User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 2:23:49 PM EST
[#1]
Tag for later reading as I am a great admirer of Dr. Williams' every utterance. That handsome devil.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 2:27:12 PM EST
[#2]
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 2:27:58 PM EST
[#3]
Tag for the frothing mouthed Statists who will be along shortly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 2:58:38 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act. And that was the view 60/40 ish of constitutional scholars I went to college in the 80s Phi Alpha Theta 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 2:59:53 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tag for the frothing mouthed Statists who will be along shortly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 3:35:09 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was what I was taught in college. That constitutionally, the south had a better case than the north. And that was the view 60/40 ish of constitutional scholars I went to college in the 80s Phi Alpha Theta Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act. And that was the view 60/40 ish of constitutional scholars I went to college in the 80s Phi Alpha Theta |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 3:35:53 PM EST
[#7]
In on page 1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 3:44:53 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In on page 1 And they were not traitors. Secession was a constitutional right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 3:51:50 PM EST
[#9]
No one knocking down statues or alluding to violence against the President gives a shit about the Constitution. Trying to defuse or head off the ongoing shitfest with Constitutional arguments is like farting in the wind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 3:56:53 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act. U.S. Constitution Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:01:50 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And their favorite alcoholic, mentally ill Generals---Sherman and Grant Sherman did suffer a mental breakdown while commanding in the West. He later pulled himself together and performed very credibly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:04:20 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? U.S. Constitution Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:06:08 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one knocking down statues or alluding to violence against the President gives a shit about the Constitution. Trying to defuse or head off the ongoing shitfest with Constitutional arguments is like farting in the wind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:06:47 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The text on the Constitution used at West Point in the antebellum era also stated that secession was constitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:06:50 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act. Nothing wrong with voting with your feet. Isn't that what we tell people in California and New York to do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:07:37 PM EST
[#16]
I recall an interview with Shelby Foote where he said the south believed they were fighting the second American Revolution.
They felt they joined the Union with the understanding that they could always be allowed to leave it. The Union obviously didn't feel the same. The other point Foote made was it is just impossible to judge the actions of people 150 years ago in the context of today. I really admire his writing and he would have been an amazing guy to sit down and talk to over a beer |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:08:36 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? U.S. Constitution Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:08:37 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no evidence that during his generalship Grant imbibed. He did when he was much younger, bored and depressed and while stationed on the West Coast, far, far away from his wife. The drinking stories were fabricated by his detractors to discredit him. Lincoln's response was quite famous and went something to the extent, Find out what he drinks and I'll send every one of my generals a case. Sherman did suffer a mental breakdown while commanding in the West. He later pulled himself together and performed very credibly. Grant was a drunk--just a drunk who learned to not drink Sherman was a mental case who got control of his mental illness They both remained what they were. A drunk. A mental case. They just had to work to keep it under control. Just like a diabetic |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:09:08 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And their favorite alcoholic, mentally ill Generals---Sherman and Grant |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:09:31 PM EST
[#20]
A good article, and he is 100% correct.
Of course, that won't keep the south-haters from foaming at the mouth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:12:01 PM EST
[#21]
Mr Williams is a National Treasure as is Mr Sowell.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:12:39 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh - no. Nothing wrong with voting with your feet. Isn't that what we tell people in California and New York to do? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act. Nothing wrong with voting with your feet. Isn't that what we tell people in California and New York to do? But that's irrelevant in this context. When a whole society with its own sovereign polity desires to leave, and the laws creating the federation do not prohibit that, that's its prerogative, regardless of the soundness of the idea or the reasons why they want to leave. In the face of tyranny and usurpation of power, separation even against the law, and with force if necessary, is potentially justifiable, and that idea is the basis for our country being independent (or should the colonists have "voted with their feet" and fled the colonies?). The States never ceded their right to leave the Union, and it was not the common understanding in the U.S. at the time of ratification that they were agreeing to any such thing. The Constitution has never been amended to prohibit secession, either. The precedent is one borne of force, not of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:14:16 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mr Williams is a National Treasure as is Mr Sowell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:16:33 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's right, and there have been conservatives writing the same thing for decades. Most Confederates were not traitors; a few were, though, such as those who were from States that chose not to secede. States did and constitutionally still do retain the right to secede; the war just set the precedent of the use of massive force to prevent the act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:19:06 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, now. Are you saying a drunk and a crazy man beat the best Generals the South put forth? Insulting to the South and her Generals, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:19:13 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, now. Are you saying a drunk and a crazy man beat the best Generals the South put forth? Insulting to the South and her Generals, isn't it? Assessment : Manpower North>South Logistics North>South Conclusion:: Attack relentlessly and don't stop regardless of losses even if in amounts deemed criminal. The numbers can't be wrong. And they were right. Shorten the time factor by destroying civilian as well as military infrastructure. Dead civilians can't be allowed to get in the way of victory And they were absolutely correct. It works |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:20:18 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eventually you can run out of places to which to flee. Fleeing from evil or from tyranny does not overcome it. But that's irrelevant in this context. When a whole society with its own sovereign polity desires to leave, and the laws creating the federation do not prohibit that, that's its prerogative, regardless of the soundness of the idea or the reasons why they want to leave. In the face of tyranny and usurpation of power, separation even against the law, and with force if necessary, is potentially justifiable, and that idea is the basis for our country being independent (or should the colonists have "voted with their feet" and fled the colonies?). The States never ceded their right to leave the Union, and it was not the common understanding in the U.S. at the time of ratification that they were agreeing to any such thing. The Constitution has never been amended to prohibit secession, either. The precedent is one borne of force, not of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:23:29 PM EST
