"Pro slavery forces cause worst civilian atrocity of the war"

[subdjoe]

Good points joe. I know Town Line was an isolated incident, but I was just showing where it could and did happen.
Yeah, the West Virginia thing is a mess, too. I'll bet the citizens of Virginia were never given the chance to vote on those counties leaving their state, especially the eastern part of the state.  Just another example of one of the ways ole Abe violated the Constitution.

SBG

Here is the Wikipedia thumbnail on it all:

Social conditions in western Virginia were entirely unlike those in the eastern portion of the state. The population was not homogeneous, as a considerable part of the immigration came by way of Pennsylvania and included Germans, Protestant Ulster-Scots, and settlers from the states farther north. Counties in the east and south were settled mostly by east Virginians. During the American Revolution, the movement to create a state beyond the Alleghenies was revived and a petition for the establishment of "Westsylvania" was presented to Congress, on the grounds that the mountains made an almost impassable barrier on the east. The rugged nature of the country made slavery unprofitable, and time only increased the social, political, economic and cultural differences (see Tuckahoe-Cohee) between the two sections of Virginia.

The convention that met in 1829 to form a new constitution for Virginia, against the protest of the counties beyond the mountains, required a property qualification for suffrage and gave the slave-holding counties the benefit of three-fifths of their slave population in apportioning the state's representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a result, every county beyond the Alleghenies except one voted to reject the constitution, which nevertheless passed because of eastern support.

The Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850–51, the Reform Convention, addressed a number of issues important to western Virginians. The vote was extended to all white males of 21 years of age plus. The governor, lieutenant-governor, the judiciary, sheriffs and other county officers were to be elected by public vote. The composition of the General Assembly was changed, representation in the house of delegates was apportioned on the white basis of the census of 1850, but the Senate was fixed arbitrarily, the west receiving twenty, and the east thirty, senators. This was made acceptable to the west by a provision that required the General Assembly to reapportion representation on the white basis in 1865, or else put the matter to a public referendum. But the east also gave itself a tax advantage in requiring a property tax at true and actual value, except for slaves. Slaves under the age of 12 years were not taxed, and slaves over that age were taxed at only $300, a fraction of their true value. Small farmers, however, had all their assets, animals and land, taxed at full value. Despite this tax and the lack of internal improvements in the west, the vote was 75,748 for and 11,063 against the new Constitution, most of the latter being from eastern counties, which did not like the compromises made for the west.

In many ways, it is the North/South situation writ small, the more populous and prosperous East(north) pretty much dictating to the sparsely settled and poorer West(south) and tossing it an occasional bone to try to keep it pacified.

And you are correct in Lincoln meddling in it:

An application for admission to the Union was made to Congress, and on December 31, 1862, an enabling act was approved by Pres. Abraham Lincoln admitting West Virginia, on the condition that a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery be inserted in its constitution.

[williamlayton]

If a state cannot secede then how does it secede. If it makes a treaty with another state how can it do that in violation of the Constitution?
The simple facts are: The South wanted to be out of the Union--so they told the Union they were leaving.
The Union did not see it that way. They knew it would lead to a fight.
The South was trying to gain financial support from both France and England--in addition to recognition. That is in fact a treaty with a foreign nation.
Lincoln disagreed--with legal advice, not just his will--and saw the dangers. He then reinforced Sumner.
The South attacked.
What you do not answer is what were their plans for winning?
Counties of most states can split with radification of the state. They cannot leave a state for another ste without radification--which they most probably cannot get---too many other considerations like county debt that need to be addressed here.
I have admitted,several times--as an observer--, that they tried and I on't have a particular disagreement or favorite side in that--again, as an observer--But--as an observer---I do see that it was ill thought out and a very foolish move.
They should have had an agreement that if they did it there would be coming immediate recognition and support.
Things could have gone the Souths way---but they needed smarter people than Davis and the South Carolina firebrands.
You have yet to address the Reconstruction and the Dixiecrats that got us into this socialist mode we find our ownselves in now.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

If a state cannot secede then how does it secede.

But a state could secede.  That was the point.

If it makes a treaty with another state how can it do that in violation of the Constitution?

What state made a treaty with another state?

The simple facts are: The South wanted to be out of the Union--so they told the Union they were leaving.
The Union did not see it that way. They knew it would lead to a fight.
The South was trying to gain financial support from both France and England--in addition to recognition. That is in fact a treaty with a foreign nation.
Lincoln disagreed--with legal advice, not just his will--and saw the dangers. He then reinforced Sumner.
The South attacked.

Where?  Baltimore?  Did CS troops march on NYC?  Did the Confederate Navy blockade Boston?  Where did the South attack northern soil?

What you do not answer is what were their plans for winning?

Winning what?  All the south wanted was to prevent invasion by northern troops. 

Counties of most states can split with radification of the state. They cannot leave a state for another ste without radification--which they most probably cannot get---too many other considerations like county debt that need to be addressed here.

