M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,608 Posts
Those are some great pictures! I liked them all, but for some reason the one with the capitol building being built stood out to me..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
Stacking cannon balls (picture 13) seems like the 1860s equivalent of "Hold this bucket of sand and stand over there out of the way".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
Those are some great pictures! I liked them all, but for some reason the one with the capitol building being built stood out to me..
Me too. I had visions of Washington be much further and better developed by the 1860s than what is shown in those pictures.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
937 Posts
The proper description of that conflict is better described as the WNA (War of Northern Aggression), or WSI (War of Southern Independence), but for sure is best described as The War Between the States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbm

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,197 Posts
Civil War. The south lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,197 Posts
How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"

OK I'll shut up.
From slide 2:

Fort Sumter, South Carolina, April, 1861, under the Confederate flag. The first shots of the Civil War took place here, on April 12, 1861, as Confederate batteries opened fire on the Union fort, bombarding it for 34 straight hours. On April 13, Union forces surrendered and evacuated the fort. Union forces made many attempts to retake the fort throughout the war, but only took possession on February 22, 1865, after Confederate forces had evacuated Charleston. (NARA) #

And yea, I'll shut up too. BIGTHUMPUP
 

·
Cranky Old Vietnam Vet
Joined
·
10,663 Posts
Viewing them all, it's interesting that because no doubt the Photographer Hollered: "I'm going to take a photograph now, Nobody Move!" ...There's not much 'action' in the photos...
In #35, you can see a 'ghost'...because somebody moved!
But in the rest of them, except the dead of course...it's interesting to think that all those troops just Stopped what they were doing, in place, and didn't move for what, half a minute?...just to help the photographer take their picture and record them as being part of History!
It certainly was a different time and place...

CAVman in WYoming
 
  • Like
Reactions: IC2(SS)19Z50C5

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"
this is true, as it was not a civil war. a civil war is when two armies are fighting over the same government. the south seceded legally under the constitution and then was invaded by a foreign power. but the victors write the history books and that is that. you can say what you want about the morals and politics of the war, but that does not change the fact that that is what happened. over 600,000 americans were sent to the grave because the industrial tyrants in the north would rather whoop the a$$ of an archaic agriculturalist economy than provide diplomatic business solutions.

ok....now it's my turn to shut up.

OP, thanks for the great pics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
Their eyes tell a story as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IC2(SS)19Z50C5

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,382 Posts
For those interested, . . . there is a huge number of civil war pictures on a gov't web site. I got on it several years ago, . . . spent 2 or 3 evenings looking through them, . . . lots of interesting stuff there.

I took one, . . . photoshopped myself into it, . . . had a ball with it at work.

Some of them have names of all in the pictures, . . . that's what I was looking at, . . . geneology of my Webb family.

May God bless,
Dwight
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
937 Posts
WNA/WSI Related

HAHAHAHA!!!!... I knew that I would liven up the thread up with my earlier comments.
Yes the South lost!!.. Exactly… And in the long term it was better that the Union was restored. But you must realize some of today’s societal problems in America stem from the punitive actions of the U.S. Federal Government against the former Southern States. And racial prejudice was rampant in the north just as it was in the south for years afterwards.

And I stick by words and I agree with Charlene32's comments. What was said is true. But that aside, the pictures shown are great. Some I have seen before, some were totally new to me.

You know, I have done some WNA reenactment and IWP cavalry reenactment in my past. And as a result all of those pictures make me think of what were the smells like, (the stench of death had to be overpowering), the sounds and the verbal lexicon of our predecessor’s voices of how they communicated with each other back then, etc, etc.