[#28]
Kind of puts a wet blanket on all the traitor talk in the other thread, don't it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:24:39 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had a brilliant insight Assessment : Manpower North>South Logistics North>South Conclusion:: Attack relentlessly and don't stop regardless of losses even if in amounts deemed criminal. The numbers can't be wrong. And they were right. Shorten the time factor by destroying civilian as well as military infrastructure. Dead civilians can't be allowed to get in the way of victory And they were absolutely correct. It works |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:27:39 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had a brilliant insight Assessment : Manpower North>South Logistics North>South Conclusion:: Attack relentlessly and don't stop regardless of losses even if in amounts deemed criminal. The numbers can't be wrong. And they were right. Shorten the time factor by destroying civilian as well as military infrastructure. Dead civilians can't be allowed to get in the way of victory And they were absolutely correct. It works Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, now. Are you saying a drunk and a crazy man beat the best Generals the South put forth? Insulting to the South and her Generals, isn't it? Assessment : Manpower North>South Logistics North>South Conclusion:: Attack relentlessly and don't stop regardless of losses even if in amounts deemed criminal. The numbers can't be wrong. And they were right. Shorten the time factor by destroying civilian as well as military infrastructure. Dead civilians can't be allowed to get in the way of victory And they were absolutely correct. It works |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:29:46 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given the first line of your conclusion, I take that you are unaware that during 1861-1865 R E Lee lost a higher percentage of the forces under his command than did Grant. Your time frame is the whole damn war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:32:00 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both sides had to abide by the technology of the time. Defense had an advantage that would not go away until the advent of the tank. WWI had the same result. Rifles + defensive position = lots of dead attackers. A huge advantage the south has was that they didn't have to subdue the north, the north had to subdue Them. They just had to survive |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:38:35 PM EST
[#33]
Lots of cans were kicked down the road at the Constitutional Convention, slavery being the biggest of all. I have read all of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and large parts of the minutes from the ratification conventions in several states. I do not recall seeing one word in any of them, one way or the other, about seceding from the United States. I don't doubt Mr. Williams that they are there, but secession was not among the bigger issues at the conventions. The end product certainly does not address it.
Like many others in history, this question got answered by killing people and burning things, not by writing words on paper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:38:46 PM EST
[#34]
Williams' article is interesting, but it doesn't offer anything new (to anybody remotely familiar with Civil War history), not is it the final word on the topic (the country fought a war over the matter, and a sizable majority of Americans disagreed with Williams' arguments).
Beyond that, he does make a technical error. He writes, "Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors." That is not the case. The matter of being a traitor is not directly tied to legality of actions. A person has the right to renounce their citizenship and become a citizen of another country. If that person then fights against the US, they may not be legally guilty of treason, but many Americans would still consider them a "traitor." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:39:36 PM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
Walter E Williams From the article: The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. The south lost. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:39:43 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of cans were kicked down the road at the Constitutional Convention, slavery being the biggest of all. I have read all of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and large parts of the minutes from the ratification conventions in several states. I do not recall seeing one word in any of them, one way or the other, about seceding from the United States. Like many others in history, this question got answered by killing people and burning things, not by writing words on paper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:41:19 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once you start losing the numbers go up. Your time frame is the whole damn war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Given the first line of your conclusion, I take that you are unaware that during 1861-1865 R E Lee lost a higher percentage of the forces under his command than did Grant. Your time frame is the whole damn war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:42:19 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The south lost. Get over it. I'll remind you to get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:43:32 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, except I was thinking the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment pretty much does away with retained rights to secession by creating a "duty on citizens of allegiance toward the United States". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:44:06 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given the first line of your conclusion, I take that you are unaware that during 1861-1865 R E Lee lost a higher percentage of the forces under his command than did Grant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:45:43 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Williams' article is interesting, but it doesn't offer anything new (to anybody remotely familiar with Civil War history), not is it the final word on the topic (the country fought a war over the matter, and a sizable majority of Americans disagreed with Williams' arguments). Beyond that, he does make a technical error. He writes, "Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors." That is not the case. The matter of being a traitor is not directly tied to legality of actions. A person has the right to renounce their citizenship and become a citizen of another country. If that person then fights against the US, they may not be legally guilty of treason, but many Americans would still consider them a "traitor." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:48:58 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And they would be wrong - both legally and morally. "Many Americans would still consider ..." doesn't mean jack shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:51:29 PM EST
[#43]
Often in these discussions, the legality of secession comes up. Most people concern themselves with the US Constitution in such a case.
