spoils...

 

[popsgarland]

Pops - if you were there you'd see/know only the stuff immediately around you. Like her relative - yanks killed and ate their blind mule, chased them off the property. After, they moved to Ar and always voted Dem. Kinda funny that the daughter married a yank MOH guy. But I do understand your thought.

As everyone knows, we have a saying here at TGT that goes like this...

"Pictures or it didn't happen."

You would be surprised what people believe just because someone said it was true.

 

[msharley]

As everyone knows, we have a saying here at TGT that goes like this...

"Pictures or it didn't happen."

You would be surprised what people believe just because someone said it was true.

That nice Nigerian Prince fellow....

emailed me.....

Said he'd send me $20 Million!

 

[TxStetson]

As everyone knows, we have a saying here at TGT that goes like this...

"Pictures or it didn't happen."

You would be surprised what people believe just because someone said it was true.

I think you meant “Pics or GTFO!!!!”

 

[popsgarland]

We have a family cemetery in the small town of Irene Texas. How small is it? you ask. Well on the entering Irene sign
it reads "entering Irene" and on the other side it reads "leaving Irene". We are listed with the Texas Historical Society and
have the plaque at our cemetery. On it, it reads, in part, Abe Mason was wounded at the battle of Shiloh. He is kin on
my mothers side. My mothers, mothers, dads, dads, dad and is buried in our cemetery. He fought for the South.
Out of curiosity, I Googled and found the military records from that era and it showed that this did happen.

 

[popsgarland]

That nice Nigerian Prince fellow....

emailed me.....

Said he'd send me $20 Million!

When you get it, I have some ocean side property in Arizona I'll sell ya.

 

[popsgarland]

I think you meant “Pics or GTFO!!!!”

Either, or both.

 

[popper]

Zod - how about insurrection?

 

[General Zod]

Zod - how about insurrection?

Addressed in the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868.

There's nothing in the Constitution as it was in 1861 that forbade secession or in any way defined "insurrection". By the time of the battle of Fort Sumter and the first shots fired in the Civil War, South Carolina no longer considered itself part of the United States and there was no Constitutional authority to tell them otherwise.

As far as a definition and prohibition of "insurrection", 18 USC 2383 defines and sets forth penalties for it. That code was adopted in 1948.

Now Lincoln, by contrast, in suspending various legal protections including protection from habeas corpus violated multiple Constitutional protections in ways that no President or Congress has the authority to.


Or were you inviting me to engage in one? I'll have to decline - I'm in no physical shape for such an adventure, and I'm not convinced things have gone that far yet.

 

[popper]

Addressed in the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868. IIRC Texas has a succession clause. Did other states? Was it even a consideration pre war? Congressional Habeas Corpus suspension act 1862, signed by Lincoln in 1863. Guess it wasn't 'illegal'.
Born in Yankee land, lived most of my life in Texas. However - lets consider what would have happened it the South had won? Probably NOTHING. Effectively stay an agrarian society with (maybe, Britain outlawed slavery in 1833) legal slavery. Port cities and Atlanta wouldn't have changed. So Southern oligarchs would run northern factories. Was raised at the Ks/Mo state line and in HS read a lot about it, probably some northern slant I'll admit. I will stick with my statement, Southeast states (only ones that really wanted it) in reality, had NOTHING to gain from the war.

 

[General Zod]

Congressional Habeas Corpus suspension act 1862, signed by Lincoln in 1863. Guess it wasn't 'illegal'.

No, it was absolutely illegal and unconstitutional under Article 1 of the Constitution and is one of the most shameful things the US government did during the war.

Southeast states (only ones that really wanted it) in reality, had NOTHING to gain from the war.

Then you weren't paying attention in class. The north had instituted unfair tariffs against the south, and the House of Representatives was weighted toward the North due to its higher population. There was no recourse for the south to fight tariffs when their efforts were voted down every time for decades starting in 1828. Had the south won, then their imports would not have been subject to these tariffs and their exports would have been free of the effects that had been suffered by instituting unreasonable taxes on their trading partners in Europe. That would have positively affected every single southern state.

And your original statement I disagreed with is still a falsehood - the South did not violate any part of the Constitution by leaving the Union. The North's refusal to recognize their secession was unnecessary and driven by pride and a sense of affrontery that any state would dare leave the union.

Now, the war itself...was the culmination of arrogance and stiff-necked stubbornness on both sides. Neither party is free of blame, no matter what the revisionist historians would have you believe. It was also probably inevitable, as the men of that time were in fact men of their times, not 21st century men with hindsight to show them what happened.

 

[leVieux]

Addressed in the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868. IIRC Texas has a succession clause. Did other states? Was it even a consideration pre war? Congressional Habeas Corpus suspension act 1862, signed by Lincoln in 1863. Guess it wasn't 'illegal'.
Born in Yankee land, lived most of my life in Texas. However - lets consider what would have happened it the South had won? Probably NOTHING. Effectively stay an agrarian society with (maybe, Britain outlawed slavery in 1833) legal slavery. Port cities and Atlanta wouldn't have changed. So Southern oligarchs would run northern factories. Was raised at the Ks/Mo state line and in HS read a lot about it, probably some northern slant I'll admit. I will stick with my statement, Southeast states (only ones that really wanted it) in reality, had NOTHING to gain from the war.

<>

The “industrial Revolution’’ was already beginning, and would make any continuation of Slavery impractical, anyway.

Back in the 1960’s, I was involved in providing Medical care for the grandchildren of Slaves. From their own descriptions, their lives even then were very similar to their Slave-ancestors’.

They told of voluntary lives on large Plantations, in which they worked-full time for lifetimes of housing, food, utilities, health care, plus small salaries.

