Rest if you can. Work if you have to. The immune system has a way of trying to stop you from moving and burning up the same energy it wants to fight whatever ails you.Ive felt a little under the weather today but you have brought a smile to my face! You sound rather like my geography teacher of old...
Of course. There are plenty of criminals who never get caught or convicted. There are traitors who are never convicted for so acting. It simply means that in the absence of a conviction (and in a state governed by law) , the state loses the option of inflicting a penalty for the action.Because a person wasn't convicted of treason doesn't mean he was not, in fact, a traitor. The definition of traitor is based on actions not being convicted of those actions. Some things are simply evident; there was a southern rebellion, after all. And people took part in it.
Ate something that disagreed with me- moral- dont leave it too long in the fridge! Today has been rest day ..Rest if you can. Work if you have to. The immune system has a way of trying to stop you from moving and burning up the same energy it wants to fight whatever ails you.
I actually borrowed that term from our friends in the real estate business who use it for people working too far from home where they don't know the local market. I thought that is what he was suggesting, that I am too far away from Mississippi to know.
I agree, Johnney Reb was an informal designation. Whether it was illegal or not was a matter for the lawyers; so far as I could see they could not agree and the matter by settled by passage of arms. As you say, the Constitution was silent upon the matter, which could be interpreted either way.While informally, they accepted the label of rebels, but only so far as they were rebelling against illegal tyranny.
The main reason this argument survives is the Constitution. There is no clause in which the state surrendered the rights they declared in the Declaration. IMO, if not for that, there'd be no argument.
There was no legal obstacle. They could have put Davis in front of a military commission and by the end of the week, he would have been at the end of a rope. There was a "legal obstacle" to a civilian trial. His defense that secession was legal would have gotten him acquitted. Where you said "politics," now you have something. He was pardoned (after three years in jail), because that was the best way to smooth things over.
I notice you didn't address the original inquiry when I said you post was inaccurate and asked how you quantify that the south dominated the government. Have you reconsidered that.
Re Davis,I agree, Johnney Reb was an informal designation. Whether it was illegal or not was a matter for the lawyers; so far as I could see they could not agree and the matter by settled by passage of arms. As you say, the Constitution was silent upon the matter, which could be interpreted either way.
Prof Allan Guelzo was of the opinion that it was not at all easy to gain a conviction. Any action would need to have taken place in his own state before local jurors. He had his defense, but the fact of 'playing at home' would laso have gone a long way toward aquittal. As you say, the decision not to proceed was political also.
Re your original enquiry, I couldnt see this but 'm quite capable of missing it! My unqualified apologies if I have done so. The matter of Southern domination was covered by MacPherson in his book in depth covering the pre-war period, demonstrating how the Southern aristocrats were able to maintain their views over time. This included repeated threats to secede and even misbehaviour on the floor of the House. Once the Republican Party gained sufficiently universal grip over the North to imperil Southern domination, they seceded. I have seen it also demonstrated in a book on the 1812 war (I can look it up) where Southern imposition of a hawklike policy caused the Northeast states to consider secession themselves.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and not be so quick to make assumptions. Quote one? How about several...Since all of this is following my posts - let's clear out the straw men . What I actually wrote is that the the motives of the soldiers on any battlefield.are fighting, first of all, to survive. Their motivations are often completely disconnected to those of the politicians who put them there.
Since, you probably can't quote any southern soldier saying he is so happy to be defending slavery, you probably should be so quick to assume who it is doing the assuming.
There is a brand new site just getting up and running called jggscivilwartalk.com that you might be interested in.
Denazification - WikipediaIt is the Germans who are not building statutes to the SS, not any "allies" stopping them. Germany doesn't want to rehabilitate it.
The Nazi justification for war was belief in White Supremacy. The Confederacy justification for war was White Supremacy. Perfectly reasonable comparison.Nazi analogies? Is that what you have to sink to?
"The abolition movement in the United States was a political contrivance by rich northern white supremacists who though they were genetically superior to blacks, and culturally superior southern whites."Th North was full of White Supremacists, too - who didn't allow Blacks into their states and didn't want them in the west, either. That is part of how slavery caused the war. The abolition movement in the United States was a political contrivance by rich northern white supremacists who though they were genetically superior to blacks, and culturally superior southern whites.
Did the founding fathers organize an attack on the United States to maintain human cattle? Did they after losing commit terrorist attacks to maintain a system of white supremacy?How many Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution owned slaves, and protected the institution for States under the Constitution, while reserving the right of States to leave the union in case any domestic institution came under threat?
Again, I don't find these quotes on point for you more than for me. Does a quote like this, not express defense of home - driving back invaders of the South?"The equal with a niger(sic) I had rather never come home, better me fall in the struggle for it.”
---Will to Elizabeth McKee, September 1861, Hugh McKee, ed.,
The McKee Letters 1859-1880: Correspondence of a Georgia Family during the Civil War and Reconstruction
(Milledgeville, GA: Boyd,2000), 32.
I didn't realize that this was in question.The Confederate leadership made no secret of the fact that slavery was the prime driver of secession, and it was frequently used as a rallying cry in appeals to the common man by military commanders, politicians, editorials in pro-secessionist newspapers, and in sermons from the pulpit.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|What if Csar Paul I was not assassinated in 1801?||Speculative History|
|Was Braxton Bragg the Worst CSA General?||Military History|
|Would the USA have survived the Confederate victory? Would the CSA?||Speculative History|
|Manhattan: Honoring New York's Slaves||North American History|