However, the other day, I had cause to be reading the Confederate Constitution, and I saw something interesting in the Preamble to same. Here's the entire Preamble: "The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." The words in bold are changes from the US Constitution. Note the words "...Form a permanent federal government,..." It would seem that the Confederate Constitution strongly implies that secession from the Confederacy is NOT allowed, because if it was allowed, no federal government could be deemed to be permanent. So, on the one hand, we have the neo-confederates saying secession is an inherent right, and yet the Constitution of the Confederacy seems to imply that secession from the Confederacy is not an option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:54:14 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When they tear down Lincoln's statue because he was white and didn't let women vote I'll remind you to get over it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The south lost. Get over it. I'll remind you to get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:55:54 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Often in these discussions, the legality of secession comes up. Most people concern themselves with the US Constitution in such a case. However, the other day, I had cause to be reading the Confederate Constitution, and I saw something interesting in the Preamble to same. Here's the entire Preamble: "The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." The words in bold are changes from the US Constitution. Note the words "...Form a permanent federal government,..." It would seem that the Confederate Constitution strongly implies that secession from the Confederacy is NOT allowed, because if it was allowed, no federal government could be deemed to be permanent. So, on the one hand, we have the neo-confederates saying secession is an inherent right, and yet the Constitution of the Confederacy seems to imply that secession from the Confederacy is not an option. "Permanent federal government" means it doesn't expire after a period or on a certain date. The permanence of the federal government has nothing to do with the duration of, or the rescinding of, any particular sovereign State's membership therein. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 4:58:49 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When your State secedes, you aren't a citizen of the compact any more. I'm replying with my understanding of the law, maybe I'm wrong and if so look forward to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:03:25 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tag for the frothing mouthed Statists who will be along shortly. "In a final proclamation on December 25, 1868, Johnson declared "unconditionally, and without reservation, ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ..." You don't welcome a brother back to the fold by endlessly kicking them in the junk. That we're moving in the same direction again, says our fucking politicians and to an extent our populace, has forgotten this lesson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:04:37 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, so this is a passive aggressive statue thread. Yeah, we didn't have enough of those yet. Though What lead to Williams' article was blowback from his article on confederate statues. Though my reply was as off point as your post was . Despite being born in Alabama and knowing that the confederacy had the law on its side, I am not a fan of the confederacy. I despise slavery. And I despise despotic government so not a huge Lincoln fan either. I guess I would have had to move to Switzerland back then
So, I really don't have to get over it. Telling people to get over the war's outcome doesn't address the article in OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:05:05 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And they would be wrong - both legally and morally. "Many Americans would still consider ..." doesn't mean jack shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Williams' article is interesting, but it doesn't offer anything new (to anybody remotely familiar with Civil War history), not is it the final word on the topic (the country fought a war over the matter, and a sizable majority of Americans disagreed with Williams' arguments). Beyond that, he does make a technical error. He writes, "Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors." That is not the case. The matter of being a traitor is not directly tied to legality of actions. A person has the right to renounce their citizenship and become a citizen of another country. If that person then fights against the US, they may not be legally guilty of treason, but many Americans would still consider them a "traitor." The facts of the matter are that the legality of secession was not firmly spelled out anywhere among the founding documents or laws. There was no definitive answer on if, or how, a state could separate from its obligations and formal relationships among the other states. When Southern states attempted to secede unilaterally, it sparked a mostly peaceful legal dispute until the matter degraded through the diplomatic impasse into open warfare. The legal dispute thus fell into the court of military combat and was decided by force of arms. The Confederates willingly thrust the legitimacy of their claim of secession onto the backs of their assumed military prowess...and lost. Therefore, their claims of secession were functionally invalidated. Nothing Walter Williams wrote changes that basic reality. He simply lists a few selected historical facts to present one argument of that complicated and long historical issue. And, as I said before, most Americans at that time (and since then) disagreed with his opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2017 5:05:21 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading comprehension failure. "Permanent federal government" means it doesn't expire after a period or on a certain date. The permanence of the federal government has nothing to do with the duration of, or the rescinding of, any particular sovereign State's membership therein. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Often in these discussions, the legality of secession comes up. Most people concern themselves with the US Constitution in such a case. However, the other day, I had cause to be reading the Confederate Constitution, and I saw something interesting in the Preamble to same. Here's the entire Preamble: "The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." The words in bold are changes from the US Constitution. Note the words "...Form a permanent federal government,..." It would seem that the Confederate Constitution strongly implies that secession from the Confederacy is NOT allowed, because if it was allowed, no federal government could be deemed to be permanent. So, on the one hand, we have the neo-confederates saying secession is an inherent right, and yet the Constitution of the Confederacy seems to imply that secession from the Confederacy is not an option. "Permanent federal government" means it doesn't expire after a period or on a certain date. The permanence of the federal government has nothing to do with the duration of, or the rescinding of, any particular sovereign State's membership therein. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
