JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
The Declaration was superceded by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which in turn were made "more perfect" by the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence holds no legal weight.
The Civil War (no offense meant)
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
The Declaration was superceded by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which in turn were made "more perfect" by the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence holds no legal weight.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Probably didn't with England, either. I really doubt, based on other reading, that guys like John Witherspoon and others really would have considered the basic argument in the Declaration invalid.
Ryan
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
They had the opportunity to put that argument into the Articles and/or the Constitution, yet they chose not to.
Keith Lane
Pattern Altitude
And considering how few native Georgians I encounter in my day to day life we are still under sort of occupation......
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Native Georgians were an evolutionary dead end???And considering how few native Georgians I encounter in my day to day life we are still under sort of occupation......
Alabamiams, Floridians, Carolinians and a new species of northerncarpetbag-erectus moved into the area replacing the native Georgians.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
And considering how few native Georgians I encounter in my day to day life we are still under sort of occupation......
I flew over the whole state, and other than Atlanta all I saw were woods.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
They also did not choose to return to England, maintaining the validity of their argument in the Declaration. Otherwise, they should have gone back into submission and their new articles of Confederation were also illegal.
Ryan
...also known as, excellent cover. :wink2:
RMCN172RG
Pattern Altitude
There is a significant school of thought on that, and I would clearly love to argue that side but that should be another thread, eh.
Keith Lane
Pattern Altitude
Outside of the Great State of Atlanta people born and raised in Georgia are the rule rather than the exception. Heck in some places they don't even marry outside the family, let alone the state.And considering how few native Georgians I encounter in my day to day life we are still under sort of occupation......
Native Georgians were an evolutionary dead end???
Alabamiams, Floridians, Carolinians and a new species of northerncarpetbag-erectus moved into the area replacing the native Georgians.
Maybe.....
There seems to have been a bit of fraternization with the occupiers (guilty
).Pretty much true. the rest of the state is here just to supply food, cheap labor and domestic help to the High Lord Overseers here in the ATL.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
There is a significant school of thought on that, and I would clearly love to argue that side but that should be another thread, eh.
I'm just...biting my tongue. It really hurts, too.
Actually, I suppose I should probably be sitting on my hands.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Tell us where you think about it Shane, as you listen. I'm only hitting a couple points.
There's wonderful depth here one can't possibly absorb with one reading. The orator would be important in something like that. Foote has this wonderful, melodic Mississippi baritone voice one can listen to for hours.
The prose are also wonderful. I'll have the dictionary next to me next reading. He finds a way to work in words one never hears in everyday interaction.
Best,
Dave
There's wonderful depth here one can't possibly absorb with one reading. The orator would be important in something like that. Foote has this wonderful, melodic Mississippi baritone voice one can listen to for hours.
The prose are also wonderful. I'll have the dictionary next to me next reading. He finds a way to work in words one never hears in everyday interaction.
Best,
Dave
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
By that logic, the Constitution is also illegal then? The Constitution was an amendment to the Articles "in the nature of a substitute", so if the Articles did not have legal effect, then neither does the Constitution.
Also remember, it wasn't the federal government that argued in Texas v. White that secession was illegal, it was post-war Texas who made the point that they had never ceased being a state and were thus entitled to all the rights and privleges of a state in the Union, including in this case, bringing a case to the US Supreme Court under their original jurisdiction.
Keith Lane
Pattern Altitude
Shane, who does the narration of these books?
I listen to audiobooks on my commute to and from work everyday and this would take up quite a few days.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,761
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Quite a bit different than listening to Foote. You'll have to tell me what you think after listening. I'm sure they try to get someone with a neutral accent that enunciates clearly, but to me, the original author's voice shall forever be attached to this work.
Best,
Dave
Best,
Dave
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,761
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
I've listened to all of about 30 seconds from a couple of tapes, but I have to say that he sounds like a computer synthesized voice, especially when compared to Foote!
Keith Lane
Pattern Altitude
Agreed.
I think listening to Foote is more like listening to my Mom's brother. Great stories. And that's the way he tells them, like stories. You can see he enjoys telling them, not just because he loves the history, but also loves to pass that knowledge on in a way that relaxes people. Can you even imagine attending a class, or even better a lecture series with Foote at the podium. That'd create more history majors, wouldn't it.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
No. That's a 180 from what I was arguing. I was arguing that it was the successful implementation of the Declaration of Independence that gave the Articles of Confederation any teeth. It, of necessity, proceeded the Articles and was the legal basis for the several states remaining independent of England.
