User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:22 pm

??

I was just being informative about other, uh, sharp disagreements that had preceded 1860.

People against their will...look, whaddaya gonna do? Take a plebiscite every time some farmers without hard currency get grumpy about an excise on their moonshine (which they used as a medium of exchange)?

And for our country...if it helps, the US is the Catholic Church, OK? No divorces.

Look, just read my exposition(s) above. Sovereignty is national. You can leave, renounce your citizenship; take the wife and kids, heck, take the clan.

You cannot organize a public effort to alienate jurisdictions from the US, however. That's all there is to it.

Without being too off topic: there was a professor at a state university not all that long ago, who, in a classroom, expressed his wish that the state that paid his salary would eventually become alienated from the US. If I'd been governor, I would've thrown his keister out of any state employment so fast, he'd think he was in a Warner Bros. cartoon. Personally, I call that sedition, (public employee, public setting, supposed to be imparting knowledge, not indulging in his fantasies and that act could be likened to advocacy because of the setting & circumstances) although it probably doesn't meet a statutory standard. I would've gotten rid of him as a State U. professor, though, forthwith.

"But, but, but...I got rights! You can't do this!"

"Yeaah? Watch me. Go hire a lawyer. The robes can figure it out later. In the meantime, you are off this property and take your seditious mouth with you."
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

User avatar
Random
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:43 pm

Aariediger wrote:
That's correct, as far as I know, there was no blockade before Sumter. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. Scott's actual Anaconda plan called for a blockade and taking over the river system, and in this alternate reality, he would have still been the one in charge. Considering that they never got into a shooting war with England in real life, I see no reason that they couldn't restrict European shipping imports...

In my opinion this is probably incorrect because the international rules for conducting a blockade had been articulated in the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856, which the United States refused to sign but which had been adopted as international law by many countries of Europe and South America.

To be legal a blockade needed to meet two tests; it had to be Declared and it had to be Effective. One of the problems that the Union faced initially was that a nation could not legally blockade its own ports so stopping European ships on the high seas, even with regular warships might have been construed as piracy, an act condemned by the 1856 Declaration, which also prohibited the privateer and the issuing of Letters of Marque. The latter prohibition was one reason for U.S. representative William Marcy refusing to sign the declaration on behalf of the United States. However, the legal framework for blockades had been established and disregarding the laws in the event would likely bring the North into diplomatic conflict with the trading nations.

Without the existence of a state of war it is probable that the Royal Navy could have legally escorted British flagged shipping to Southern ports for the purposes of trade and used force to prevent interference from Union warships as the latter might have been considered as conducting piracy on the high seas if they attempted to board or search the merchants. Whether the British would have had the political will to use force is another issue entirely but in my opinion, given the narrative in Post #119 they would have had the legal right to do so. How that might have played out is anybody's guess.

Although the Union never recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state the real situation was clear enough that the international law of the sea could be applied accordingly. In the event Lincoln very soon unilaterally accepted all the provisions of the Paris Declaration for the duration although the United States remained a non-signatory Power. For their part the British gave the Confederacy the "Rights of a Belligerent", which angered the North but was well short of formal diplomatic recognition and actually legitimized the Union blockade. One other result of this was that the Confederacy ceased to issue letters of marque to privateers and their high-seas raiding was to be conducted by commissioned Confederate Navy warships.

Before someone brings up the Trent crisis, the legal issues were not that Capt Wilkes had illegally stopped or even boarded RMS Trent. Rather the problems were that he failed to send the ship to a prize court to have her cargo adjudicated, thus denying due process and the actual seizure of Confederate agents Mason and Slidell was illegal because human beings were not cargo and were exempt from interference when travelling on neutral ships. The actual stopping and searching of RMS Trent in international waters was entirely legal since the Union blockade met the Paris Declaration tests as noted above. This is why Seward's brilliant apology that was no apology served to defuse the crisis and allow both sides to back down while saving face.

So there was probably no legal means for the Union to interfere with foreign trade to and from Southern ports without some form of formal hostilities in place.

