tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post6096848609314731302..comments2023-09-24T04:57:04.216-07:00Comments on Backsass: Harping and Carping from the Texas CoastConnie Wardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07275270830868170850noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-62657058626931730012014-10-14T07:55:57.350-07:002014-10-14T07:55:57.350-07:00Madison-- "Where resort can be had to no tri...Madison-- "Where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929283913357555388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-90432447675707614322014-10-14T07:52:07.601-07:002014-10-14T07:52:07.601-07:00Some from James Madison -
t had been alleged, (by...Some from James Madison -<br /><br />t had been alleged, (by Mr. Patterson,) that the Confederation, having been formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous consent only. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts? Does it arise from any particular stipulation in the Articles of Confederation? If we consider the Federal Union as analagous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose one society, and which must, in its theoretic origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it cannot be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unanimous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact, by a part of the society, would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it. If the breach of any article, by any of the parties, does not set the others at liberty, it is because the contrary is implied in the compact itself, and particularly by that law of it which gives an indefinite authority to the majority to bind the whole, in all cases. This latter circumstance shows, that we are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for, if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole; which the gentleman from New Jersey would be among the last to admit. If we consider the Federal Union as analogous, not to the social compacts among individual men, but to the conventions among individual states, what is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929283913357555388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-871977302511567732014-10-14T07:36:43.265-07:002014-10-14T07:36:43.265-07:00You are correct Mrs. Chastain, that the Constituti...You are correct Mrs. Chastain, that the Constitution does not prohibit secession. But I think Madison's explanation to Jefferson outlines the idea very clearly that the Founding Fathers would not place into the organic nature of the Constitution the ability for a state to arbitrarily tear the nation apart for such a reason a slavery or in times past the Constitutional collection of tariffs. Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-13192849943292114372014-10-14T02:24:36.396-07:002014-10-14T02:24:36.396-07:00It seems to me that Corey sometimes can't make...It seems to me that Corey sometimes can't make up his mind whether he's chiefly interested in the War, or current politics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17617401752077219844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-77783711932822515862014-10-13T21:21:06.532-07:002014-10-13T21:21:06.532-07:00Clickable link: http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktYClickable link: <a href="http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktY" rel="nofollow"> http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktY</a>Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-40467157919570366762014-10-13T21:20:15.210-07:002014-10-13T21:20:15.210-07:00Mr Madison was a great man, the Father of The Cons...Mr Madison was a great man, the Father of The Constitution, but we have to go by what's actually in the document, not his opinion about it, or personal correspondence. There was nothing in the Constitution that prohibited secession. http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktYConniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-8478618272234260672014-10-13T21:12:50.233-07:002014-10-13T21:12:50.233-07:00Corey, if nobody knows, then Dew lied by giving sp...Corey, if nobody knows, then Dew lied by giving specific figures. In any case, the BBQ ticket sales were a very good indicator. The difference it makes is that Dew lied about it, and The State lied about it, and it just shows how little regard for the truth Confederacy-hater have. I mean, look at yourself. Anti-Confederate, and a serial liar....<br /><br />Corey, I am a modern day heritage folk, and I don't claim that slavery had nothing to do with secession and war. I do strongly disagree with the simplistic way Confederacy-haters present it. However, my position is, and always has been, that the Confederacy's sins were no worse than the union's sins re: slavery and race, and I vehemently disagree with the practice of covering up the north's participation in slavery (i.e., getting rich off of it, even after abolishing it in their states) and racism, by focusing with tunnel vision on the South's. That is how you keep your little glass house safe and sound..... Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-3962351477351023082014-10-13T19:23:10.147-07:002014-10-13T19:23:10.147-07:00Corey, first of all, I'm not paying $12 for a ...Corey, first of all, I'm not paying $12 for a flippin' Kindle book. Second, the book's description basically says Dew set out to refute what "neo-Confederates" say. That's not historic, that's contemporary, and it betrays a contemporary agenda, not a historic one.<br /><br />I did a Look-Inside at Amazon.com, and he's talking about the flag controversy in South Carolina in 2000, for cryin' out loud. IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND, Corey. THAT IS NOT CIVIL WAR HISTORY, IT IS NOT SECESSION HISTORY. THAT IS CONTEMPORARY HISTORY. And what that indicates is that Dew has a post-civil-rights FLOGGER mentality and agenda.<br /><br />Moreover, he lies in his first chapter. He says the pro-flag rally in Columbia was attended by 6,000 people. There were at least 10,000 there, because one of the sponsor groups sold more than that many tickets to a barbecue for the rally attendees. The tickets were sold AT THE DOOR, on the day of the rally, immediately afer it, not in advance to buyers who may not have showed up. <br /><br />Dew says 50,000 people attended the NAACP anti-flag rally a few days later. It was 20,000, tops. If that. Shortly after anti-flag rally, there was an aerial shot of the anti-flag crowd on the capitol grounds that ran in Columbia's The State. The attendees took up almost exactly the same amount of space that the pro-flag crowd had filled. The State was rabidly anti-flag and was on a crusade not to report news but to force an agenda. Somebody must have pointed out to them how small the NAACP crowd really was, because the pic came down, and I haven't found it online since.<br /><br />I know how much space the pro-flag crowd took on the capitol grounds because I was there. I walked the entire grounds, and I walked the perimeter of the crowd, twice. I know where the edges of the crowd reached. And that is basically where the edge of the NAACP crowd reached in the (magical disappearing) newspaper photo.<br /><br />Lies, lies, lies. Knowing there are lies in that book, and it was written with a contemporary agenda that isn't simply accurate history, I frankly have no desire to read it. Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-17862500315159202792014-10-13T18:34:29.776-07:002014-10-13T18:34:29.776-07:00Mrs. Chastain,
The states do not have the Constit...Mrs. Chastain,<br /><br />The states do not have the Constitutional right to seize Federal property as much was seized before secession. The states also do not have a Constitutional right to demand payment for property in which the seized illegally.<br /><br />Yes, I am quite aware of how sectionalism played out on the national stage prior to the war. But both sides committed acts that could be said to have "broken the camel's back". I am also aware of how often the south discussed secession as a measure to force the government to "see things" their way. You to must be familiar with the Tariff of Abominations and the actions of the South during that stand-off with President Andrew Jackson. Jackson also threatened to send US troops into the South to enforce the law then, much as Lincoln did in 1861. <br /><br />I disagree with your definition of secession. By the Dictionary, yes you are correct. But the government under the Constitution is not set up like that. Take this quote from James Madison to Jefferson in 1787.<br /><br />"It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members, could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent & the guilty, the necessity of a military force both obnoxious & dangerous, and in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war, than the administration of a regular Government.<br /><br />Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which instead of operating, on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation."<br /><br />I think what Madison, who as in attendance at the Philadelphia Convention, said is quite obvious.<br /><br />I don't believe that the government created a prison for the states, that was never the intention, however I do believe that there was a better way of dealing with the issues that confronted the South then that of secession. In the history of secession in the US, IE: The Hartford Convention in 1814 resulted in the decline of the Federalist, there has never been a successful secession for a reason.<br /><br />Well, that is my opinion anyway.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-48247814432331266222014-10-13T18:12:24.028-07:002014-10-13T18:12:24.028-07:00Mr. Lyons, I have no problem with your disagreeing...Mr. Lyons, I have no problem with your disagreeing. I will explain, however, why <i>I</i> disagree with <i>you.