Basically what I'm saying is that you can't fairly pit the one clearly stated argument by the same men, against their other statements. I think a reasonable assumption is that BOTH documents represent their views - especially if you know more about their backgrounds and beliefs. They believed in government, but also the law of interposition. They believed in order and decency, but also that tyrants should be opposed. That is the apparent juxtaposition we have when looking at the Founders, and it is one that makes sense only when you understand the sources of their beliefs and the things that influenced them, like the book Lex Rex, among others.
Ryan
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
If I have two laws that exist in conflict to each other, the later adopted one controls. In this case, the Articles of Confederation control over the Declaration of Independence. And the Articles of Confederation are clear and explicit in that they established a perpetual union of the States.
And to be truthful, I really don't care about their beliefs and desires. Only those beliefs and desires that they committed to paper in such a manner as was adopted by others is important. The fact that John Hancock or Thomas Jefferson or George Washington thought something is irrelevant, they were among many who proposed and adopted the founding documents of the nation, and only that which was collectively adopted are legally controlling.
I'm what you would consider an originallist in terms of reading such documents. There are only two things I take into account when interpreting: (1) The words as they were adopted in the document, and (2) The contemporaneous common meaning of those words. Speeches by those involved, writings by those involved are not relevant. Their desires are their own and if they couldn't get their desires adopted, they mean nothing.
In what way can you interpret the phrase "perpetual union" to mean anything other than a Union that would exist forever?
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
Bottom line is that the Articles and Constitution both were law, the Declaration wasn't.
While the Declaration is certainly of some historical significance, it has no legal weight, nor has it ever had any legal weight.
While the Declaration is certainly of some historical significance, it has no legal weight, nor has it ever had any legal weight.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
This thread reminded me that those who are the strongest and loudest proponents of states rights are also the loudest when it comes to the patchwork regulations concerning firearm ownership, possession and use. I can't imagine if it were like that for telecommunications or automotive traffic.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Dangit Dave, I've been spending an AWFUL lot of shouldn't-be-free time reading various articles on Wikipedia to learn more about the Civil War! (Thanks.)
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
RyanShort1
Final Approach
First, I don't believe that forever was the exact meaning in the minds of the Founders. Many of them were Christian, God-fearing men and would not have presumed to mean forever literally. Also another important part of the Articles states that:
The next section, Article III gives the primary purpose of the League or Confederation.
Whatever it meant, it did not mean that States were incapable of taking appropriate action if the "League" were to be in violation of their sovereignty. If a covenant, contract, or league is broken, then the other party is freed of the obligation to some degree, regardless of what the tyrant(s) responsible may believe. That is why the Founders did not consider themselves to be rebels but lower magistrates acting within their just powers.
Ryan
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Dangit Dave, I've been spending an AWFUL lot of shouldn't-be-free time reading various articles on Wikipedia to learn more about the Civil War! (Thanks.)
I'm glad you are Kent! I'm learning a lot both from reading the books and from the many wonderful comments on here!
Had lunch with a fealla today and was telling him about it and his Great (maybe Great-Great we discussed a lot) Grandfather served in the the war of 1812 and he has a copy of his discharge papers. Said they were signed by a captain and gave him 1/4 section of land in Michigan for his service. I asked if I can see it sometime.
Best,
Dave
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,866
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Whats so amazing about history is that it does tend to repeat itself despite the old adage. The theory you set forth is really very close to the theory that many espouse regarding Iran's build up of Nuclear abilities and its threat to Israel and the middle east. Fascinating stuff.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
True, except there's a big difference between a small piece of dirt right smack dab in the harbor of your biggest, most important city, and a state 1000 miles away, which is the situation with Iran.
Ryan
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Grant has now attacked the entrenchments at Vicksburg and lost over 4,000 troops. Was repulsed twice. Interesting that he left his dead and wounded on the battlefield until the Confederate commander asked for a truce for Grant to care for them. Grant didn't want to appear weak.
I'll try to find a particular passage tonight Foote wrote about this showing the dichotomy in Grant: he couldn't stand to even see a simple animal hurt; yet, could abandon wounded on the battle field.
Best,
Dave
I'll try to find a particular passage tonight Foote wrote about this showing the dichotomy in Grant: he couldn't stand to even see a simple animal hurt; yet, could abandon wounded on the battle field.
Best,
Dave
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
Grant is an interesting person.
At the end of the day, he's the one that got the job done. If nothing else, I think he - along with Sherman and Longstreet - saw things for what they were in their time.