But it also disturbed me to see the PC adaptation of "African Americans" imposed on what was being done by what were black slaves at the time. Call it what it was back then. A historical fact, no more no less. I’m in no way saying it was right, but it was exactly that, Black slaves performing slave labor. Those poor Black folks were slaves at the time, period, a historical fact…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: glockshot

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
IC2(SS)19Z50C5:

i too did WNA reenacting. i was part of the 8th TX cavalry (Terry's Texas Rangers). i am very compelled by that time in history. a very paradoxical time as there was darkness on both sides of the war, as well as goodness. i feel that the issues of that war are still topical in today's politics. we must not loose sight that this country was founded on strong state governments. there are those who want everything to be controlled by federal law which would mean that everything would just be in the best interest of Washington.

that period is by far the darkest time in our nations history......and i think we are still learning from it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
First off, awesome pictures. I've been to a lot of those battlefields. Well, in MD and VA. It's also funny to see Washington DC surrounded by...nothing. When they dreamed up the capital they really did want it to be grand and impressive. (Putting aside whatever present-day problems you're going to blab about.) Just look at the wooden shacks and boring rectangles that make up the buildings in every other photo.

Also, sad as it is, those pictures have so...little in them. The country was empty. Yet we still managed to create two huge armies that murdered the hell out of each other and built tremendous structures in a very short span of time. There's a picture of guys working with shovels and you just see a line stretching out with a few feet in between them.

the south seceded legally under the constitution
Nowhere in the constitution does it state a state can secede. Nowhere. Ratification is not conditional. It states in fact Congress may

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"


New York and Virginia tried to make their ratification of the Constitution conditional.

In New York's convention, for instance, on July 24, 1788, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.[6]

So the right of secession claimed by Virginia and New York cannot be seen as "conditions" or amendments to the Constitutional proposal. If they were, those states' ratifications would have been rejected, as per Madison's letter. The other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification -- the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, federalists included, to be beyond the power of the federal government.
If states or localities could simply remove themselves from the conditional Constitution at will, it would be rather worthless. It could be held hostage at every turn by wealthy states or states with sudden "rushes" (oil, gold, natural gas, silver, etc.

The Articles of Confederation gave the states tremendously more influence and power of its internal affairs. And was such an abysmal failure we chucked it after about a decade. People always forget the US Constitution is version 2.0.

But anyway, there's no, "we don't like the laws the majority voted so we're leaving" clause in the Constitution. If there was, there would be no red states and blue states, there'd be red countries and blue countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charlene32

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
thank you DukeRustfield, for clarifying that with further research. i guess my rebel blood got up and i made an inaccurate statement. i apologize for the misleading word usage. i still feel that the word "revolution" is more appropriate than "civil war" in this case. it would have been a civil war if the South invaded the North to take over the country. that was not the case as the South just wanted their independence.

i will say, however, that what i said earlier about constitutional rights is somewhat subjective. St. George Tucker, who in 1803 wrote "View of the Constitution of the United States," stated that:
the people of the several states consented to the Constitution not as a once-and-for-all commitment to eternal obedience, but with a right of withdrawal that is their right as the true sovereign of the nation. That view is affirmed by the nature of the Constitution itself and in the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.

"But until the time shall arive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it should happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states, individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,081 Posts
Do States Have a Right of Secession?
19 April 2002 Walter Williams


Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.



Editor's Comment: Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the "self-determination" of "peoples," but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/rights/1543-States-Have-Right-Secession.html

Great Pictures by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
nice find Hgunner. thanks for posting.

i think the 10th amendment illustrates my point well:

The 10th Amendment ("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") affirms the sovereignty of the states and makes it clear that the federal government's powers are limited to those granted in the Constitution -- that is, the states may exercise its authority even in areas where the federal government may not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,081 Posts
nice find Hgunner. thanks for posting.

i think the 10th amendment illustrates my point well:

The 10th Amendment ("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") affirms the sovereignty of the states and makes it clear that the federal government's powers are limited to those granted in the Constitution -- that is, the states may exercise its authority even in areas where the federal government may not.
Charlene32, I was saving that argument, but I concur that succession would have a valid 10th Admendment claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charlene32

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
were a VOLUNTARY UNION, why wouldnt states have the right to seceed? Read the preamble, We have the right to institute government, or dissolve government and institute NEW government, thats what the Confederacy did
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top