-C

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:00 pm

Thanks Random, those explanations didn't sound random at all. With this in mind how do you imagine the situation would have evolved if we were say in late march 1861 and a meeting of all confederate governors had decided that they had to avoid undue provocation and not attack federal outposts/forts still in the CSA, basically creating a sort of "frozen conflict" situation from the CSA side.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:21 pm

@ Random

You have some interesting views on international law. You seem very well informed, but perhaps would benefit from some other views. This ain't the place for that discussion, though.

Just one point - in my considered opinion, having 'majored' (switched to s. t. else eventually) in Foreign Affairs at UVA way back when, I think one should always be crystal clear about the term "international law" for, it is, to a large degree, a misnomer.

There is no body making 'laws' for the conduct of international relations. There are many agreements and some have mechanisms for enforcement, but no sovereign state can be made to do anything except by naked force.

"International law" is a shorthand for "those agreements, customs and uses that have been accepted by most nations over the course of time, especially those understandings put in place by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (aka Don't Do this Religious B*ll**t Anymore) among the European powers."

In reality, informing the First Sea Lord that the RN was going to sail and escort merchants into Southern ports because the PM had had a 'neener-neener Moment', no matter how weak the US 'blockade' was, most probably would've been filed under Crazier Propositions from the Foreign Office.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:24 pm

GraniteStater wrote:And for our country...if it helps, the US is the Catholic Church, OK? No divorces.

Look, just read my exposition(s) above. Sovereignty is national. You can leave, renounce your citizenship; take the wife and kids, heck, take the clan.

You cannot organize a public effort to alienate jurisdictions from the US, however. That's all there is to it.



Some how I do find that hard to take.

The founders had the same ethics as the Mafia.

Welcome to the Hotel California.

I think it says something about the people are the sovereigns and powers not granted to congress are held by the states and the people.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:26 pm

Yes, powers - not sovereignty.

How's your Latin?

E Pluribus Unum
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

aariediger
Sergeant
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:14 pm

Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:02 pm

Without the existence of a state of war it is probable that the Royal Navy could have legally escorted British flagged shipping to Southern ports for the purposes of trade and used force to prevent interference from Union warships as the latter might have been considered as conducting piracy on the high seas if they attempted to board or search the merchants. Whether the British would have had the political will to use force is another issue entirely but in my opinion, given the narrative in Post #119 they would have had the legal right to do so. How that might have played out is anybody's guess.


I would argue that there was never an actual state of war between the north and south. Lincoln tried hard to never recognize the South secession as a legitimate separate entity. Even if the two sides weren't actively shooting at each other, I don't know that that would matter under the language of international law, a law that the US had not signed. Again though, even if the British could legally send warships as escorts and the US chose not to interfere, that is a substantial cost that Northern industry doesn't have to pay. While the factories in England weren't directly paying the costs, the British people would be. And they had no great love for their leaders of industry. Many of the people in Britain were against the Southern aristocracy, which reminded them of their own. And for the common Britain, a reduction in exports to the US would drive down prices in England. How long could you expect them to put up with supporting naval intervention, that helped out the upper class, assisted the South whom they didn't like, and kept up prices that they themselves paid?

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:04 pm

The founders had the same ethics as the Mafia.


Why say things like this? If I may, this whole thing got kicked off because you said on the Habeas RGD thread that the Third Reich and the USSR had taken Lincoln's actions as a model.

For the factual falsity of the latter, see Pipes's Russia Under the Old Regime, viz., the Czarist state by the mid-nineteenth century had established the world's first police state.

For the former - I think the phrase is 'invidious comparison.' No sober observer would compare Lincoln's actions with those of the late unlamented regime in Germany. Not to mention Lincoln was trying to quash a rebellion against lawful authority.

Please, play nice, I know you can.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
Random
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:04 pm

I would argue that the legal niceties regarding hostilities between North and South are entirely irrelevant in this context after Great Britain granted the Confederacy the Right of a Belligerent. This indicates that even though there was no formal declaration of war nor was full diplomatic recognition ever extended to the Confederacy, the British treated the South much like a sovereign state at war for most purposes.

@ GraniteStater: I have no intention of playing any semantic games regarding tight definitions of international law or specific conventions between nation states. However, the 1856 Declaration of Paris represented an early attempt to codify the relations between belligerents and so is germane to this narrow discussion. The fact that very early in the Civil War, President Lincoln elected to unilaterally accept the agreement that America had rejected completely just five-years before points to an intention to conform to international norms and conventions such as they were at the time.

