PDA

View Full Version : whistlin' dixie



ygfperson
09-27-2002, 02:42 PM
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?

xds4lx
09-27-2002, 02:46 PM
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.

Hillbillie
09-27-2002, 05:02 PM
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.

ygfperson
09-27-2002, 08:18 PM
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?

BMJ
09-27-2002, 08:44 PM
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 :D

icarus
09-28-2002, 12:01 AM
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.

ygfperson
09-28-2002, 05:51 AM
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?

icarus
09-29-2002, 01:49 AM
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

ygfperson
09-29-2002, 12:43 PM
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

icarus
09-29-2002, 03:43 PM
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."

RoD
09-29-2002, 03:54 PM
ok THIS is why i slept through history class.....

Hillbillie
09-29-2002, 05:27 PM
>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.

Aran
09-29-2002, 05:52 PM
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?

icarus
09-30-2002, 12:17 AM
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?