Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mr. Debs…that's excellent post. You're probably right, but I not sure. If the justices voted based upon their political views you're probably correct in saying they would have ruled against secession. However, there is much in the founding documents that supports the right to secede; had the justices voted based upon the contents of these documents they might well have voted in favor of secession.As you noted, predicting how some justices would have voted is a close call, as is often the case on any issue when there are swing justices. If you're wrong about Nelson and Clifford--who you identify as fence sitters--the vote would have favored secession. (Based on your comments I'm not as confident as you are that Grier would have voted against secession.)Again, thank you for you post. It provides good insight into what the vote might have been.
In 1862 Samuel Freeman Miller filled the vacancy created by the death of Peter Vivian Daniel. Miller was an abolitionist from Kentucky whose votes on the court supported Lincoln's policies.Had there been some delay in the case being heard by the Supreme Court this change might have impacted the outcome by changing a probable pro-secession vote to a probable anti-secession vote. In addition to being an abolitionist Miller was also a more "dominant" justice than Daniel had been.Welcome!I hope you'll be a frequent poster. I'm especially interested in hearing different perspectives about American History and hope that with Scottish experience you'll be able include that in your posts.
I have always thought the current form of the federal government was a direct result of the Civil War. The outcome of the war certainly seems to say that the Federal government has the power to compel states regardless of what the constitution says. I also think that if the South had taken the issue to the Supreme court they would have won. The founding documents seem to me to support the view that ultimately it is the states that are sovereign and a powerful federal government is not what the framers had in mind. That could just be my personal bias at work in interpreting the Charters of Freedom though. I am a big fan of the 10th Amendment as being there to explicitly limit the power of the federal government. The Feds have weaseled their way around it using the Commerce and Supremacy clauses. Lincoln would have fought anyway, to preserve the union.
I agree with most of what you say:1--The federal gov't we know today is an outgrowth of the Civil War.2--Sovereignty originally was wrested in the states.3--Our founding documents made secession possible. (Otherwise a gov't would not derive it's just powers from the consent of the governed.)4--The South would have won had they presented their case to the Supreme Court.What I disagree with is:I don't think Lincoln would have fought anyway had the Supreme Court decided in favor of the South. I don't think either the people of the North or Congress would have supported a war and without their support it would have been necessary for Lincoln to abide by the court's decision. I may be wrong. But I don't see losing a case before the Supreme Court inflaming the situation the same way that firing on Ft. Sumter did. IMHO firing on Ft. Sumter was the worst decision the South made. Clearly the situation was tense, but Ft. Sumter changed everything. The North had not raised an army to put down secession prior to Ft. Sumter and I'm not sure there would have support for military action without an incident like Ft. Sumter.
Really, I think that it has to do with the cult of the "Lost Cause" -- while the Confederacy lost the war, I don't think that most Southerners of the time ever admitted that they had been defeated. The myth of the Lost Cause was active in revision of primary school textbooks up through the 1930s (and I think some of that legacy is left). In the pains of reconstruction, I think that people clung to whatever they could to hold onto their dignity - and as a result, the war has become a lasting part of the cultural memory - although it is fading somewhat.
There's probably a lot of truth in this.Where I grew up in the West the Civil War was viewed a historical event. Nobody related to it through family history.My brother-in-law (who is a great guy that I really respect) grew up in Charleston, SC; my sister has lived in the South since her marriage (over 20 years ago). I've seen her views change over time. The Civil War is now personal to her because of the oral history she's heard from her in-laws and others.I've discussed slavery, the Civil War, and related issues with her many times. She's now very guarded about what she says--expect about how terrible Sherman was. Her comment to me several times has been, "What am I supposed to do? Tell my children their ancestors were bad men."She, like others I've encountered, is (at least publicly) in denial about slavery being the causal ingredient of the Civil War. So I suspect you're right about the role the Lost Cause plays in Southern perceptions of slavery, the Civil War, and related issues (like the Civil War was fought over property rights, not States Rights).
I can't cite sources proving it was a custom or a fable. But in my readings it seems to be something widely accepted as being the practice of the times.
I don't understand a holiday celebrating children and one that "pays homage to their importance in society, and endorses their well being," what does that even mean?
Who knows. I think I borrowed that from some official account of the holiday.
Could you imagine fighting in the Civil War and then surviving 80 years to hear about the atomic bomb being used in a war?
In High School I date a girl whose grandmother (who lived with her family) was born the year the Transcontinental Railroad was completed and died the year after man landed on the moon.
Anybody have a theory about St. Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland? My understanding is because of the cold ocean water that has surrounds Ireland since the glaciers melted there have never been any snakes in Ireland. Were snakes symbolic of paganism? Other thoughts?
The above comments on Sherman destroying the will to wage war is important.Compare the first war in Iraq to the second. In the first war by the time the American soldiers arrived the bombing campaign had destroyed the will of the soldiers and civilians alike to continue to fight. In the second war American troops easily won the initial battles, but did not destroy the will to fight. Hence the outcome of these two wars was very different.
How relevant is your comparison with the Iraq war?Very. You really can't see the relevance and the connection? What are your sources?See below.Is it just a personal analysis?Yes. Couldn't you tell that by reading what I wrote? BTW, analysis is usually what one posts when the OP asks for an assessment.
Now, Omer, a question for you:What's the game you're trying to play on this board? (I moderate a fairly large board devoted to a different topic. Frankly, I suspect if you joined my board I'd end up having to ban you for trolling and/or being disrespectful to other posters.)
The above comments on Sherman destroying the will to wage war is important.Compare the first war in Iraq to the second. In the first war by the time the American soldiers arrived the bombing campaign had destroyed the will of the soldiers and civilians alike to continue to fight. In the second war American troops easily won the initial battles, but did not destroy the will to fight. Hence the outcome of these two wars was very different.
Grant killed men while Sherman destroyed property, yet today Southerners hate Sherman more than Grant. That's a sad commentary on how mankind thinks.
Omar:I had a professor who occasionally used "what if" questions. In time I learned they were of value--as well as often being interesting.Answering a "what if" question requires one to analyze historical events in order to predict the outcome of the hypothetical situation. Vulture6's remarks about Lee benefiting from Northern Virgina's topography is an example of insights that can come from answers to "what if" questions.
Wasn't Lincoln also behind the founding of Liberia or was that someone else?
Liberia was founded before Lincoln, around 1820. The capitol city, Monrovia, is named after James Monroe, who was a prominent supported of the idea.
I believe the Ark of the Covenant disappeared at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Circa 535 B.C. The Babylonians took the Jews to Babylon in three stages. They first took the king and the nobles installing a client king in his place. Next went artisans, followed by masses.Some Jews were allowed to remain behind, including the prophet Jeremiah (who had counseled submission to the Babylonians, instead of alliance with Egypt). Some of the remaining Jews assassinated the governor the Babylonians had installed and fled to Egypt. They took Jeremiah with them as a captive; he was put to death in Egypt. It's possible the Babylonians got their hands on the Ark of the Covenant when they conquered Jerusalem, but I think the Ark of Covenant made its way to Egypt for safe keeping. From there I think there might be some truth in the rumors that it then went to Ethiopia. The Ethiopians have long claimed to descend from union of Salomon and the Queen of Sheba, and they has a Judo-Christian history to support the claim.The temple the Romans was built after the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity. Which is why I think the Ark of the Covenant disappeared when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem and destroyed Salomon's temple.
