An unnecessary and unjust war

[Fairweather]

...instigated by a president now wrongly revered as one of America's greatest leaders:

 

 

 

 

Should generals Scott and Sherman (particularly), and Lincoln have been tried as war criminals - responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 uniformed troops and unknown numbers of Confederate civilians? How about conditions at the prison camp in Elmira, New York?

 

Liberal moralizing seems to be too often expressed in violent ways. Some things never change.

 

[Choada_Boy]

 

Lincoln was a Republican.

[kevbone]

I dont know, is wasnt alive then to get the feel of the community. Sorry.

[Fairweather]

 

Lincoln was a Republican.

 

Um, that whole "R" and "D" pedulum thing has swung back and forth a few times since 1861 my nowcentric co-sprayer.

[tvashtarkatena]

There are a lot of liberals who'd love to get rid of the South and a lot of conservatives who'd love to say goodbye to the North, that's for sure.

 

But seriously, and in the Christmas spirit, I'll take this as a non-troll historical exercise.

 

the Civil War differed from Iraq in several important ways:

 

It began as a Southern rebellion that violated the constitution. The Federal government had to choose between enforcing the law, or walking away from the constitution and letting the federation unravel.

 

Actual hostilities commenced because the North refused to relinquish federal military property located in the South to the South. Tensions had been rising because of this issue during the six months following succession. The South conveniently answered Lincoln's question of how to enforce the Union by attacking Fort Sumter.

 

Slavery, long unpopular in the North, provided Lincoln the political support he needed to prosecute the war. Preserving the Union was his primary objective, but slavery was the issue that spoke most directly to Northerners.

 

As for war crimes tribunals, there did occur against the officials who administered the Southern prison camp at Andersonville. As is all conflicts, it is only the loser that goes on trial, never the winner.

 

The differences between this internal American conflict and an invasion of an entirely separate country of non-Americans halfway around the globe on false pretenses should be obvious to even casual observers.

[Fairweather]

There are a lot of liberals who'd love to get rid of the South and a lot of conservatives who'd love to say goodbye to the North, that's for sure.

 

But seriously, and in the Christmas spirit, I'll take this as a non-troll historical exercise.

 

the Civil War differed from Iraq in several important ways:

 

It began as a Southern rebellion that violated the constitution. The Federal government had to choose between enforcing the law, or walking away from the constitution and letting the federation unravel.

 

Succession was not specifically prohibited. In fact, New York and, I believe, Vermont had considered it at earlier points. (Disgust with the war of 1812? - I can't remember) The Confederate constitution virtually mirrored the American version and contained even stronger guarentees re property and personal liberty. (Granted; slaves excepted)

 

Actual hostilities commenced because the North refused to relinquish federal military property located in the South to the South. Tensions had been rising because of this issue during the six months following succession. The South conveniently answered Lincoln's question of how to enforce the Union by attacking Fort Sumter.

 

The fact that Fort Sumter was deep in Confederate territory and that it was surrendered without loss of life (1 dead during a cannon malfunction) left Lincoln with no justification for war.

 

Slavery, long unpopular in the North, provided Lincoln the political support he needed to prosecute the war. Preserving the Union was his primary objective, but slavery was the issue that spoke most directly to Northerners.

Then why were four Union states allowed to continue on with slaves? (Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri) Also, breakaway West Virginia. Lincoln didn't issue his emancipation proclamation until Sept 22, 1862 after it was clear that the Union Army was getting its tail kicked back across the Potomac and northern newspapers were editorializing (rightly) for peace. Politics, not morality.

 

As for war crimes tribunals, there did occur against the officials who administered the Southern prison camp at Andersonville. As is all conflicts, it is only the loser that goes on trial, never the winner.

True, that.

 

The differences between this internal American conflict and an invasion of an entirely separate country of non-Americans halfway around the globe on false pretenses should be obvious to even casual observers.

I disagree. Raising an army with the sole purpose of imposing your will upon your neighbor through invasion is just as wreckless as invading a far off country under false pretense. More so, even.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2006 by Fairweather

[selkirk]

In the current era with the current technology everyone is our neigbour.

[ScottP]

..instigated by a president now wrongly revered as one of America's greatest leaders:

 

I seriously doubt the shrub will be revered as one of America's greatest leaders 140 years from now.

[tvashtarkatena]

Succession was not specifically prohibited. In fact, New York and, I believe, Vermont had considered it at earlier points. (Disgust with the war of 1812? - I can't remember) The Confederate constitution virtually mirrored the American version and contained even stronger guarentees re property and personal liberty. (Granted; slaves excepted)

 

Specific prohibition is not necessary to make succession unconstitutional. It is implicitly prohibited, because the constitution defines a single federal government. To reject that government is to violate the constitution.

 

The fact that Fort Sumter was deep in Confederate territory and that it was surrendered without loss of life (1 dead during a cannon malfunction) left Lincoln with no justification for war.

 

There were many Union bases and much Union equipment located deep in the South. It was a huge issue at the time, according to the memoirs of WT Sherman (who was running a military school in Louisiana during succession), anyway. Had there not been, the Civil War might never have happened.

 

And, as we all know, an attack on American soil requires a strong response. The South and North obviously differed in there definitions of 'American soil'.

 

Then why were four Union states allowed to continue on with slaves? (Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri) Also, breakaway West Virginia. Lincoln didn't issue his emancipation proclamation until Sept 22, 1862 after it was clear that the Union Army was getting its tail kicked back across the Potomac and northern newspapers were editorializing (rightly) for peace. Politics, not morality.

] We apparently agree on this point, except that I would say that politics and morality are often intertwined.

Raising an army with the sole purpose of imposing your will upon your neighbor through invasion is just as wreckless as invading a far off country under false pretense. More so, even.

 

 

Hey, the South started the shooting.

[crazy_t]

shrub's legacy is not one of a visionary. Rather, a backwards and opportunistic set of selfish blunders that has killed many, weakened our nation and diplomacy worldwide, and waylaid attention and energies from the pressing issues of our day. Unfortunately for him he was called on it, by a nation that is finally realizing that he and his crew are the ones we need to be afraid of. It's been a step backwards for the world. Unfortunately sometimes that is what is needed to build sufficient momentum to take the next step forward.

[Fairweather]

 

Hey, the South started the shooting.

 

A valid use of the preemption doctrine.

[fear_and_greed]

As one of dubya' staunchest supporters of this quagmire that now threatens to engulf an entire region, you have had ample time in which to enlist into your favourite branch of the military and request immediate deployment to Iraq.

If you're too old to be accepted then you should also feel just as committed to sending your children and or granchildren over to fight your "just" war.

 

[Fairweather]

Do you know how old, tired, and just plain ridiculous that argument is? Suggesting that someone who isn't serving should remain silent is just as stupid as suggesting a Canadian has no right to an expressed opinion about an American-led action. You, of course, are free to leave your cushy state-supported life in Canada and join the NGO of your choice. Putting one's beliefs into action! Isn't that what you stand for? You could even put your skills to use in Darfur - if you have any.

[ivan]

re: constitutionality of secession - what bullshit! of course states should be able to secede - secession is not specifically denied, nor the feds specifically empowered to prevent secession, so according to the 10th amendment the right to secede remains w/ the states and the people.

 

a more comprehensible metaphor: consider marriage, a union between two folks (gay or otherwise )- do we think divorce should be illegal? should a man be able to beat the crap out of his wife if she tries to dissolve the relationship when that relationship has evolved to the point that it no longer is in her interests? how is the marriage of states any different? similiar mechanisms should have been used in 1861 to what would happen in a divorce court today i.e. a spelling out of continuing obligations (child support) and agreement of divying up marital assets.

 

i must admit though that without that unjust war and it's historical outcome the 20th century would have turned out far different, and likely much worse - i recommend harry turtledove's series of "what-if" books that explore an alternative historical timeline where the south had won independence, then sided w/ the central powers in world war 1.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

re: constitutionality of secession - what bullshit! of course states should be able to secede -

\

 

Indeed! And I will go one step further and suggest that this is a fundamental human right - the right of self-determination. Just look at all the artificial, imperialist-era borders that have caused wars, ethnic cleanshing and endless conflict in the last 100 years. The artificial borders in Iraq are a case-in-point. Wilson had some good ideas - too bad the Allied victors were so short-sighted.

[tvashtarkatena]

re: constitutionality of secession - what bullshit! of course states should be able to secede - secession is not specifically denied, nor the feds specifically empowered to prevent secession, so according to the 10th amendment the right to secede remains w/ the states and the people.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, 'Bullshit!' and 'should be able to' appear nowhere in the Constitution.

 

What does appear is the following:

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt.

 

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

 

Secession would constitute a law that would certainly abridge the privileges of the citizens of the United States (living in the succeeding states) by removing their United States citizenship entirely.

 

And, BTW, your marriage analogy is ludricrous.

 

Next...

Edited December 11, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

re: constitutionality of secession - what bullshit! of course states should be able to secede - secession is not specifically denied, nor the feds specifically empowered to prevent secession, so according to the 10th amendment the right to secede remains w/ the states and the people.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, 'Bullshit!' and 'should be able to' appear nowhere in the Constitution.

 

What does appear is the following:

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt.

 

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

 

Succession would constitute a law that would certainly abridge the privileges of the citizens of the United States (living in the succeeding states) by removing their United States citizenship entirely.

 

And, BTW, your marriage analogy is ludricrous.

 

Next...

 

the fourteenth amendment was ratified in 1868, Trashie. you can not use it argue the illegality of the secession of the south.

 

 

[ivan]

please explain why the marriage analogy is ludricious too - debates work better when they go beyond merely insulting the argument

 

13 states decided to get married in the late 19th century - a little more than a half century later many of those states realized they had developed irreconciable differences with the others and wished to terminate their civil union only to be confronted by a rather homely man, albeit a good soul (and certainly it hurts to argue on behalf of mother-fuckers, but that's my heritage), who cast himself much as the pope of the reformation, hell-bent on dealing death to those who would divorce (jeff davis as henry 8.0 makes me chuckle too - i forget which pope lincoln gets to be)

[Dechristo]

KK's catch on the 1868 ratification of the fourteenth amendment was good.

 

 

But, i have my doubts as to "irreconcialable differences" having been an acceptable argument for divorce in the cultural and legal environment in 1860. Then, divorce rates appear to have been a lot rarer than today.

 

[ivan]

Then, divorce rates appear to have been a lot rarer than today.

 

perhaps b/c chix then knew they'd likely get their teeth kicked in if they tried to split

 

as mentioned though, in the english speaking world divorce as a matter of politics had been established as early as henry the fat-guy, quite a few centuries earlier

[tvashtarkatena]

the fourteenth amendment was ratified in 1868, Trashie. you can not use it argue the illegality of the secession of the south.

 

 

I take it from your statement that you would agree with me that succession became explicitly unconstitutional after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

 

Now for the counter punch. Secession was not only implicitly unconstitutional (throwing the entire constitution out the window and replacing with another one seems to me to fit that definition pretty completely), but also explicitly prohibited from the very beginning:

 

Article. IV.

 

Section. 3.

 

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Edited December 11, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

please explain why the marriage analogy is ludricious too

 

OK, here goes.

 

Marriage is a civil contract between two people, and, as such, is governed by state law, as long as that law does not violate the Bill of Rights, particularly the Equal Protection clause, of the US Constitution.

 

Statehood is explicitly defined by the Articles of the US Constitution, particularly Article IV (see my previous post). Significant changes in Statehood, unlike a divorce, require ratification by Congress. Furthermore, the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly outlaw divorce as it does significant changes in Statehood.

Edited December 11, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

you seem to precede with the idea that the many states were born out of the federal government when it was exactly the opposite - the original 13 states decided to throw their lot in with each other and form an entity called the united states - they did this despite the monstrous misgivings of many whom had made the revolution possible (like patrick henry), who held the most extreme version of a view that was widely held to a lesser extent, that each state was entirely soveriegn and independent of the others (essentially each state was it's own country) and that that soveriegnity would be too abused by a strong union (the result being that our first written goverment, the articles of confederation, were so poor the whole thing was redone - a fate that the current constitution does in fact still allow, since in theory we could always make an amendment completly negating everything else before it and instituting a monarchy)

 

the 13 sovereign states agreed to a union between them anyway, but nowhere on the "dotted line" did it say they were giving away their independence, a premise so specutacular that to take it away you need somehting more than just implication - the preamble sums up why the states were agreeing to a common government - military protection and economic well-being probably the two must important, both of which were being threatened, southern states felt, by the republican adminstration (which also violated the article 4, sect 3 excerpt from above by allowing for the creation of west virginia out of soveriegn virginian territory)

 

secession is legal - i feel no need to fight a civil war all over again to secure the right though - i had plenty of relatives killed on both sides last time

[Jim]

secession is legal -

 

While that may be your opinion that is certainly not how it was interpreted by Congress or the President, and seems a fair reading of the constitution, and supported by later historians. I suggest Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power by Richard Carwardine, which I'm reading now, for a start and a very good history of the situation.

 

As for relating anything Bush has to do with Lincoln, well, that's absurd. Lincoln was by far one of the brightest men we've had as president, extremely well read and eloquent, and a shrewd politician.

 

Bush is nothing short of a dolt.

[tvashtarkatena]

you seem to precede with the idea that the many states were born out of the federal government when it was exactly the opposite - the original 13 states decided to throw their lot in with each other and form an entity called the united states

 

the 13 sovereign states agreed to a union between them anyway, but nowhere on the "dotted line" did it say they were giving away their independence.

 

Secession is legal - i feel no need to fight a civil war all over again to secure the right though - i had plenty of relatives killed on both sides last time

 

My previous post quotes just some, but certainly not all, of the very explicit language in the original Constitution that documents that the original 13 states did, in fact, agree to give away some of their independence, including the right to form new states (including, of course, nation-states) without Congressional approval. States' rights, which certainly do not include national sovereignty, are also explicitly defined. The language is plain and clear.

 

The 14th Amendment provides further explicit language that makes secession unconstitutional. You may have your personal opinion on the matter, but it is not supported by any body of law in this country.

 

The historical events leading up the the formation of the Constitution are interesting, but they are not law. By way of example, there was much dissent about the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, yet its proponents prevail, it became law, and it, not the viewpoints of the dissenters, is what guides us, legally and philosophically, today.

 

As for your example of West Virginia statehood violating the 4th Article:

 

After decisive Union victory in Virginia, a new state government was 're-instated' and recognized by the Union (the only Constitutionally legitimate national government). This new reinstated state government, and Congress, approved statehood for West Virginia. Statehood for West Virginia, therefore, followed the prescription outlined in the US Constitution.

Edited December 11, 2006 by tvashtarkatena