</i><br /><br />The nation wasn't defending itself, as I have already established. It invaded the Confederacy. Southerners were the defenders. There also would not have been bloodshed if the feds had taken the flippin' money for the federal property and removed their presence from the seceded states. And the election was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm sure you know sectionalism had existed for decades, and the South had been heading for separation a long time. If Lincoln's election had not been the straw, something else would have been.<br /><br />Secession is not insurrection. Peaceful secession is not revolt, rebellion, insurrection, uprising, mutiny or insurgency. It is leaving, it is withdrawing. Only stung and insulted yankee arrogance interprets a state's voluntarily leaving an association with yankees as insurrection. However, voluntarily resigning from the voluntary Constitutional compact simply isn't rebellion.<br /><br />Look, it only took nine states ratifying the Constitution to create the federal government and set it operating -- basically, the creation of the union. After the Southern states left, there were 22 states remaining in the union -- more than twice the nine required to create it. That was the nation after the South left and it was not threatened with insurrection and had no need to defend itself.<br /><br />It is unfathomable to me that there are people who think the founders created a prison for states, and any states that leave have to be whipped and bloodied like a runaway slave.... Neither type of whipping and bloodying is right. <br />Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-55615968589765878812014-10-13T15:12:44.494-07:002014-10-13T15:12:44.494-07:00Mrs. Chastain, I would kindly disagree with your s...Mrs. Chastain, I would kindly disagree with your summation here. A nation has the right to defend itself from domestic insurrections such as that from the North. There would not have been bloodshed had it not been for the South's refusal of the change of power that occurred in 1860-61, which was not the first time this had happened, nor the last.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-87136323218391140972014-10-11T22:14:24.212-07:002014-10-11T22:14:24.212-07:00Who fired the first shots isn't as important t...Who fired the first shots isn't as important to me as who started the aggression -- and the aggression started before the shots, and it wasn't started by the South. Refusing the election and seizing US property don't meet the definition of treason in either the US Code or the Constitution, and in any case, the South offered to pay for the US property.<br /><br />Regardless, as I said <a href="http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/09/sherman-and-grimsley.html" rel="nofollow"> here</a> -- <br /><br /><i>There was NO justification for the union army's presence in the seceded states and no justification for a union soldier so much as kicking a Southern dog. Regardless of how much or how little destruction Sherman and his rapacious men did, regardless of Mark Grimsley's efforts, and the efforts of every other Confederacy-bashing "historian" to santitize Sherman and downplay the destruction wrought upon the South by the union army, it was ALL too much because the union army should not have been down here to begin with.<br /><br />Nothing -- not secession, not "preserving the union," not ending slavery, not anything -- justified the union's barbaric war on the South. </i>Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-84245949147790661862014-10-11T19:30:38.489-07:002014-10-11T19:30:38.489-07:00Your Defenders Mrs. Chastain were the ones who fir...Your Defenders Mrs. Chastain were the ones who fired the first shots. Your Defenders violated the Constitution by refusing the Constitutional election of 1860. Your Defenders seized US property prior to their state's secession. That, in and of itself is a treasonable act. <br /><br />Yes, I do know the difference and those difference are quite significant.Craig T. Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-10253226495616231852014-10-11T01:14:15.386-07:002014-10-11T01:14:15.386-07:00So, there were expression of desiring to kill on b...So, there were expression of desiring to kill on both sides? <br /><br />But one side was aggressors who invaded and killed.<br /><br />The other side was defenders who killed those who had invaded.<br /><br />Can you not tell the difference between those two circumstances?Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-4285309278547555392014-10-10T21:12:22.546-07:002014-10-10T21:12:22.546-07:00Yes, Mrs Chastain I do know this. However, those ...Yes, Mrs Chastain I do know this. However, those claims made by young southern soldiers were made before the invasion occurred. There is a speech that Jefferson Davis gave where he describes the South's desire to take the war to the Yankees on their soil. I have yet to discover the letter online, but I have read descriptions of it in the past.<br /><br />So to just pass out of hand the South's desire to inflict violence on the Yankees is a bit disingenuous.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-10568484662568748722014-10-10T10:29:39.952-07:002014-10-10T10:29:39.952-07:00I have not seen a good review of that book yet so ...I have not seen a good review of that book yet so I am not going to waste my time. I am hoping someone can find something of substance before I read it. From what I have heard the books theory is not well cited nor sourced.