whistlin' dixie

This is a discussion on whistlin' dixie within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; i was watching the 10 hour civil war documentary on public television over 5 days. it's amazing how the country ...

  1. #1
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493

    whistlin' dixie

    i was watching the 10 hour civil war documentary on public television over 5 days. it's amazing how the country came together after that war... lincoln died with a 5 dollar confederate bill in his pocket. lee and grant talked about old times before lee surrendered. jefferson davis was regarded as a criminal on both sides (he was former prez. of confereracy). lincoln ordered his troops to play "Dixie" near the white house, because he himself thought it was a great tune.

    what do you think?

  2. #2
    Registered User xds4lx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    630
    I didnt see the documentry but yeah the civil war was kinda messed up at times. When I moved to Ga. we went to Kennesaw Mountain Nattional Park witch was a Civil War Battlefield and I found a bullet.
    "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former." - albert einstein

  3. #3
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    Yeah, good ol' Abe loved the entire country, even the Confederate side. Confederate soldiers were released after the war, even though they were technically guilty of treason.

    I think Lincoln was one of the best presidents to date. I would have loved to meet him.

  4. #4
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    yeah, kind of makes you wish we had him instead of who we have now...

    who else could have won a second term election during a civil war?

  5. #5
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    Banal internet user BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,380
    I only watched a few portions of that documentary I hear it's very good.

    Though my mind was on the subject of the civil war after I had watched another PBS documentary on the Confederate flag issue in S.C.

    Good ole' PBS

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    52
    I think Lincoln was one of the best presidents to date. I would have loved to meet him.
    Personally, I think Lincoln was one of the worst presidents to date. His presidency was a disaster for the ideas that the Constitution was written to institutionalize. Besides tearing the ninth and tenth amendments to shreds; which can be weakly defended using the elastic clause, he was also guilty of the following acts: arresting and jailing 13000 Northern dissidents without warrant or trial, including, I believe, 30 or so Maryland legislators, who refused to grant money, weapons, and soldiers to Lincoln because they thought the war was constitutional; he even ignored an opinion from the Chief Justice Roger Taney ordering Lincoln to restore the writ of habeas corpus, had soldiers interfere in Northern elections, created West Virginia out of the territory of Virginia without the residents' consent, and authorized the brutal campaigns of Sherman and Sheridan with stated goals of exterminating the citizens, etc, etc, etc.
    Lincoln set a precedent of violation of the Constitution that has continued ever since. Am I the only one who has read the Federalist Papers, the accounts of the Constitutional Conventions, English Comman Law? Lincoln was America's first and greatest dictator.

  7. #7
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    Personally, I think Lincoln was one of the worst presidents to date. His presidency was a disaster for the ideas that the Constitution was written to institutionalize. Besides tearing the ninth and tenth amendments to shreds; which can be weakly defended using the elastic clause,
    it was a civil war. he needed power to wage war effectively. none of his measures was the first or lasting unanswered violation of the constitution. andrew jackson (president maybe 30 years before) ignored an important supreme court decision on indian rights.
    he was also guilty of the following acts: arresting and jailing 13000 Northern dissidents without warrant or trial,
    true. it was a civil war, though, and dissidenting had already happened in many of the states.
    including, I believe, 30 or so Maryland legislators, who refused to grant money, weapons, and soldiers to Lincoln because they thought the war was constitutional; he even ignored an opinion from the Chief Justice Roger Taney ordering Lincoln to restore the writ of habeas corpus, had soldiers interfere in Northern elections, created West Virginia out of the territory of Virginia without the residents' consent,
    as i recall, virginia was confederate property. what kind of consent could he have gotten?
    and authorized the brutal campaigns of Sherman and Sheridan with stated goals of exterminating the citizens, etc, etc, etc.
    total warfare tactics. by ruining the lives of southern citizens, he dropped southern morale, and made the southern army, which couldn't feed itself, much weaker.
    Lincoln set a precedent of violation of the Constitution that has continued ever since.
    lincoln? there are plenty of presidents before and after who had disobeyed the constitution from time to time.
    Am I the only one who has read the Federalist Papers, the accounts of the Constitutional Conventions, English Comman Law? Lincoln was America's first and greatest dictator.
    the constitution was built for flexibility. many states seceeded, so lincoln had to declare war to force them to reunite. after a civil war, of all things, our constitution was kept unchanged (except for the 13, 14, and 15th amendments, which make perfect sense). until the new deal, the federal supreme court didn't even allow unions to exist. how much more of a literal interpretation can you get?