Why the military folk in Europe couldn't see the same thing between 1865 and 1914, with the Boer War thrown in to hammer the point home, is beyond me.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
It is truly amazing and unfortunately too uncommon to see people unable to look beyond their preconceptions. You'll find lots of examples right here in the Spin Zone.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Two maneuvers which Grant conducted in this action are important to those that want to learn more about military tactics. His actions before crossing the Mississippi south of Vicksburg are commendable in that he thoroughly explored several alternatives before choosing the one he did. When he was actually attempting to cross, he changed to another location farther south with the first choice wasn't working out: he was very flexible.
When he advanced from the landing sight, he adjusted his objectives by first moving on Jackson: he had two units in front and one to the rear. After securing Jackson, the rear became the front as he advanced up to Vicksburg. This put the Confederate commander (Pemberton) at a real disadvantage. If he left Vicksburg to link up with Johnson to the east, his rear was open to attack. If he advanced on Grant, he was out numbers. In the end, he opted for a middle choice.
Best,
Dave
When he advanced from the landing sight, he adjusted his objectives by first moving on Jackson: he had two units in front and one to the rear. After securing Jackson, the rear became the front as he advanced up to Vicksburg. This put the Confederate commander (Pemberton) at a real disadvantage. If he left Vicksburg to link up with Johnson to the east, his rear was open to attack. If he advanced on Grant, he was out numbers. In the end, he opted for a middle choice.
Best,
Dave
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
Yet another lesson that apparently went unlearned between 1865 and 1914....
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Don't know how the Boer war gives evidence of inflexibility -- few lines, lots of guerrilla, final victory. Horrid tactics and strategy, certainly -- but in no way inflexible. Eventually tactics were adjusted to meet the situation.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
I neglected to mention when he advanced to Jackson, he abandoned his supply line. Many army has fought to keep the enemy out of their rear to keep supply and lines of communication free. Grant effectively advanced in a manner where that wasn't the case until he dug in and began the siege.
Best,
Dave
Best,
Dave
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
Didn't mean to imply that it was an example of inflexibility - just...an indicator of things to come.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Some interesting passages:
For three days---six, in the case of those who had fallen in the first assault---Grant's dead and injured lay in the fields and ditches at the base of the Confederate ridge, exposed to the fierce heat of the early Mississippi summer. The stench of the dead, whose bodies had swollen grotesquely, and the cries of the wounded, who suffered the added torment of thirst, were intolerable to the men who had shot them down; yet Grant would not ask for a truce for the burial or treatment of these unfortunates, evidently thinking that such a request would be an admission of weakness on his part.
In nothing was Grant more "unpronounceable" that in this. He would berate, and in at least one case attack with his fists, any man he saw abusing a dumb animal; he had, it was said to his credit, no stomach for suffering...at Volume II pages 387 and 388.
Best,
Dave
For three days---six, in the case of those who had fallen in the first assault---Grant's dead and injured lay in the fields and ditches at the base of the Confederate ridge, exposed to the fierce heat of the early Mississippi summer. The stench of the dead, whose bodies had swollen grotesquely, and the cries of the wounded, who suffered the added torment of thirst, were intolerable to the men who had shot them down; yet Grant would not ask for a truce for the burial or treatment of these unfortunates, evidently thinking that such a request would be an admission of weakness on his part.
In nothing was Grant more "unpronounceable" that in this. He would berate, and in at least one case attack with his fists, any man he saw abusing a dumb animal; he had, it was said to his credit, no stomach for suffering...at Volume II pages 387 and 388.
Best,
Dave
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Hmmm.....
I think there's lots of "common knowledge" anachronistic criticism of 19th C tactics, to wit: "They just stood in lines and shot at each other!" without considering the alternatives.
In large scale combat, one side gained the field by pressuring the other side to retire. This was a result of mass, not precision accuracy.
The myth of the American rifleman taking out entire British lines is -- a myth. In open combat those "stupid" lines rolled over American superior accuracy over and over.
The Boer war did portend many 20th C "improvements" to tactics -- concentration camps, targeted strikes, mobile units, and civilian control, for starters.
But the Civil War had its share of innovations.
Tacticians have to be conservative -- they can look back on engagements and prove "This works!" The innovation hasn't been tested yet and is therefore risky.
Rommel was Germany's foremost tactician. yet in Attacks! he wrote that the soldier's best weapon is the shovel. This from the ace of fluid, mobile land warfare.