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-87271040735982699952014-10-10T08:21:43.391-07:002014-10-10T08:21:43.391-07:00Mr. Lyons, what are your examples? Mr. Lyons, what are your examples? Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929283913357555388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-9801050009613748672014-10-09T19:32:36.848-07:002014-10-09T19:32:36.848-07:00I'm less concerned with the materials Simpson ...I'm less concerned with the materials Simpson and Levin have access to, and more concerned with what they do with it. Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-3905799616650666572014-10-09T19:29:23.200-07:002014-10-09T19:29:23.200-07:00The difference -- and it is a massive difference -...The difference -- and it is a massive difference -- is that the South had no desire to <i> invade</i> the north and lay it waste. The South wanted to <i>get away</i> from the north and the feds. <br /><br />Ten thousand battles, according to one book I have, from minor skirmishes to days long heavy combat, and only a handful not on Confederate soil. <br /><br />Of course Southerners wanted to kill yankees. They were invaders. They burned whole entire <i>towns</i> some of which had no military importance. They burned houses, barns, crops in the field. They killed livestock, pet dogs. They raped women, slave and free, and stole what wasn't read hot or nailed down. Did you know this?Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08696918266055510131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-36713979449252627802014-10-09T19:04:02.990-07:002014-10-09T19:04:02.990-07:00Could you explain that statement better?Could you explain that statement better?Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-87410179515924142982014-10-09T18:59:16.233-07:002014-10-09T18:59:16.233-07:00Mrs. Chastain,
The South was also willing to kil...Mrs. Chastain, <br /><br />The South was also willing to kill Yankees at the onset of the war. There are numerous letters and diary entries that describe the Southern desire to kill Yankees. One only needs to remember the old adage of how one Johnny Reb could kill ten Billy Yanks.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-13114725886534549442014-10-09T18:42:07.300-07:002014-10-09T18:42:07.300-07:00Mrs. Chastain,
We cannot paint all abolitionist w...Mrs. Chastain,<br /><br />We cannot paint all abolitionist with the brush of Julia Ward Howe and one must also remember the Howe was raised by a mother who hailed from South Carolina.<br /><br />I also see what she is describing is an elevation of the black man by the white man in the realm of freedom and not through the devastating enlightenment that Southerners claimed came through their continued bondage.<br /><br />One of the most reprehensible things that I have heard is the Confederate Heritage community claiming blacks should thank them for slavery because it brought them out of the "African Jungle" and into the light of Christianity and the South.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-17165616533941107132014-10-09T13:39:09.997-07:002014-10-09T13:39:09.997-07:00"Modern scholarship" is Simpson's &q...<i>"Modern scholarship" is Simpson's "Grant" books and Levin's "Crater" book and the new one that has everyone all a-twitter, Ed Baptist's "The Half Has Never Been Told".</i><br /><br /><b>"The Race-Baiter School of Civil War History"</b>BorderRuffianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07880353575450977712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-52825030855720234462014-10-09T13:31:50.268-07:002014-10-09T13:31:50.268-07:00Eddie,
Great discovery. However, this still doe...Eddie, <br /><br />Great discovery. However, this still does not explain way the facts that the southern secessionists still placed slavery at the forefront of their reasons for secession. It only proves that one group of people can fight for something different than the opposing force. IE: North for the Union, South for slavery's protection, survival and expansion.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4211529354680229185.post-45458146687007095432014-10-09T12:41:52.525-07:002014-10-09T12:41:52.525-07:00All history is filtered through something. Most o...All history is filtered through something. Most of what we understood about the Civil War in the Twentieth Century was filtered through the erroneous Lost Cause created by the South following the war in order to avoid the discussion of why they tried to establish and maintain a slaveocracy. At one point in history, ironically, the works of Mildred Lewis Rutherford was seen as modern scholarship. Today we fully recognize her work as biased, lacking in historical methodology and following the standard pattern of the Lost Cause Mythology. Simpson and Levin now have better access to materials that were only open to the highest of historical scholars in the past.Craig Lyonsnoreply@blogger.com