Happy Robert E Lee Day

[shunyadragon]

The Confederacy wasn't interested in invading or occupying the Northern states but rather were intent on defending their sovereignty.

Still, it cannot be denied that the South fired the first shots (Fort Sumter) thus initiating hostilities. However, there was a whole lot of provoking that went on before that.

Robert Anderson, the commander of the Union forces in Charleston, was specifically selected by General Winfield Scott because he was believed to be sympathetic to the South^[1] and would avoid any actions provocative to South Carolina. But Scott was wrong about Anderson.

After the South Carolina seceded (the first state to do so), Anderson, without orders, moved his garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston Harbor and then had the cannons (which had until then been aimed seaward and hence defending the city) moved so that they were trained upon the city instead. This act was obviously considered highly proactive and defiant by both sides at the time as other garrisons had simply moved out.

James Buchanan, who was still president at the time that Anderson took matters into his own hands, was said to have been pretty upset with him.

1. Anderson himself was a slaveholder from Kentucky although he had sold his slaves shortly before the outbreak of hostilities.

All I see here is a general do his best to defend a Federal Fort under imminent attack. South Carolina trying enforce their treasonist secession.

[simplicio]

All I see here is a general do his best to defend a Federal Fort under imminent attack. South Carolina trying enforce their treasonist secession.

One point which needs clarified here, which I think is being ignored:


Why do you use the provocative word treasonist for the actions of the Confederates at Sumter?

[rogue06]

All I see here is a general do his best to defend a Federal Fort under imminent attack. South Carolina trying enforce their treasonist secession.

He took it upon himself to occupy an abandoned fort and then moved the cannons so that they were trained on the city. His actions pretty much pissed off everybody on both sides.

Anderson was in no way shape or form some kind of hero doing his duty.

Still, Confederate forces screwed up royally when they fired the first shot.

[simplicio]

He took it upon himself to occupy an abandoned fort and then moved the cannons so that they were trained on the city. His actions pretty much pissed off everybody on both sides.

Anderson was in no way shape or form some kind of hero doing his duty.

Still, Confederate forces screwed up royally when they fired the first shot.

Not a hero? Perhaps acquiescing to the evil of slavery would have been his duty!

I wonder which of these apply here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-Christianity

[Bill the Cat]

I don't need to, neither I nor you are a constitutional scholar, but those on the Supreme Court certainly are and the Supreme Court ruled that "in all its provisions, the constitution informs us that the U.S. is an indisoluable, indestructable Union composed of indestructable states. A Perpetual Union as agreed to and signed on to, by the States in the Articles of the Confederation.

Sorry, Jim, but a SCOTUS decision is not retroactive. So, until the SCOTUS decides on something, it is not unconstitutional, and when they decide, it is only unconstitutional from that moment on.

[JimL]

Sorry, Jim, but a SCOTUS decision is not retroactive. So, until the SCOTUS decides on something, it is not unconstitutional, and when they decide, it is only unconstitutional from that moment on.

Wrong. If the 1869 ruling was correct concerning the 1861 secession of Texas, then it would be ridiculous to argue that secession was legal a year prior to the ruling. It was illegal in the case of S Carolina, just as it was ruled to be illegal for Texas. The Supreme Court ruling didn't create a law to make secession illegal, the Supreme Court merely confirmed its illegality in accordance with the Constitution. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, it was always illegal.

[Bill the Cat]

Wrong. If the 1869 ruling was correct concerning the 1861 secession of Texas, then it would be ridiculous to argue that secession was legal a year prior to the ruling. It was illegal in the case of S Carolina, just as it was ruled to be illegal for Texas. The Supreme Court ruling didn't create a law to make secession illegal, the Supreme Court merely confirmed its illegality in accordance with the Constitution. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, it was always illegal.

The SCOTUS does not rule on LEGALITY. They rule on Constitutionality. There is a difference. And no, they do not determine that it was always unconstitutional. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. They rule that it is unconstitutional from that point forward.

[JimL]

The SCOTUS does not rule on LEGALITY. They rule on Constitutionality. There is a difference. And no, they do not determine that it was always unconstitutional. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. They rule that it is unconstitutional from that point forward.

If the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional, then they rule on legality.

[Bill the Cat]

If the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional, then they rule on legality.

No they don't. When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. Laws declare legality. Courts declare constitutionality.

Illegal means it is against the law and there are civil or criminal penalties associated with it. However there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit the sale/consumption of alcohol by minors (just an easy example). In fact until 1919 only a few states had any drinking age limit. This is a law but neither barring it nor allowing it violates the constitution.

There are things that are unconstitutional that are not illegal. For instance there is no penalty for members of congress or a president for passing/signing a law that blatantly infringes a constitutionally protected right. There are not penalties associated with violating the constitution.

[JimL]

No they don't. When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. Laws declare legality. Courts declare constitutionality.

Right, the SCOTUS rules on the legality of the law.

Illegal means it is against the law and there are civil or criminal penalties associated with it. However there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit the sale/consumption of alcohol by minors (just an easy example). In fact until 1919 only a few states had any drinking age limit. This is a law but neither barring it nor allowing it violates the constitution.

Right, because it is not in the Constitution. Secession is, which is what the 1869 ruling determined.

There are things that are unconstitutional that are not illegal. For instance there is no penalty for members of congress or a president for passing/signing a law that blatantly infringes a constitutionally protected right. There are not penalties associated with violating the constitution.

The 1869 ruling is that secession is illegal according to the Constitution itself.

[Bill the Cat]

Right, the SCOTUS rules on the legality of the law.

That's not what legality means.

Right, because it is not in the Constitution. Secession is, which is what the 1869 ruling determined.

It's NOT in there. That's why the SCOTUS had to rule on it as a concept.

The 1869 ruling is that secession is illegal according to the Constitution itself.

No. It ruled it was not Constitutional.

[Sparko]

I don't need to, neither I nor you are a constitutional scholar, but those on the Supreme Court certainly are and the Supreme Court ruled that "in all its provisions, the constitution informs us that the U.S. is an indisoluable, indestructable Union composed of indestructable states. A Perpetual Union as agreed to and signed on to, by the States in the Articles of the Confederation.

That is what is called an "Opinion" - A different SCOTUS could change that at any time. Or they could have come up with a different interpretation. Then it would have been legal. But it wasn't illegal or unconstitutional before the ruling. It was like Schrodinger's cat, neither constitutional or unconstitutional. It was undecided.

[shunyadragon]

One point which needs clarified here, which I think is being ignored:


Why do you use the provocative word treasonist for the actions of the Confederates at Sumter?

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=treason+definition&oq=Treason&aqs=chrome.1.0l8.4338j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

© Copyright Original Source

[simplicio]

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=treason+definition&oq=Treason&aqs=chrome.1.0l8.4338j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

© Copyright Original Source

Sounds like the rebellion certainly meets that definition.

After the war, legislators faced the question of how to incorporate freed slaves into civic life. Another question was how to treat those who took up arms against the Union. A law was passed to prevent officers and CSA government officials from holding office, later rescinded.

Many questioned how to reincorporate citizens, reconstruct the south, restore the nation, while maintaining a sense of justice to redress what was seen as treasonous acts.

[rogue06]

Not a hero? Perhaps acquiescing to the evil of slavery would have been his duty!

I wonder which of these apply here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-Christianity

He provoked a conflict that led to 620,000 deaths (although recent research indicates the actual number was 750,000). And while you've been displaying either an inability or unwillingness to comprehend this, one does not need to provoke the bloodiest war in our history in order to show opposition to slavery. There are/were other alternatives.