As for the Admiralty and the War Office, during the Trent crisis they reinforced the North American Station in Halifax and sent some 4000-regular troops to Canada so contingency planning was certainly oriented towards the possibility of hostilities. Armed interference with trade in peace time also defined the act of piracy so you can certainly believe that nothing would be done but the history of the Royal Navy in these sorts of situations is unambiguous. This is evident by the HMS Shah vs. Husacar action 1877. There was plenty of support for the Confederacy in Parliament, the House of Lords and with the industrial leadership, particularly in the arms and ship building sectors. The PM recognized that Northern cereals were important but ultimately other sources (Russia and Egypt to identify two immediately) were available should war with the Union be deemed necessary. It is difficult to develop too many scenarios where Britain actively supporting Southern independence has a positive effect on the Union war effort.

I have no dogs in this hunt, the only reason why I posted because I wanted to try and place international conventions regarding blockades into the context of the discussion and to try and remind people that consequences from America's Civil War rippled across the Atlantic. You can carry on without me but thanks for reading.

-C

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:29 pm

@ GraniteStater: I have no intention of playing any semantic games regarding tight definitions of international law or specific conventions between nation states.


Neither did I - was that unclear?

What nations may do are not, in the end, hindered by agreements, no matter how solemn. Sad but true - the last argument of kings is always available. The sending of troops to Canada was a message - HM Gov't had no idea how wise Lincoln was or likely to do, so they took precautions. Bear in mind that the British Army in the nineteenth century was, in reality, a colonial police force - effective, well led, well trained, but look at the previous match in the Crimea, where the UK & France had real troubles retiring the side.

The British Army was in no position to invade upper NY State and make it stick, and they knew it, even in December 61. Don't confuse messages with actual decisions of state. For heaven's sakes, Prince Albert was the one who played a key role in getting Palmerston to put the good stuff down & come to his senses. The Consort? The Consort, who, formally, has Zippo to do or say in the British constitution, afaik. Wiser men prevailed.

FI is in the game - IRL, it was a fantastic set of circumstances, which had as much shelf life as boiling gasoline.

Some states have better track records than others and place more value on Keeping Your Word. But they don't have to; still, any naval leader in HM Gov't would've have counseled prudence, no matter how confident they felt about their chances against the USN. A brief spasm of jingoism was no solld reason to contemplate trading broadsides and nobody wanted to send Tommy Jones against a rapidly ramping up US Army.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:54 am

GraniteStater wrote:Neither did I - was that unclear?

What nations may do are not, in the end, hindered by agreements, no matter how solemn. Sad but true - the last argument of kings is always available. The sending of troops to Canada was a message - HM Gov't had no idea how wise Lincoln was or likely to do, so they took precautions. Bear in mind that the British Army in the nineteenth century was, in reality, a colonial police force - effective, well led, well trained, but look at the previous match in the Crimea, where the UK & France had real troubles retiring the side.

The British Army was in no position to invade upper NY State and make it stick, and they knew it, even in December 61. Don't confuse messages with actual decisions of state. For heaven's sakes, Prince Albert was the one who played a key role in getting Palmerston to put the good stuff down & come to his senses. The Consort? The Consort, who, formally, has Zippo to do or say in the British constitution, afaik. Wiser men prevailed.

FI is in the game - IRL, it was a fantastic set of circumstances, which had as much shelf life as boiling gasoline.

Some states have better track records than others and place more value on Keeping Your Word. But they don't have to; still, any naval leader in HM Gov't would've have counseled prudence, no matter how confident they felt about their chances against the USN. A brief spasm of jingoism was no solld reason to contemplate trading broadsides and nobody wanted to send Tommy Jones against a rapidly ramping up US Army.


Small point - Palmerston's dislike of Americans did not mean that he supported the Confederacy. His attitude towards Americans was born from his time as Secretary of War during the War of 1812. As Cassius Clay, US Ambassador to Russia, put it: "They (Palmerston's government) care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both."

