How would you have treated confederate leaders?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:47:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  How would you have treated confederate leaders?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: How would you have treated confederate leaders?  (Read 29720 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2005, 06:33:58 PM »

"Needful" is a very relative concept. Needful for what? I think it is implied that Congress can make rules and regulations that it deems "needful" for whatever purpose.

Congress and the courts determine "needful."  The Secessionists never understood that.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2005, 06:38:47 PM »

I disagree on the courts. I think that clause is just giving Congress the authority to make general rules and regulations that they deem needful for whatever purpose.

There is no objective way to determine what a "needful" rule is.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2005, 06:43:03 PM »

I disagree on the courts. I think that clause is just giving Congress the authority to make general rules and regulations that they deem needful for whatever purpose.

There is no objective way to determine what a "needful" rule is.

I never said it was objective.  The courts could interpret the Constitution to see if something was "needful."  The decision most likely to be to defer to the legislative branch, however.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2005, 06:45:50 PM »

If the courts tried something that stupid, I'm sure the Congress would just pass a law revoking their jurisdiction over the matter.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2005, 06:51:14 PM »

If the courts tried something that stupid, I'm sure the Congress would just pass a law revoking their jurisdiction over the matter.

That's part of the checks and ballances.  Also, the SCOTUS couldn't rule that something was "needful" that had not been adopted and Congress had to adopt it.  It can invalidate a statute, but it cannot create statute.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2005, 07:07:40 PM »

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?


No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

I would have encouraged the rapid industrialization of the South. Not only would that have alleviated the massive poverty resulting from the immediate release of the slaves (by 1860 the capital of southern plantations lay in the slaves themselves, and not the land or the crop), it would have weakend the social structures that made whites think of blacks as only bonded field labor in the first place.

As for the Confederate leaders, most (but not all, e.g. Nathan B Forrest) were reasonable and should have been given their citizenship after taking the loyalty oath and a probationary period. Even Jeff Davis's ex-slaves had no problem with a monument being built in his honour after his death in 1889.


Ok, so someone saying they want to do something is cause for secession.

Wow.  Just . . . wow.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2005, 07:33:17 PM »

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?


No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

I would have encouraged the rapid industrialization of the South. Not only would that have alleviated the massive poverty resulting from the immediate release of the slaves (by 1860 the capital of southern plantations lay in the slaves themselves, and not the land or the crop), it would have weakend the social structures that made whites think of blacks as only bonded field labor in the first place.

As for the Confederate leaders, most (but not all, e.g. Nathan B Forrest) were reasonable and should have been given their citizenship after taking the loyalty oath and a probationary period. Even Jeff Davis's ex-slaves had no problem with a monument being built in his honour after his death in 1889.


Ok, so someone saying they want to do something is cause for secession.

Wow.  Just . . . wow.

Using this logic jFRAUD is free to lead his civil war.  He doesn't like the president at the time either.  There was no overt or covert act on the part of the Federal government to free any slave, prevent the return of any escaped slave, or prohibit the buying of new slaves in any state.

Davis, ironically, was noted for caring for his slaves, to the extent of building a hospital for them.  His closest friend and the administrator of his plantation was one of his former slaves.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2005, 08:49:00 PM »

More or less the same as they were in real life.
The two main things I would have tried to do different are:
-The US government attempted to collect back taxes for 1861-4. That was dumb and vindictive (although of course totally legal and "logical"), not to mention highly damaging to the Southern economy, which needed money pumped in, not out. Now that's an amnesty the South should have goten but didn't.
-The Freedmen should have been compensated (as was demanded by the most Radical Republicans, as well as the Freedmen themselves.) "40 Acres and a Mule" was the cry of the time, and I endorse it, also it needs some modifications (such as for the differing fertility of the country. Also, in the inland cotton country, cooperatives would likely have worked better than small individual holdings) I have no problem endorsing seizing of large plantations for the purpose.
With that program in place, the Blacks' defranchising after 1876 simply couldn't have happened, and the South's history since might have been much happier.