Right.  And .... try to follow.... counties are not states.

I have admitted,several times--as an observer--, that they tried and I on't have a particular disagreement or favorite side in that--again, as an observer--But--as an observer---I do see that it was ill thought out and a very foolish move.
They should have had an agreement that if they did it there would be coming immediate recognition and support.
Things could have gone the Souths way---but they needed smarter people than Davis and the South Carolina firebrands.
You have yet to address the Reconstruction and the Dixiecrats that got us into this socialist mode we find our ownselves in now.
Blessings

Um...if you check, it was St. Abe that got us into this socialist mode, and Reconstruction, which is still going on, was pushed by the Abolitionists and Perpetual Union folks like you and the other northern apologists.


I really wish I knew what you are reading to come up with some of the things you post here, Willy.  On about three quarters of the other boards/blogs/groups that I frequent, you would have been banned long ago as a troll.

[ironfoot]

STILL waiting for one of the northern apologists to post the Article of the Constitution, or even the federal law that, in 1860 or 1861 prohibited a state from leaving the Union.  Again, until you can show that, all your arguments and calling it treason are just so much hot air and wishful thinking.

Show us a provision in the Constitution that provides for secession.
There isn't any.
Show us a provision in the Constitution that would allow a seceding state to occupy a federal fort and seized federal arms.
There isn't any.
The Union was perpetual, and no country recognized the Confederacy.

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.

ironfoot, have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? Those Articles preceded the Constitution, and you know what? They actually STATED that the union under the Articles WAS PERPETUAL!!! If it was so perpetual, how did Every state in that Union SECEDE from it to form a new government under the Constitution?

And you know something else? Not every state seceded from the Articles at the same time, and the new government under the Constitution didn't invade those states and force them to either.

A seceding state can occupy a federal fort the exact same way all 13 seceding Colonies occupied British forts within their boundaries. After secession, those forts were no longer property of the British Empire. When the Southern states seceded, those forts were no longer property of the United States. Oh, and by the way, the United States has aided, or incited more secession movements that any other nation on Earth. They approved of each and every one of them EXCEPT the southern states. WHY? Because none of those other secession movements were of countries footing the bill to run the U.S. government!
Abraham Lincoln said it best... In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world..."
He made pretty much this same speech 3 more times, dealing with other secession movements before he was elected President.

As I stated earlier, the 10th Amendment make it plain, "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."

Hypocrisy does not become you.

SBG

If the Articles of Confederation created a perpetual Union, and they were replaced by a Constitution in order to "form a more perfect Union", how could that Union be more perfect if it was less than perpetual?
Here is the opening language from the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...."
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
If the Articles of Confederation created a perpetual Union, how could adoption of a new Constitution make that Union less than perpetual?
"The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was the first written constitution or plan of government of the United States of America and specified how the national government was to operate. It was drafted in 1776-77 and became the working constitution, although it was not formally ratified until 1781. The Articles legitimized the Congress in its supervision of the American Revolution, its diplomacy with Europe, and its handling of territorial issues. Nationalists complained that it was too weak, and after extensive debate it was replaced by the current Constitution in 1789."
The purpose of adoptioin of the Constitution was to create a stronger Union, not a weaker one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

[subdjoe]

subjoe

You stated:

"OK, it is quite clear that you don't understand the Constitution of the United States, what it address or how it works."

Ironfoot

Here, I'll rephrase it for you:

It is quite clear that you have not even the rudimentary understanding of the Constitution of the United States, what it addresses, or how it works that is taught in high school civics classes.

Better?

[rio grande]

Lawrence Ks. - worst civilian atrocity? 

This is from an article
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg22.html

"...the fact that Northern soldiers did not directly shoot civilians is a sufficient proof of the humanity of the war. This is all well and good, but one would like an explanation for the roughly 50,000 missing Southern civilians of all colors and creeds. They seem to have perished from causes attendant on the war, once it became a war against property and economic resources."

"....the Northern leadership turned Sherman, Sheridan, and others loose on Southern society as such. By living off the resources of the enemy, Sherman could ignore problems of supply while "making Georgia howl," as he delicately put it. Of $100 million dollars in property damage inflicted on his famous march, Sherman bragged that just $20 million had a real military purpose and the remaining $80 million was "simple waste and destruction."

A policy of Lincoln's?
From the Yankee War Dep't General Orders #100, Section 15...
"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of war....."

[ironfoot]

subdjoe
Your simple view is that since the Constitution does not expressly disallow secession, it must be ok. Any more complex argument leads you to insult the person making the argument.
Do you really think you are a Constitutional expert?
Ironfoot

[SouthernByGrace]

OK folks, I'm going to say this one time and one time only. Trolling or Baiting will NOT be tolerated in this forum, no matter which thread, no matter who does it, your posts WILL be deleted and your actions WILL be reported to Graybeard.

I gave one warning a few days ago and it went unheeded.
As of now, this thread is LOCKED.