Author Topic: A SIDE BAR TO HERITAGE (Read 1448 times)

williamlayton · « **on:** December 10, 2004, 01:08:22 AM »

Rather than interrupt the flow of thought on the heritage thing I thought I would make a statement, semi-off topic. It is something I have thought and believed for many years. Not perfect and not without flaws.
The constitution and bill of rights were not without flaws-thank the Lord there were not a lot of lawyers around then or tha whole thing would never have gotten off the ground.
I believe this whole agreement between the folks around at that time constituted a contract. This state thing was immaterial to the folks that wanted a new country, a new form of government that they could participate in, add their own two cents to.
I am not saying the states were not important, but I do not think that the state issue was even considered as being an important factor. It was a Nation these folks wanted.
Jump to the Civil war.
A small disclaimer first-I realize that times had changed and folks had changed.
If the confederacy had been allowed to survive, The U. S. had allowed it, I do not believe this confederacy wold have survived til the 20th century. I do not believe those folks could have kept in agreement enough til one of the states would have seceded and become a republic unto itsownself.
That Confederacy would have folded, maybe Great Britain, Spain or France would have come into the chaos those folks would be going thru and have lent a hand til those folks would have been under those folks control.
Chaos does not breed unity folks and all the confederacy bread was chaos. It was a contract between states in which none of the participants were obligated to hold up their end of the bargain. Remember we are dealing with some folks that had already broken a contract. Its kinda like divorce, tha first one is hard-each seceding divorce is easier.
Lets use Eastern Europe as examples. City states, local kings making agreements and alliances with others for their own safety. Those agreements held together til the first good rain.
Those folks were trying to protect a culture which could never be held together by free thinking people. Maybe by a strong government which did not allow free speech or thought, but not such as was had in the United States of America.
I am thinking some of you folks need to remove the rose colored glasses.
Blessings

El Confederado · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2004, 07:09:18 AM »

williamlayton,
You forget if Spain came over to get involved, I still would be happy, the reason, well I am Spanish, so win win for me. HEHEHEHEHE.

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2004, 07:55:22 AM »

Wal William this is another one of those times me and you are just gonna hafta disagree I guess.

First on the issue of the importance of states. I am in total disagreement with you here. I think states were to those folks really more important than a nation and they for sure distrusted nations. Why else would they have give VERY SPECIFIC and VERY LIMITED powers to the national government and then followed that up by saying ALL POWERS not specifically stated as being the federal governments were reserved for the states? To me this is a DUH?

Now onto the more controversial and impossible to know question of what might have happened had Lincoln chosen to just let the south go it's separate way.

What I think would have happened and have no basis for other than my beliefs is this. I think that within 10 or at most 20 years slavery would have ended in the south. Perhaps even before it did in the north. Oh some few might still have been kept around longer but for the most part I think it would have ended in that time frame without the war. I think the south would in time have perhaps mended their differences with the north and that most if not all would have voluntarily asked to be readmitted into the union in that same 10-20 year time frame. Some probably wouldn't have.

For instance TX might now be a nation rather than a state. It's big and was a fair piece from DC. I seriously doubt any of the other souther states would have left the Confederacy to become nation states and really do think most if not all would have gone back into the Union in 20 years or so. By today I think all would have been back in for a long time.

No we can't know what might have happened and my views are no more accurate than anyone else's. But they are what I think would have happened.

Had there been no Civil War or War of Northern Aggression I honestly believe that today the US would have at least 49 of the current 50 states in it. We'd not have the devisiveness we have now between folks in the south and in the north. Slavery would long long ago have ended anyway. And the nation would be a much more solid and harmonious one for it. Yet TX might still be a nation and not a state. I'd not put it past you Texicans to have remained separate.