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    52

    true. it was a civil war, though, and dissidenting had already happened in many of the states.
    I don't get your point.

    as i recall, virginia was confederate property. what kind of consent could he have gotten?
    This was afterwards, and in any case it is not a power of the executive branch.

    total warfare tactics. by ruining the lives of southern citizens, he dropped southern morale, and made the southern army, which couldn't feed itself, much weaker.
    Despite the fact that the southern army was already in its death throes, i don't understand how such tactics are justified.
    lincoln? there are plenty of presidents before and after who had disobeyed the constitution from time to time
    No president since has matched his habit, (although several come close), and certainly no president beforehand.
    it was a civil war. he needed power to wage war effectively. none of his measures was the first or lasting unanswered violation of the constitution. andrew jackson (president maybe 30 years before) ignored an important supreme court decision on indian rights.
    As regards Jackson, who I by no means approve of, he ignored a Supreme Court decision that did not apply to him directly; it applied to the state of Georgia. There is a difference between that case and Lincoln's of degree. But in any case, a state of war in no way justifies breaking the law.
    the constitution was built for flexibility.
    many states seceeded, so lincoln had to declare war to force them to reunite. after a civil war, of all things, our constitution was kept unchanged (except for the 13, 14, and 15th amendments, which make perfect sense). until the new deal, the federal supreme court didn't even allow unions to exist. how much more of a literal interpretation can you get?
    [/quote]
    No; the constitution was written to bring government under the rule of law. The very idea of a constitution entails permanence; and what flexibility it was meant to have it provides a way for; using amendments. And I do not see you logic; why did Lincoln have to force them to reunite? And I fail to see the relevance of the part about unions.
    I apologize for the poor quality of writing; I am rather drunk
    Turn no more aside and brood
    Upon love's bitter mysteries
    For Fergus rules the brazen cars...

  9. #9
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    Originally posted by icarus
    I don't get your point.
    in many cases dissidenting doesn't harm anyone, and in fact adds to the diversity of the country. however, during civil war, dissidents could be seen as committing treason.
    Despite the fact that the southern army was already in its death throes, i don't understand how such tactics are justified.
    the north wasn't as powerful as everyone thought. we nearly lost the war in some cases, mainly due to stupid or coward generals. (ie: mcclellan). destroying the life of southern people ensures a complete and total defeat. in the civil war, we needed a complete victory to show the people who was right and who was wrong, and have them accept their fate.

    sherman also had the intention of making his march so bloody that no-one would ever fight that kind of war again.
    No president since has matched his habit, (although several come close), and certainly no president beforehand.
    no president has to deal with another civil war, either.
    As regards Jackson, who I by no means approve of, he ignored a Supreme Court decision that did not apply to him directly; it applied to the state of Georgia. There is a difference between that case and Lincoln's of degree. But in any case, a state of war in no way justifies breaking the law.
    i guess i agree with you here. I don't think Lincoln had a way around it, though.

    constitution was written to bring government under the rule of law. The very idea of a constitution entails permanence; and what flexibility it was meant to have it provides a way for; using amendments.
    amendments were a big part of flexibilty. but many of the statements in the constitution were purposely broad so that those basic ideas could be interpreted as the times changed.

    why did Lincoln have to force them to reunite?
    because they wouldn't reunite voluntarily. a country divided cannot stand.
    And I fail to see the relevance of the part about unions.
    it was an example meant to show that the interpretation of the constitution changes over times. it also showed that the only major changes to the interpretation of the constitution happened at the new deal, and not during the civil war.
    I apologize for the poor quality of writing; I am rather drunk
    Touchè

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    52
    in many cases dissidenting doesn't harm anyone, and in fact adds to the diversity of the country. however, during civil war, dissidents could be seen as committing treason.
    Ahh...disagreeing with the policies of your country is treason. I see. No wait, I don't.

    i guess i agree with you here. I don't think Lincoln had a way around it, though.
    Au contraire; there is a very simple way around it: Lincoln could have let the case be brought to court to determine the legality of imprisonment. The very thought of it!
    amendments were a big part of flexibilty. but many of the statements in the constitution were purposely broad so that those basic ideas could be interpreted as the times changed.
    Umm...why would the framers of the constitution want their basic ideas to be changed? Doesn't that sort of nullify the purpose of having a written constitution? I would appreciate some evidence of this claim.
    because they wouldn't reunite voluntarily. a country divided cannot stand.
    Interesting assumption. "A country divided cannot stand." Numerous countries have split and somehow managed to "stand."
    Turn no more aside and brood
    Upon love's bitter mysteries
    For Fergus rules the brazen cars...

  11. #11
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    ok THIS is why i slept through history class.....

  12. #12
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    >Ahh...disagreeing with the policies of your country is treason. I see. No wait, I don't.<

    Okay, think about Communism. Normally, the US would do nothing to Communists living here for simply supporting Communism (even though it goes against our capitalist government). Political belief is a right protected under the first amendment.

    Now, imagine we were in a war against a Communist country trying to spread Communism to Western society. Do you think it would be wise to ignore the Communists on our turf? Of course not.

  13. #13
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    basically the idea is

    should working towards the continuation of one's country have 'breaking what my society/consititution holds holy' filed in the 'allowable courses of actions' directory?

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    52
    Okay, think about Communism. Normally, the US would do nothing to Communists living here for simply supporting Communism (even though it goes against our capitalist government). Political belief is a right protected under the first amendment.

    Now, imagine we were in a war against a Communist country trying to spread Communism to Western society. Do you think it would be wise to ignore the Communists on our turf? Of course not.
    You're right. It wouldn't be wise to ignore them. However, there is a rather wide range of choices spanning the extremes of "ignoring them" and "tossing them in jail on mere suspicion and refusing to try them," wouldn't you say?
    Turn no more aside and brood
    Upon love's bitter mysteries
    For Fergus rules the brazen cars...

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. The Dixie Chicks, are to, John Lennon, as...
    By Cheeze-It in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-18-2003, 02:30 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21