British soldiers were called 'Tommy Aitkins', not 'Tommy Jones'. The name Jones would imply a Welsh connection for the British army.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

'Nous voilà, Lafayette'

Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:27 pm

Yup, you're right, gotta bone up on my Kipling.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:40 pm

Random wrote:
Without the existence of a state of war it is probable that the Royal Navy could have legally escorted British flagged shipping to Southern ports for the purposes of trade and used force to prevent interference from Union warships as the latter might have been considered as conducting piracy on the high seas if they attempted to board or search the merchants. Whether the British would have had the political will to use force is another issue entirely but in my opinion, given the narrative in Post #119 they would have had the legal right to do so. How that might have played out is anybody's guess.

Although the Union never recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state the real situation was clear enough that the international law of the sea could be applied accordingly. In the event Lincoln very soon unilaterally accepted all the provisions of the Paris Declaration for the duration although the United States remained a non-signatory Power. For their part the British gave the Confederacy the "Rights of a Belligerent", which angered the North but was well short of formal diplomatic recognition and actually legitimized the Union blockade. One other result of this was that the Confederacy ceased to issue letters of marque to privateers and their high-seas raiding was to be conducted by commissioned Confederate Navy warships.



I think your points are all well made, but I highlight these to add one other point. However much Great Britain may have valued the Confederacy as a trading partner, and whatever their legal rights under international law to preserve that trade, I think they were hamstrung by the concern that any action they took to force the issue could well come back to haunt them in the event they found themselves in a future European war with America on the side lines. Britain could have claimed the right to escort its flagged vessels through any Union blockade, but would Britain benefit from a precedent that allowed the USA to do the same were the tables reversed? Whatever else has motivated England throughout history, its security at sea has always been paramount, and I think the US did a good job of playing upon this concern diplomatically. Yet another dagger in the heart of the Confederacy's hopes for foreign intervention.

khbynum
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:52 am

It's good to see this thread take wing. The number of learned, thoughtful people here is amazing. And it's just a computer game! I find the discussions of what Britain might have done in the event of a blockade, but no shooting war, to be fascinating. I think I have to agree with fred zeppelin. The war taught Britain that it could find other sources for cotton and grain and thus had no interest in a fight that, really, only benefited it.

I was amused to see Lincoln, according to some the most moral of men, described as a "canny politician" despite being accused of 'Realpolitik". My opinion, exactly. Yes, he did sucker them in. He wanted a war to restore the Union and knew if he waited the Southern hot-heads would give him an excuse. I never claimed the man was inept, I just don't think he would be regarded as a great president if he had lost the war.

In hindsight (the best sight of all), I should have started the thread with "given the fact of secession, how could the Civil War have been prevented?". There seems some support here for the notion that if both sides had held off hostilities, things might have calmed down to the talking point. That means the Union evacuates the forts and if not, the Confederacy doesn't attack them. Then they talk some more. Maybe Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas have a chance to think twice. Maybe the pressure for war from the Abolitionists and the fire-breathing Southern chivalry has time to cool. And maybe porcine artiodactyls develop the art of flight.

As I read Maury Klein's Days of Defiance a few years ago, I found myself thinking "Why can't they just be reasonable? Why can't each side give a little, try to understand the other side's concerns? Don't they know what's going to happen?". It seemed there was never a point when reasonable men could not have avoided a war. A lesson, perhaps, for our own time.

aariediger
Sergeant
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:14 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:28 am

I think your points are all well made, but I highlight these to add one other point. However much Great Britain may have valued the Confederacy as a trading partner, and whatever their legal rights under international law to preserve that trade, I think they were hamstrung by the concern that any action they took to force the issue could well come back to haunt them in the event they found themselves in a future European war with America on the side lines. Britain could have claimed the right to escort its flagged vessels through any Union blockade, but would Britain benefit from a precedent that allowed the USA to do the same were the tables reversed? Whatever else has motivated England throughout history, its security at sea has always been paramount, and I think the US did a good job of playing upon this concern diplomatically. Yet another dagger in the heart of the Confederacy's hopes for foreign intervention.


This absolutely true, as I believe the British used the implementation of the Union's blockade as precedent for their own blockade of Germany in the First World War. In 1861, the British may have decided that having this precedent up their sleeve, should the need arise, more than outweighed the costs of the blockade to the British economy. And when you look at the mess that became of Germany's economy by 1918, it was definitely the correct decision. It may be possible Germany wins that war if they have access to free trade, as they had really been winning up to that point on the field. Further, if blockading doesn't happen, no U-boats sink ships that have Americans on board, and it might be a hard sell for Wilson to get America involved if nobody dies.

