Traitors Or Not?

[Savez]

Originally Posted by KICK

guess we will have to open a new forum to answer the question of why the south tried to secede, and why the north would not let them?


I've often wondered why the individual States don't confer citizenship on their residents but the United States does?

Hmmm? Well you can't fish in Georgia with an Alabama fishing License.

But seriously how was citizenship conferred during the Civil War era? I've never thought about that before.

[Savez]

Originally Posted by mikeck

Ok, but what aggression at that point? By January 21, what has the north done that was "aggressive"?

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I didn't say there were any aggressive actions by Jan. 21 unless you count the Star of the West's attempt at reinforcing Sumter. (still haven't found out why the Brooklyn was not sent as ordered). But anyway, I just quoted Issac L. Stephens because it shows some of the sentiment about the border states and their view on coercion if it took place.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by R. Evans

Family maybe, state, no. There was no oath taken to the state. And I know that you're no Lost Causer, Richard, but LCs have used the argument for years that Robert E. Lee, for example, had a prior oath to Virginia that superseded the one he took upon being commissioned an officer in the US Army. When asked to link or reproduce the text of that oath, the silence is defeaning. It has never, I repeat never, been produced to give Lee's actions some sort of mitigation. That's because it doesn't exist and never has. So he cannot have been a traitor to his state. Virginia was not the entity that sustained him for his entire adult life, the Federal government was. By that I mean the US Army.

I, obviously, don't disagree with what you're saying, but state identity is still very powerful today. I suspect it would be even more so back in the 1860s and earlier. But I repeat from an earlier post. I don't think anybody who resigned to go South did so lightly. It was probably the most gut-wrenching decision they ever made. I'm glad I will never have to contemplate making that decision.

[R. Evans]

Originally Posted by Savez

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I didn't say there were any aggressive actions by Jan. 21 unless you count the Star of the West's attempt at reinforcing Sumter. (still haven't found out why the Brooklyn was not sent as ordered). But anyway, I just quoted Issac L. Stephens because it shows some of the sentiment about the border states and their view on coercion if it took place.

If you're talking about only South Carolina, you might be right. However Louisiana seceded on Jan. 26, 1861 and seized Federal forts and arsenals 17 days prior to secession. Jan. 9th shows aggressive actions by rebels without knowledge of the Star of the West incident.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...he_Forts*.html

Posted the link again since it seemed to be ignored in another thread. (probably because it doesn't square with the myth of the "We only want to be left alone South")

[guthrieba]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

Looking at it from a Historical POV, you are right, but looking at it as Historians (who have the frame of reference & the history before & after to look at), then no. We don't feel "redeemed by history", only that it was right to make that call. Imagine a football game. It is certainly easy to "Monday Morning Quarterback" a decision. Looking at it from their POV AT THE TIME, it can be easily understood why the decision was made. It is equally right to look at it later & see the flaws. As historians, we have that privilege & ability, so why not take advantage of it? As long as you can seperate those 2 things, then what's the big deal? Acknowledge it & move on. It's Lost Cause folks who are trying to avoid owning up the facts & words that Southerners back then said & did that drive us crazy.

<SNIP>

It is completely uninteresting to interject our sensibilities on ante-bellum questions. We learn nothing from it.

[KICK]

Originally Posted by Savez

Hmmm? Well you can't fish in Georgia with an Alabama fishing License.

But seriously how was citizenship conferred during the Civil War era? I've never thought about that before.

but I bet you can carry concealed and drive your car in either.

just goes to show the difference between enumerated rights and privileges allowed under the law, doesn't it?

[mikeck]

Originally Posted by Savez

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I didn't say there were any aggressive actions by Jan. 21 unless you count the Star of the West's attempt at reinforcing Sumter. (still haven't found out why the Brooklyn was not sent as ordered). But anyway, I just quoted Issac L. Stephens because it shows some of the sentiment about the border states and their view on coercion if it took place.

Maybe I'm am missing your point. I had thought your argument as that much of the southern secession movement was caused by northern aggression. My point was that by the date you had mentioned, there had been no aggression nor coercion to resist

[Savez]

Originally Posted by mikeck

Maybe I'm am missing your point. I had thought your argument as that much of the southern secession movement was caused by northern aggression. My point was that by the date you had mentioned, there had been no aggression nor coercion to resist

No that's not what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clear. I believe that secession in the Cotton 7 and secssion of the upper South were caused by two different things. The Cotton 7 resulted from the election of the president from a purely sectional party. The upper South seceded when it was evident that the Republican Party was going to coerce the Cotton 7 back into the Union.

[Savez]

Originally Posted by KICK

but I bet you can carry concealed and drive your car in either.

just goes to show the difference between enumerated rights and privileges allowed under the law, doesn't it?

What were the differnces between enumerated rights and privileges allowed under the law for citizens in 1860?

[mikeck]

Originally Posted by Savez

What were the differnces between enumerated rights and privileges allowed under the law for citizens in 1860?

Legion...mainly because until the ratification of the 14th amendment, there was no constitutional due process requirement on the states (other than an argument the due process was a fundamental right... But no enumeration) or an equal protection requirement. In the 1920s the court first used the 14th amendment to incorporate the first amendment thereby enforcing on the states, in the 1960's the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments were incorporated and in the Heller case of 2011, the 2nd. Prior to the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 1871, none of the rights enumerate in the bill of rights could be enforced against the states

[Savez]

Originally Posted by R. Evans

If you're talking about only South Carolina, you might be right. However Louisiana seceded on Jan. 26, 1861 and seized Federal forts and arsenals 17 days prior to secession. Jan. 9th shows aggressive actions by rebels without knowledge of the Star of the West incident.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...he_Forts*.html

Posted the link again since it seemed to be ignored in another thread. (probably because it doesn't square with the myth of the "We only want to be left alone South")

At least the were willing to pay for them. haha