The infamous "40 acres and a mule" was never a promise made by the government. It was actually a newspaper article written on what to do w/the slaves after they were freed.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2005, 12:21:10 AM »

More or less the same as they were in real life.
The two main things I would have tried to do different are:
-The US government attempted to collect back taxes for 1861-4. That was dumb and vindictive (although of course totally legal and "logical"), not to mention highly damaging to the Southern economy, which needed money pumped in, not out. Now that's an amnesty the South should have goten but didn't.
-The Freedmen should have been compensated (as was demanded by the most Radical Republicans, as well as the Freedmen themselves.) "40 Acres and a Mule" was the cry of the time, and I endorse it, also it needs some modifications (such as for the differing fertility of the country. Also, in the inland cotton country, cooperatives would likely have worked better than small individual holdings) I have no problem endorsing seizing of large plantations for the purpose.
With that program in place, the Blacks' defranchising after 1876 simply couldn't have happened, and the South's history since might have been much happier.


The infamous "40 acres and a mule" was never a promise made by the government. It was actually a newspaper article written on what to do w/the slaves after they were freed.

Ah, it was suggested by Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) in committee, but never got out.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2005, 08:02:01 AM »

More or less the same as they were in real life.
The two main things I would have tried to do different are:
-The US government attempted to collect back taxes for 1861-4. That was dumb and vindictive (although of course totally legal and "logical"), not to mention highly damaging to the Southern economy, which needed money pumped in, not out. Now that's an amnesty the South should have goten but didn't.
-The Freedmen should have been compensated (as was demanded by the most Radical Republicans, as well as the Freedmen themselves.) "40 Acres and a Mule" was the cry of the time, and I endorse it, also it needs some modifications (such as for the differing fertility of the country. Also, in the inland cotton country, cooperatives would likely have worked better than small individual holdings) I have no problem endorsing seizing of large plantations for the purpose.
With that program in place, the Blacks' defranchising after 1876 simply couldn't have happened, and the South's history since might have been much happier.


The infamous "40 acres and a mule" was never a promise made by the government.
Yeah, I said that.
It's just sad that it wasn't.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2005, 07:43:11 AM »

Thanks to FindLaw

The Constitution is silent as to the methods of disposing of property of the United States. In United States v. Gratiot, in which the validity of a lease of lead mines on government lands was put in issue, the contention was advanced that ''disposal is not letting or leasing,'' and that Congress has no power ''to give or authorize leases.'' The Court sustained the leases, saying ''the disposal must be left to the discretion of Congress."

...

In the territories, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state legislature might act. It may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof, which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress.

Pertinent Footnotes can be seen by viewing the text directly

The Constitution gave to Congress the power to determine whether slavery could be practiced in the Territories. Obviously, the 13th now supercedes all of this.

To all those who think that the States were somehow able to secede legally, ponder the following:

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land as per Article VI. Article VI actually says that State Laws and Constitutions cannot contradict the Federal Constitution. A State Law that says the Federal Constituiton in a State is void is quite clearly in contradiction with the Federal Constitution since it attempts to dismantle it and to give it no effective force, which is exactly what the Supremacy clause said could not happen.

Before the words "tenth amendment" pass your fingers, ponder this: The Tenth Amendment changed nothing from the Original Constitution, it simply stated a principle that every Framer considered implicit in the original document.

''The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.'' - United States v. Sprague (1931)

The tenth amendment therefore could in no way have modified the Supremacy Clause and therefore my argument from the Supremacy Clause remains. Therefore the attempt by States to leave the Union was unconstitutional and an attempt at rebellion, and arguably treason since they established themselves as enemies of the United States. The United States was well within powers to put down this rebellion, and did so.

I don't know what I would have done with the secessionists considering that I'm not too aware of the politics surrounding it, though given my intrasigent nature to people I think have commited treason, I probably would have been harsh.
Logged
dbpman
Rookie
**
Posts: 24


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2005, 08:15:26 PM »
« Edited: January 30, 2005, 08:19:16 PM by dbpman »

you are also forgetting the 9th amendment that says that the rights listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in no means complete. 

The right of Secession has been and always will be the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government that does not work for them. 

To think that the states would willingly sign the Constitution and give up their right of secession... the right they just fought and died for...is very nieve.

This was a big bone that needed to be picked because of the Articles of Confederation that created a perpetual union.  The Constitutional Convention brought up that same issue during the writing of the Constitution.  The motion to create a line about a perpetual union in the Constitution was shot down.

In 1814, many Northern Federalist tried to secede from the union.  Many people including Madision was displeased about their notion but no one ever questioned their right to secede if they choose to

Even Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America discribed the union  of states as a voluntary agreement of States and that anyone wishes to leave the union is free to do so.

West pointers are taught in school the right of secession.  This is a government regulated school teaching future officers that its the right of the people to secede.