England played a deep game, and not contesting the Union blockade either on the seas or in court worked out in their favor in the long run, in a big way.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:28 am

He wanted a war to restore the Union


I think the word is 'calumny'.

Really? Based on what evidence? Your Master's Thesis? Those fourteen months you spent digging through the long-lost papers of Speedwell? Your oh so apparent approach to painstaking consideration? I know, it must be your reputation as a profound and insightful interpreter of the historical record.

Unbelievable.

And further down:

As I read Maury Klein's Days of Defiance a few years ago, I found myself thinking "Why can't they just be reasonable?


If you're talking about a treasonous movement who demonstrated an all too willing readiness to throw over peace, order and honor because they didn't like the electoral results, you're right. Otherwise, the preservation of the Union had something to do with a concept some seem to be struggling to see: principles.

Seriously, you want such bilgewater to pass for sober reflection?
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
pgr
General
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:14 am

Kensai wrote:Can a country leave the Union nowadays? Say Texas or California or Alaska or Hawaii? Would it be allowed if its people voted for secession in a state referendum?


I'll be a little less categorical that Granite. If the State acted unilaterally, I would say no. States don't have a right to pick and choose which federal laws to follow and they don't have the right to unilaterally withdraw form the Union. (As a question, would Bavaria have the right to unilaterally hold a referendum on separation from Germany?)

Now, if the process went through the U.S. Constitutional amendment process (Article 5 for folks that want the text) I could see a legal pathway. Imagine my Great State of Wyoming holds a referendum to the Constitution recognizing the independence of Wyoming from the Union, and enough of the Congress (2/3 majority of congress or 3/4 majority of of state legislatures) and the amendment is ratified by 3/4ths of the states, then I suppose you could have a constitutional separation.

One could ask why the South didn't go down this road...but realistically it's hard to imagine a situation where a super majority of states would agree to break up the United States.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Mar 08, 2014 2:51 pm

I did mention it above - but thanks for the specifics, for those who would be curious.

GS
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

khbynum
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:08 pm

GraniteStater wrote:I think the word is 'calumny'.

Really? Based on what evidence? Your Master's Thesis? Those fourteen months you spent digging through the long-lost papers of Speedwell? Your oh so apparent approach to painstaking consideration? I know, it must be your reputation as a profound and insightful interpreter of the historical record.

Unbelievable.

And further down:



If you're talking about a treasonous movement who demonstrated an all too willing readiness to throw over peace, order and honor because they didn't like the electoral results, you're right. Otherwise, the preservation of the Union had something to do with a concept some seem to be struggling to see: principles.

Seriously, you want such bilgewater to pass for sober reflection?


I had just come in from feeding the horses when I saw your post so, in an olfactory sense at least, I was prepared for it. I don't have a Masters Degree and I don't know what Speedwell is. If I am to continue to enjoy reading this forum, I will have to skip your posts from now on. But just keep writing, you define yourself far better than I could.

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:36 pm

(Post deleted.)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:14 pm

Yes, you're absolutely right, I am sorry to see it.

See PM.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:23 pm

khbynum wrote:I had just come in from feeding the horses when I saw your post so, in an olfactory sense at least, I was prepared for it. I don't have a Masters Degree and I don't know what Speedwell is. If I am to continue to enjoy reading this forum, I will have to skip your posts from now on. But just keep writing, you define yourself far better than I could.


Speedwell was Lincon's law partner, IIRC.

Sir, you do not do the homework - anyone who has read Lincoln's FIA and walks away thinking he desired war has major challenges processing written information.

Now, I'm going to use a term about myself that I never, ever, use. I shall here, however, in this limited context.

If you want to say that you hate Abraham Lincoln and wish that those noble slaveowners had secured their 'property', then say so. I, for one, will respect your opinion - you can have it - your opinions are not history, though. To repeatedly take shots at historical figures, with hardly anything to back your assertions up, and wish it to be respected as some kind of 'analysis', is so ludicrous as to defy the expectations of junior high school students.