They insisted they were happy on the Plantations, and didn’t want to leave for anything. Their children were offered the same deal: stay or leave. No hard feelings either way, but the people felt they belonged to the big ‘’Plantation FAMILY’’ (their words, not mine).

leVieux

<>

 

[leVieux]

Lincoln stepped on the constitution? Real question - is the Constitution still valid in a civil war? Who obeys it? South obviously didn't. Slavery? Nope. There was effective slavery in the north factories also. US wasn't so 'civilized' in 1850-60 as some suppose. The (black) slave trader's house had a high iron wall/gate around it! Actually only 1/10 of African slaves went to US, rest to Europe but they didn't have civil war. Why?
Kinda like the CBS news special tonight, chocolate companies making B$s while the child slave labor gets peanuts. Problem really is African Gov is piss poor. What you gonna do, you live in the sticks, just enough to eat earned/grown by parents. Everybody else trying to survive? Note - cotton pickers were originally Irish but they got sick easy so Africans were brought in.
Now lets talk about the black orphan who walked all the way to Kansas and became the potato king.
Get your history correct please.
Oh, Mormon wars were due to Mormons stealing cattle and women from the residents. Caldwell County was established as a Mormon one but they left on their own to go west.

<>

The “best evidence” of LIncoln’s massive wrongdoing; as it was explained to me, was than none of the CSA Leaders were ever charged or tried for what were claimed crimes of sedition, treason, etc. The main reason being that any public court proceeding would have provided venue for Lincoln’s CRIMES in violation of the U S Constitution to be explained to everyone !

<>

 

[popper]

Habeas Corpus was a concept in Spanish law in the 1400s, automatically suspended in war. Like we did with German and Japanese in wars. As to tariff on cotton, lumber and tobacco shipped to Europe, guess it took profit away from the south plantation and shipping magnates. Gee, guess we shouldn't have any tariff on Chinese goods. Me thinks your logic bucket has a hole someplace. CSA leaders weren't charged with crimes - what good would that have done? Restarted a war? Enough hatred already. Read some goings-on with the Ft Smith gang and the Ks/Mo border before and after the war. As I have always stated, wars are about $. Oh, then there was the NYC gang of possible conscripts that tried to break into the armory to arm themselves and were met with shot loaded cannon. No charges brought there either. IIRC, one of the cannon was fired.

 

[General Zod]

Habeas Corpus was a concept in Spanish law in the 1400s, automatically suspended in war.

So, all that's needed is a declaration of war and the Constitution is invalid? The origin of habeas corpus is irrelevant. The Constitution requires protection from indefinite detainment without charges, and the fact that a wrong was committed against Japanese citizens in WWII does not justify it or create a loophole.

As to tariff on cotton, lumber and tobacco shipped to Europe, guess it took profit away from the south plantation and shipping magnates. Gee, guess we shouldn't have any tariff on Chinese goods.

First of all, the tariff was in imports, but only to southern ports. Those tariffs reduced profits for the importers and had a direct effect of reducing the amount they could pay for southern goods to ship back to Europe. Yes, it hurt the plantation owners (shipping magnates, not so much - their exports to Europe weren't affected more than exports from the north, since other countries didn't enact regional tariffs...) but it also hurt shop owners, blacksmiths, wagon wrights, dock workers, seamstresses, and, oh, anyone who might need to purchase goods for their day to day life. So...everybody. See, there's this concept called "economics" that holds that the entire economy is a system, and detrimental effects to one area will spread to other areas and adversely affect the people who rely on said economy...

There was no tariff placed on US produced goods by the US government, instead punitive tariffs on imports were used to detrimental effect on the southern economy. And because of the north's higher population, they outweighed the southern vote in the House of Representatives so the south had no recourse against the unfair tariffs. This is not a difficult concept.

And WTF does China have to do with this situation? Did they become a state recently? If this is your understanding of the issue, it explains a lot.

CSA leaders weren't charged with crimes - what good would that have done? Restarted a war?

Restarted it with what? The south was in ruins.

As I have always stated, wars are about $.

And you finally got one thing right. A major cause of the Civil War was northern efforts to control and/or wreck the southern economy through unfair tariffs imposed at southern ports, in order to direct more imports and profit to northern ports.

 

[leVieux]

<>

Then, there was this:

Nueces massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Please note that it is from the notoriously leftist “WIKI”, also that some of the dates mentioned may seem contradictory.)

<>

 

[General Zod]

<>

Then, there was this:

Nueces massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Please note that it is from the notoriously leftist “WIKI”, also that some of the dates mentioned may seem contradictory.)

<>

Interesting info, from back when Texas Monthly wasn't 100% hard left all the time:

Historical Friction

Conflicting accounts of the killing of German immigrants in the Hill Country during the Civil War are creating a certain amount of dis-Comfort.

www.texasmonthly.com

 

[popper]

So what about China. Well, by your speak, North was importing stuff, making it expensive for South to import - but South could buy from North. What is the problem? Just the normal trade war? So the South was forced to 'buy american'? Habeas Corpus that you make such a big deal of - so just let the enemy roam freely in your country - yet you gripe about al the Chinese & terrorists roaming freely in your country. Seems like you are against what the North did but for what the US is doing now.
Didn't know about the Nueces battle - battles in Ks/Mo were much worse - and lots of the German migrants were in central Ks and Ne. They came through (mostly) Galveston and moved north.
My thought is still the same. I am on neither side but maintain that the South would be in worse shape had they won. Much like Ukraine and Rus Even if Ru backs down, Ukraine will need rebuilding and Ru will not stay away. Same with Israel - their only chance is to completely eliminate Hamas.