I dont understand how anyone can sit here and believe that our founding fathers would give up the right to alter or abolish our own government if in the future it no longer works...It goes against everything they sacrificed against the British  and contradicts everything they have written

Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2005, 09:16:45 PM »

The right of Secession has been and always will be the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government that does not work for them.

The "Right" to secede from the Union would belong to the States not to the people since it is the States that are members of the Union not individuals. This is of course presumes that it exists, which it doesn't. Also consider that the Ninth Amendment in no way affected the original construction of the Constituion, so my interpretation of the Supremacy Clause continues to stand.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think its naive - they were interested in forming an ever closer Union. I don't think they would have built a system that would allow for States to leave just because they don't like the results of an election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We cannot base our interpretation on what was not in the Constitution, only what is in it, which includes the Supremacy Clause.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Madison later changed his mind. The fact that nobody complained in 1814 has no bearing on the constituitonality of secession.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

De Tocqueville was not in a position to make a binding interpretation of the Constitution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, it would be the "right" of States, not people.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everybody retains a right to revolution and rebellion, this is true. Fortunately the Constitution authorises the Federal Government to put down such rebellions. And didn't they just.
Logged
dbpman
Rookie
**
Posts: 24


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2005, 11:04:12 PM »

The "Right" to secede from the Union would belong to the States not to the people since it is the States that are members of the Union not individuals. This is of course presumes that it exists, which it doesn't. Also consider that the Ninth Amendment in no way affected the original construction of the Constituion, so my interpretation of the Supremacy Clause continues to stand.
right.. but its the people who created the state governments so its the people speaking through their elected officials that declare their rights to secession... as they did in 1860 in SC... special voting for secession

Well as you said when the original constitution was written the Supremacy clause might trump any right of secession.  So as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." 

So to make sure that there was no misconception the 9th and 10th amendments were bookends of what the federal government could and could not regulate on.

since like I said before the 9th states that the federal government can not assume power that is not explicitly written and since secession is not explictly written, it is left to the states or to the people as article 10 states.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

and no one expected the federal government to have a federal army big enough to stop the state from leaving either.. that was the biggest misconception of both Hamilton and Madison.

The supremacy clause can be used as an argument against secession only if the Constitution requires a state to remain part of the union. The federal government can not assume powers it was not given.  So if the Constitution doesnt state explicitly that the states must be in a perpetual union it can not apply otherwise.  Nor does it apply to a state that has left the Union. Obviously.

Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2007, 07:34:09 AM »

I would have shipped the white southerners to South Africa and the black ones to liberia.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 20, 2007, 03:28:27 PM »

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.
Logged
CPT MikeyMike
mikeymike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,513
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.58, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2007, 06:04:33 PM »

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.
Didn't Lincoln actually concidered General Lee to oversee Reconstruction?

Both of those would have been the best way to go about this. I actually wonder what would have happened with Reconstruction if Lincoln lived. It would have been a far different situation regarding so many aspects of our lives from 1865 and even up to today.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2007, 08:04:01 PM »

I would have let the Confederate leaders go without punishment, since they didn't really do anything wrong.

I also would not have had the South go through the terrible Reconstruction.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2007, 08:24:42 PM »

Had the senior government leadership shot, hand out prison terms to some of the officers, and require the rest to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union (or leave).
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2007, 05:37:40 PM »

Had the senior government leadership shot, hand out prison terms to some of the officers, and require the rest to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union (or leave).

Congrats, you just started a guerrilla war!
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2007, 06:16:48 PM »

Had the senior government leadership shot, hand out prison terms to some of the officers, and require the rest to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union (or leave).

Congrats, you just started a guerrilla war!
Guerillas only work in an environment where friendly outside powers/neighobrs back them up. The british and French would be more than happy to back up the union in the purge of the white confederates.
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2007, 12:48:24 AM »

Had the senior government leadership shot, hand out prison terms to some of the officers, and require the rest to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union (or leave).

Congrats, you just started a guerrilla war!
Guerillas only work in an environment where friendly outside powers/neighobrs back them up. The british and French would be more than happy to back up the union in the purge of the white confederates.

Actually the French were making plans to help the CSA, but the French Army was coming up thru Mexico, and was defeated in an unrelated war.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2007, 03:35:54 PM »

A full pardon.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2007, 06:21:08 PM »

Had the senior government leadership shot, hand out prison terms to some of the officers, and require the rest to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union (or leave).

Congrats, you just started a guerrilla war!

There almost already was in parts of the South post-war...
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2007, 06:26:29 PM »

complete pardon.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 13 queries.