And now, my self description - I never use this term about myself, for I don't deserve it.

Sir, what you don't like is that you ran into an historian.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:28 pm

Le Ricain wrote:I think that the phrase is 'ad hominem'.

One of the main reasons that I prefer the AGEOD forum to others such as Paradox is that the latter are littered with ad hominem attacks. This is lazy thinking and shows a lack of respect for other AGEOD forum users and I am sorry to see it appearing here.


I've resorted to a policy of Don't Feed the Troll.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:00 pm

Now, if one wishes to share with others that they hate certain figures in history, then say so. To trot out statements that are quite easily dismissed by an undergraduate who goes to class twice a semester and expect them to be taken as discourse worthy of any serious student of history's respect, is fatuous, at best.

When I run into someone, who, after some little acquaintance, demonstrates a knowledge of the subject better than my own, I listen. I don't argue with them about points, simply because I think I'm right. This is called respect and even maturity.

Now, gentlemen, if you go back and read the thread, you should see I have done little but advance Mr. Lincoln's own words and arguments. If you think Lincoln's principles were mistaken, then say so, and say why. I have seen precious little of this in this thread.

As I said above, if one sits there and insists that Caesar wrote Hamlet, I'll tell you, as nicely as I know how, that you are full of it. If one persists in this, I must admit, I am human and I start to lose patience. To vilify a man who was a man of moral principles and gave his life for this republic, to my mind, just shows an immaturity of perception staggering belief. Bear in mind that sarcasm, used within proper bounds, is a legitimate rhetorical device - even withering sarcasm.

As Harry Truman said, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

khbynum
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:18 pm

fred zeppelin wrote:I've resorted to a policy of Don't Feed the Troll.


Hi fred zepellin,

I don't think he's a troll. He's a True Believer, so no argument to the contrary is acceptable. I started the thread to get a discussion going after, believe it or not, GraniteStater told me to take my comments to the history subforum. I love to talk Civil War history, but don't need to be told I'm a fool because I have a different opinion. I can figure the game out by myself. I'm out of here. Life's too short to argue on the internet.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:20 pm

khbynum wrote:Hi fred zepellin,

I don't think he's a troll.


I was being cranky. We can all do better sometimes. Let's just keep talking.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:50 pm

After a couple of PMs with cooler heads, I would like to state unequivocally that I take no exception to any poster here, most especially our friend khbynum.

I think, as may be inferred from a previous post, that I would like to see a simple adherence, more or less, from the record, from facts and valid inferences. I most probably get a wee too stirred about certain statements, some which I feel are demonstrably unsupportable.

This most certainly is not the place to refight the Civil War.

I don't get upset if people steal second, nor do I believe in the same if they touch the receiver while the ball's in the air. All I ask is that 'flagrant fouls' with historical discussions be kept to a minimum.

And all I can do is ask - I am not a Thread Lord, nor a moderator, and I do try to cast sentences dispassionately - I do know I do not always succeed.

I do employ sarcasm, 'tis true, but try to be humorous when I do, for it is meant more in the spirit of "C'mon, man," then a rebuke.

I would ask all here for forgiveness.

As Robert E. Lee, said, my most earnest desire is to be a Christian gentleman.

Thank you.

GraniteStater
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

khbynum
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:50 pm

If it gets to be more of a pain than a pleasure, I stop doing it unless it's something I've sworn or contracted to do. I've made and reiterated my essential points and am glad to have stimulated a discussion on what otherwise seemed a dead subforum. That is really all I wanted to do.

I will not apologize for my opinions, but I am sorry to have brought discord and ill-will to this forum.

GraniteStater wins. I will no longer read his posts, nor will I reply to them. Y'all have a good life.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:55 pm

khbynum wrote:If it gets to be more of a pain than a pleasure, I stop doing it unless it's something I've sworn or contracted to do. I've made and reiterated my essential points and am glad to have stimulated a discussion on what otherwise seemed a dead subforum. That is really all I wanted to do.

I will not apologize for my opinions, but I am sorry to have brought discord and ill-will to this forum.

GraniteStater wins. I will no longer read his posts, nor will I reply to them. Y'all have a good life.


No, he has not.

Don’t give up the ship. His own hypocrisy will catch up to him sooner or later. Democracy at gunpoint is a fail.