El Confederado · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2004, 08:11:38 AM »

I very much have to agree with Gray on this and add one small side bar. Prior to the War the Federal government was looking into a war with Spain over it holdings still in the Americas and the Pacific and had it not been for the War the US would have tried it and well let me put it this way, Spain in 1860 was alot stronger than Spain in 1898, we would have lost, period. That being said does anyone for one second think that if Spain would have won such a war that it would not invade or even stir a rebellion in the South against the Federal government?Does anyone think that for a second that France would not have poured into Texas( because at that time Spain and France were allies), or that Spain would have seized California, thus taking the gold rich fields away for the US?

But back to thought of the South falling like a house of cards if it would have been allowed to leave the Union, why does anyone think this would have been so?

The South had the food the Union needed, cotton, oil, cattle , I mean come on the South had a very good economy,in less than a year it's government started with nothing and set up a government, army and structure of power , the whole time fighting an invader, seems like they would have done just fine had it not been for an illegal invasion. Europe would sure a hell trded with them and that is what the Union was affraid of, period , and anyone with a centered nug knows it.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2004, 08:27:07 AM »

Will and Bill,you are both right.I had family members [12 that I know of } in the conflict and talked to others.I can sum it up by the reunion of the Battle of Gettysburg 50 year anniversary where by many survivors came to reenact what had occurred,contrary to the way it was supposed to go,both sides broke from there positions in the Cemetery Ridge/Pickett charge and ran to each other and kissed and hugged each other while bystanders were upset ,these veterans --like many knew the cost,knew the outcome and were overcome with brotherly love.And that is the way it should be remembered,not the rehashing of what if,what is ,is what is,no more no less.

williamlayton · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2004, 11:34:37 PM »

Well--GB, gee I hate to see us agreein so much lately, It must be cause it is so close to Christmas.
I even think we are closer on tha state thing. What I meant to assert was the importance of a nation being needed for all the states. This reserving powers to the states was for fear of such a strong leader that a monarchy would reappear.
We'll keep searching, and I am confident we can argue bout sumthin else.
Blessings

crashresidue · « **Reply #6 on:** December 11, 2004, 09:29:58 PM »

OK guys, this one I'm stayin' the H*ll out of

Gentle winds,
cr

williamlayton · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2004, 11:33:02 PM »

GB-
Lets look at TEXAS, by GOD cause it is a little different. Texas, and I am talking East Texas. This was/ well is a land that was closely associated with Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama. It is the same type land, rolling hills, pine forrest, sandy loam soil. Farmers folks. Cotton was king, though timber has always been important.
This is an area that extends from Texarkana to Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange. Bout the length of Louisiana. It is an area bout 200 miles wide, the west was susposed to begin at the 100th Merridian, Just East of Ft. Worth (around the town of Azel)but, in fact, this area is only about 100 miles wide during the time period being discussed. In comparison to the rest, just a small portion of the state.
This was the onliest (pardons to Festus, but still a good word) part that was settled by Anglo's at the time of the revolution in 1836 and at the time of the Civil War was still the hub of population in Texas.
Most of these boys were from the states mentioned before. The Layton's are from Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. So are the rest of the line. The Spence's, Patilla's, Bakers, Epperson's, ect. The Close's came from from upstate New York, around a place called Bruha or Budda, around 1845. How in the hell did I get off into geneology?
This part of Texas has close ties to the old South. Now R.I.P. and I were against joining up with the Union in the first place. It was this part that joined the union and left the union.
What wuz I talking bout? OH, now I remember. Texas could not have, I do not think, stayed away from the union, after the war, any more than before the revolution (Texas Revolution). We needed the union. We was still fighting Mexico, did til bout the turn of the century.
Most of the effort in Texas, during the war, was keeping Mexico from invading and this effort was still needed after the Civil war. Commanche problem loomed well into the late 1870's.
Said all that to say this, Texas was in need of an alliance with the Union as much after the Civil War as it was after the Texas Revolution.
Now ol R.I.P. and I had figgered that we could whup Mexico without hep frum nobody, but that was a bunch of B.S.
Blessings