Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition to your supercilious and condecending demenor, are you just a glutton for punishment, RL?
You keep it up with this "treason" charge...but avoid addressing the fact that even the most vindictive of northern radicals acknowleged that the charge would not stand up in court. In fact, would have made fools of them.
First of all, to address your "Section 3" definition of treason?
It can only apply if those commiting the act were still within the said United States (i.e. northern states which kept the name by default). As it was, the Southern states seperated themselves, thru proper legislative means, from a political connection with the northern states, and formed their own country. Later, defended themselves from invasion.
After it was over, many would have loved nothing more than to "hang" some of the prominent Southern leaders. BUT...welll:
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase told Edwin Stanton that "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."
Also, a key player, Judge Franz Lieber said "After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents, seeking evidence against Davis, the court discouraged the War Department: 'Davis will be found not guilty,' Lieber reported 'and we shall stand there completely beaten'."
Purty damn clear, huh?
Oh yeah, by the way? Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,
"Them? Does that in itself not solidify that the soveriegn states were just that?
An opinion is not a trial and the South was never a separate country.
Why, because I post facts and not crap that some of you post! I don't need to follow those who distort the historical facts?
I have seen posts wishing people dead, hung, and shot yet we on this post were only asked about a Confederate flag and Good Lord all of this!
I do find it interesting though that after 100 plus years we are honoring this flag and the heritage associated with it!!!
GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU, KEEP IT FLYING!!!
You are honoring a group of people who staged a direct attack on the United States of America by firing on Her troops at Fort Sumter.
I would say that action put the South in 1861 on par with Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden. Whether you choose to call it treason or terrorism is a matter of splitting hairs. Either way, the results are the same.
If that's the heritage you wish to honor, fly away. We won't even talk about slaves and the other connotations the CBF has picked up since the Klan and the Nazis co-opted it.
An opinion is not a trial and the South was never a separate country.
The opinion was that of men who lived in the times, were very familiar with the situation, had no love for the South, and still recognized the folly of a trial for such a charge as treason.
As to whether or not the South was a seperate country is simply a matter of historical perspective and opinion. The policy of the Lincoln administration is that it never was when it suited their purposes to justify an invasion, but that same policy was inconsistent in other regards. Not that that is the only perspective that matters -- not by a long shot -- but just noting.
You are honoring a group of people who staged a direct attack on the United States of America by firing on Her troops at Fort Sumter.
No, they Confederacy finally fired upon armed troops of a foriegn nation whose presence in their territorial waters signified hostile intentions. Every honorable opportunity had been offered by the South to allow for a peaceful settlement.
The use of the term "United States" is loaded and emotional. In seceding, the Southern states never wished to seperate themselves from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Only from a political connection with the northern states who kept the name only by default (in fact, upon the formation of the Confederacy, many leaders of the new nation wanted to call it the "United States").
Quote:
I would say that action put the South in 1861 on par with Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden. Whether you choose to call it treason or terrorism is a matter of splitting hairs. Either way, the results are the same.
Neither term fits in the least. This is silly.
Quote:
If that's the heritage you wish to honor, fly away. We won't even talk about slaves and the other connotations the CBF has picked up since the Klan and the Nazis co-opted it.
The cone and skin heads also use the American Flag and Christian Cross. Are they thus tainted? I can't help what others do. I can however, fight such a travesty by refusing to let it become their sole property.
The opinion was that of men who lived in the times, were very familiar with the situation, had no love for the South, and still recognized the folly of a trial for such a charge as treason.
Others who lived at the time believed it was a winnable case. Davis was indicted. The reason he was not tried had a lot to do with the Northern approach of leniency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
As to whether or not the South was a seperate country is simply a matter of historical perspective and opinion. The policy of the Lincoln administration is that it never was when it suited their purposes to justify an invasion, but that same policy was inconsistent in other regards. Not that that is the only perspective that matters -- not by a long shot -- but just noting.
In the forum in which the South sought to decide the issue -- force of arms rather than court of law -- it was decided that a state cannot secede. Therefore no Southern state seceded.
No, they Confederacy finally fired upon armed troops of a foriegn nation whose presence in their territorial waters signified hostile intentions.
Now what kind of historical lunacy is that!?!
Quote:
Every honorable opportunity had been offered by the South to allow for a peaceful settlement.
What to submit to treasonous extortion?
Quote:
The use of the term "United States" is loaded and emotional. In seceding, the Southern states never wished to seperate themselves from the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
What. like all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights? Those ideals?
Others who lived at the time believed it was a winnable case. Davis was indicted. The reason he was not tried had a lot to do with the Northern approach of leniency.
An indictment means nothing at all in terms of ultimate guilt or innocence. Even today. And Northern "leniency" was not remotely a factor. Those same parties who saw the folly of a "treason" charge were the same who would have loved nothing better than to hang the high-ranking Confederate leaders. It was recognition of reality. Secession was not treason. One can call secession foolhardy, unwise, rash action, etc., (as such Southern men as Robert E. Lee and Sam Houston did), but it was not treason.
Quote:
In the forum in which the South sought to decide the issue -- force of arms rather than court of law -- it was decided that a state cannot secede. Therefore no Southern state seceded.
As Jefferson Davis said: A question decided by force will remain forever unsettled.
You are simply arguing from result. And that might makes right.
We have been all over the "court of law" thing before. There was no case to be brought before any court of law. Who would have been the parties and upon what grounds would the case have been brought about? The SCOTUS does not accept moot cases. And in any event, nothing in the Constitution authorized the use of force to prevent a soverign state from resuming its original soveriegn powers.
And even if it HAD been brought before the court? And the court had ruled in favor of South Carolina (as it was the first state to secede)? What evidence is there that the Lincoln administration would have honored the decision? The answer is historical speculation of course, but the historical evidence points to that he would have simply ignored it and invaded the South anyway. After all, he ignored the ruling against his despotic actions (suspension of habeus corpus, etc) just prior to the outbreak of war (the Merryman decision).
These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
Lincoln, citing Andrew Jackson before him, simply disregarded the ruling. Relying upon an 1880's manuscript from Lincoln's close friend Ward Hill Lamon, some scholars have contended that the President authorized then quickly aborted an arrest warrant against Taney in retaliation for the Merryman ruling. The manuscript and evidence are a relatively new discovery in the historical literature and the story's authenticity is hotly contested and controversial (see the Taney Arrest Warrant controversy).
One which apparently you are incapable of comprehending. Which is that it is all a matter of historical perspective. And of course that the winners write the history. I venture to say you know little of the conflict save what you have read in the said history books. Have you ever read the other side of the question?
Your position makes sense if and only if you believe that secession was illegal. If so, then state the reasons why.
Quote:
What to submit to treasonous extortion?
The treason issue has been addressed and thoroughly refuted. And how does "extortion" apply? The South wanted nothing more than to be left alone. They offered to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the Sumter crisis. And on a larger scale, going so far as to offer up the (sensible) agreement between the two countries of a mutually beneficial defense and economic alliance. And open up the Mississippi River for free trade and navigation.
Quote:
What. like all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights? Those ideals?
Sure. Show me where the North recognized the same according to the standards of our day and age? Before you condemn the South, point to where the North acted so saintly in this regard.
No I think we need to keep reminding people about our past. I remember "white" and "colored" rest rooms. I remember when it took Federal troops to ensure blacks could go to public schools. And I know there are plenty of hard core racists still out there. Until they are all dead, we need to stay vigilant. All I have to see is some cracker with a Confederate battle flag on his bumper to know that there is still work to be done.
There you go, using cracker to define "WHITEY",nice! Now did I use any slurs on this thread? I think you have alot of problems to fix in D.C. before you go around worrying about a Confederate flag!
Oh, when I see some an Obama on someones bumper, I say, NO MORE WORK TO BE DONE!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alot more work needs to be done cleaning up d.c.