The idea that free and sovereign people do not have the right to cast of one government and form one more to their liking is preposterous.

The constitution recognizes the right of the people to rebel. What is secession if not the most peaceful act of rebellion. Were a state through democratic processes severs its ties with a larger government with which it is at odds. The government is nowhere required to stamp out democratic processes or deny the will of the people. The Union is made of states and represents those states in the form of elected officials. When those officials no longer see the Union as beneficial, why should they not carry that message to the people of their state and decide upon a plan of action.

If the Union wishes to remain united it would be incumbent upon them to negotiate a settlement through dialog, not force of arms.

The war was Lincoln’s choice and more than any other single person, he is responsible for bringing it to that.

I will offer this in support of that theory: http://www.san.beck.org/LincolnCivilWar.html

If someone doesn’t have a stroke they should be able to critique that for about 14 pages worth.
:hat:

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:54 pm

Now, please I implore all, stop the attacks. Firstly, no one 'wins' threads.

I am not a hypocrite. Lincoln did not start the war, unless by some device, he was firing on Fort Sumter.

The war was Lincoln’s choice and more than any other single person, he is responsible for bringing it to that.


Preposterous. He did just about everything he could to avoid it, including begging the South to return to their senses & obey the laws. That includes accepting the result of an election.

One trying to argue the justice of secession as it occurred in 1860-61 has a Sisyphean task, if not impossible. Show, by the record, where the Founders envisioned a lawful refusal to abide by the laws, short of an open and naked attempt to impose an unconstitutional tyranny by the national government.

The constitution recognizes the right of the people to rebel.


Quote the exact clause, word for word.

The Union is made of states and represents those states in the form of elected officials.


No, it is not. The Union is comprised of all the people of the United States. The people of this nation first banded together as thirteen several colonies, each of whom had a primary relationship with London before the Declaration. At the moment of nationhood, they abjured these thirteen separate primary relations and became a nation, and each State's primary relationship was to the Union and the nation. The assertions by Jefferson as to why the struggle to cast off the Crown was legitimate and the principles espoused are what makes us a nation. One nation, not thirteen nations associated for convenience.

For a fine and comprehensive and concise exposition, see Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. Once you have, refute the good lawyer's arguments - show he misunderstood the Founding and the Constitution is a contract (and if it is, refute his all too true statement that no one party to a contract may dissolve it - a fundamental principle of contract law, BTW). However, the Constitution is not a contract among the States - it is an instrument to effect a national government and was created by We, the People - all of them.

If the Union wishes to remain united it would be incumbent upon them to negotiate a settlement through dialog, not force of arms.


The people of several States used arms to seize Federal courthouses and other Federal property. They defied Federal authority by arms. They ended up firing on the flag of the United States.

Furthermore, the Preposterous Notion of whether a State may cease to obey Federal law is not admissible in any court under the jurisdiction of the US.

By the 'reasoning' set forth, New Hampshire could leave the US today, this very day, simply because it wanted to. We could use any excuse, but could seize upon recent elections, Acts of Congress, why, any ole thing that was a convenient excuse. Just 'cuz we wanted to.

Absurd. Why, East Kingston can leave the US, can say it's not part of New Hampshire. The part of Newbury, Mass., known as Byfield, that has its own ZIP code and has a town hall, wherein the town meeting is held every other year, alternating between Old Town and Byfield, can declare it's not part of Newbury, not part of Massachusetts, not part of the US - of course, then they could declare they're part of Quebec, I suppose, or even North Korea.

And if one wishes to wrangle these points, then let all understand that the US is not a democracy - it is a constitutional republic - "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Now. y'all can keep on indulging yourselves as to the justice of a rebellion that asserted it didn't have to abide by electoral results, defy national authority and laws, and started a war against lawful authority and the instrument chosen by the people of this nation, all of them, to effect a "more perfect Union" and "insure domestic tranqulity", among other Great Objects found in the Preamble, all for that most noble of principles, to promote the retention of their 'property' in chattel slaves, but I'm afraid you have set yourself a task that would exceed the labors of Hercules.

The 'arguments' for a lawful, peaceful secession, without the consent of the Congress and the other States, would not, I fear, pass muster in moot court in Ed's School of Law.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests