Good Morning: The Devil Went Down In Georgia

[Okla-homey]

February 27, 1864: Federal prisoners begin arriving at Andersonville

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1727/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzza.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Fully one of four Union prisoners who passed through this reconstructed gate at Camp Sumter did not get out alive.

On this day 143 years ago, the first Union prisoners begin arriving at "Camp Sumter" just outside Andersonville, which was still under construction as a Confederate POW camp in southern Georgia.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9873/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzgeorgiaand.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"Andersonville" became synonymous with death as nearly a quarter of its inmates died in captivity. Swiss-native Captain Henry Wirz, the camp commander at Andersonville, was executed after the war for the brutality and mistreatment committed under his command.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/962/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzwirzonc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Captain Henry Wirz, CSA

Its important to understand why a POW camp had become necessary in a country which previously had held no POWs for any substantial period of time. Prior to the third autumn of the war, both sides simply traded or "exchanged" groups of POWs from time to time thus negating any need to have a place to hold them for extended periods.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1222/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz11draw2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Andersonville painted after the war by a survivor. In the foreground, you see the man packed in behind the stockade and the swampy area around the stream. In the background, the low barracks of the guard force are visible on the horizon

The prison became necessary after the prisoner exchange system between North and South collapsed in late 1863. After Gettysburg, US military leaders convinced President Lincoln that prisoner exchanges were helping the Confederacy remain in the war. See, the North had more d00ds and thus could afford the permanent loss of the men they lost to Confederate capture.

The South, on the other hand, had fewer white males of military age and couldn't afford the steady hemorrhage of manpower lost to capture. Therefore, President Lincoln reluctantly approved the change in Federal policy which cancelled subsequent exchanges of POWs.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/6545/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzand47.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Recreated interior of the camp gives visitors some sense of its horror, especially when visited on a hot, stifling and buggy Georgia afternoon. Note the single rail "fence" in the background seperating the "yard" from the palisade. That single wooden rail completely encircled the interior of the walled camp and constituted the "deadline." Any prisoner who ventured between it and the palisade would be instantly shot by guards positioned on platforms built at regular intervals for this purpose. Some prisoners committed suicide by deliberately stepping inside the "deadline."

The camp stockade at Andersonville was hastily constructed using slave labor, and it was located in the Georgia woods near a railroad but safely away from the front lines. Enclosing 16 acres of land, the tall pine log palisade was planned to include wooden barracks but the inflated price of lumber delayed construction, and the Yankee soldiers imprisoned there lived under open skies, protected only by makeshift shanties called "shebangs," constructed from scraps of wood, brush, scraps of canvas tentage and blankets.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7254/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzandersonvi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Another shot of the interior. In the foreground and at the right corner, note the tent backed up to the "deadline."

The men roasted under the summer Georgia sun and shivered in the cold rainy winters. A stream initially provided fresh water, but since people did what people often do into running water, human waste eventually contaminated the creek. Sanitary conditions in the camp quickly became virtually intolerable -- especially in summer. As result, thousands died of dysentery, which is basically a very unpleasant form of bacterially induced diarrhea and infection of the lower bowel that becomes chronic and often kills if untreated.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/452/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzander.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Famous contemporary image of the camp interior. The men in the foregound are "using the facilities" which involved squatting downstream over the creek which was also the only drinking water source.

The prison was built to hold 10,000 men, but within six months more than three times that number were incarcerated there. The creek banks eroded to create a swamp, which occupied more than one-fifth of the compound.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9853/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz14.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
A national cemetery was created at the site. Most of the men buried there were from western states since they had been captured from Union armies formed from among westerners and deployed to to the western theatre of Civil War operations.

Rations were inadequate, and at times half of the population was reported ill. Some guards brutalized the inmates and there was violence between factions of prisoners.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2195/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcampsanders.gif (http://imageshack.us)
One of the thousands of human skeletons who survived to be freed when the camp was liberated at war's end in the summer of 1865

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/6977/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzan.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Turner Films made a pretty good movie about the situation aptly named "Andersonville" that is available on DVD and is well worth a look.

Andersonville was the worst among many terrible Civil War prisons, both Union and Confederate. Henry Wirz paid the price for the inhumanity of Andersonville--he was the only person executed in the aftermath of the Civil War for war crimes. Wirz remains a controversial figure to this day.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/3144/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzjbci.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Wirz's public hanging. Emloying the "Nuremberg" defense, he maintained he was "only following orders."

As an aside, some Southern apologists insist Wirz was unfairly executed as a war criminal since the lack of resources available to him made it practically impossible for Wirz to humanely treat the massive number of Union prisoners in his charge. Alternatively, anti-Wirz people maintain that he simply should have resigned as camp commander after it became clear the Confederate government couldn't or wouldn't provide ample food and shelter to the prisoners.

To be fair (and balanced,) Northern prisons for Confederate POW's were little better. This is especially significant since the North had ample resources to humanely provide for its prisoners...but frankly refused to do so. The worst was probably the camp at Point Lookout on the Maryland coast. The prisoners at least had barracks, but they too were starved and cruelly treated.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7540/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz1864lookout8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Point Lookout US POW camp.

The Andersonville site is administered by the NPS and also is home to the National Prisoner of War Museum. Well worth a visit if you ever find yourself in that part of Georgia. South of Atlanta, its just a short trip from Fort Benning in Columbus.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3844/insane7zo7tv.jpg

[jk the sooner fan]

we took a visit to andersonville when i was in warrant officer candidate school......the NPS guy that gives the tours goes into character as a union soldier and tells his story....its oscar winning type stuff and very moving...i highly recommend a visit to this place

[landrun]

I've been to Andersonville. I never got the tour you were talking about but it is very moving still.

[jk the sooner fan]

we may have gotten it because we were a large group

[SoCal]

I thought this thread was going to be about General Sherman.

[FaninAma]

See, the North had more d00ds and thus could afford the permanent loss of the men they lost to Confederate capture.

Yes, Lincoln and his thugs did indeed seem to have a light regard for human life. Lincoln was a nihilist.

[royalfan5]

See, the North had more d00ds and thus could afford the permanent loss of the men they lost to Confederate capture. [/quote]

Yes, Lincoln and his thugs did indeed seem to have a light regard for human life. Lincoln was a nihilist.[/QUOTE]
Just goes to show, you shouldn't pick a fight with someone like that.

[landrun]

Lincoln kicked the south's butts and you guys are just still ****ed. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Lincoln kicked the south's butts and you guys are just still ****ed. :D

Uhm yeah...he beat a nation that had almost no industrial base whatsoever, whose uniforms were usually hand made, whose soldiers often were fighting barefoot against the full might and power of a mobilized industrial economy with the additional advantage of population. And old Lincoln still had the bejesus beat out of him for a good portion of the war.

[royalfan5]

Uhm yeah...he beat a nation that had almost no industrial base whatsoever, whose uniforms were usually hand made, whose soldiers often were fighting barefoot against the full might and power of a mobilized industrial economy with the additional advantage of population. And old Lincoln still had the bejesus beat out of him for a good portion of the war.
By good portion you mean two battles of Bull Run, and Chancellorsville? Cause the south never accomplished much in the west, and they never mounted a serious challenge to the blockade. None of the other major battles in the east were serious crushing defeats for the North. I wouldn't say the North got the bejesus beat out it for a good part of the war. Sure the South tried hard, but so does Baylor in football.

[FaninAma]

By good portion you mean two battles of Bull Run, and Chancellorsville? Cause the south never accomplished much in the west, and they never mounted a serious challenge to the blockade. None of the other major battles in the east were serious crushing defeats for the North. I wouldn't say the North got the bejesus beat out it for a good part of the war. Sure the South tried hard, but so does Baylor in football.

Actually, if the South had possesed the win at all costs attitude that Lincoln did they would have waged a massive insurgency campaign against the North with the bombing and razing of northern civilian population centers at the hands of sabotuers and guerilla fighters like Watie. The Northern population would have gotten fed up very quickly with Lincoln's war and the South would have had their independence once Lincoln was ran out of office.......unless of course he had declared himself President for Life.( A move that would have been well within Lincoln's modus operandi.)

The South was just too damned genteel to win the war and in that respect they deserved to lose.

[royalfan5]

Actually, if the South had possesed the win at all costs attitude that Lincoln did they would have waged a massive insurgency campaign against the North with the bombing and razing of northern civilian population centers at the hands of sabotuers and guerilla fighters like Watie. The Northern population would have gotten fed up very quickly with Lincoln's war and the South would have had their independence once Lincoln was ran out of office.......unless of course he had declared himself President for Life.( A move that would have been well within Lincoln's modus operandi.)

The South was just too damned genteel to win the war and in that respect they deserved to lose.
If the south didn't want to fight to win, they deserve to lose.

[Scott D]

I've been to both Andersonville and Point Lookout (the latter was a field trip every year for 6 years). They definitely soften the story at Point Lookout a lot more, and focus more on the time period before the Civil War there.

[SicEmBaylor]

Actually, if the South had possesed the win at all costs attitude that Lincoln did they would have waged a massive insurgency campaign against the North with the bombing and razing of northern civilian population centers at the hands of sabotuers and guerilla fighters like Watie. The Northern population would have gotten fed up very quickly with Lincoln's war and the South would have had their independence once Lincoln was ran out of office.......unless of course he had declared himself President for Life.( A move that would have been well within Lincoln's modus operandi.)

The South was just too damned genteel to win the war and in that respect they deserved to lose.

Aye, they fought the war as the gentlemen. That's not to suggest they didn't fight; nothing fights harder than the southern man. They were just unwilling to carry the war into civilian quarters (for the most part).

In hindsight, they should have burned every unionist town, field, business, and home while taking absolutely no prisoners that crossed into southern territory.

[Scott D]

oh quit being bitter that your Limey assistance couldn't get through a little blockade. :D

[royalfan5]

Aye, they fought the war as the gentlemen. That's not to suggest they didn't fight; nothing fights harder than the southern man. They were just unwilling to carry the war into civilian quarters (for the most part).

In hindsight, they should have burned every unionist town, field, business, and home while taking absolutely no prisoners that crossed into southern territory.
The South was a soft nation that didn't deserve to survive because they weren't willing to go all out. The were basically a warm weather Canada with slaves.

[SicEmBaylor]

oh quit being bitter that your Limey assistance couldn't get through a little blockade. :D

Well, I tend to think that had they fully committed themselves to the war and brought the full weight of the Royal Navy to bear then they probably could have made a little gap somewhere along the line. ;)

[jk the sooner fan]

can we get a "lincoln vs states rights" folder?

[royalfan5]

Well, I tend to think that had they fully committed themselves to the war and brought the full weight of the Royal Navy to bear then they probably could have made a little gap somewhere along the line. ;)
But nobody wants side with losers, and that's what the South was.

[Scott D]

Well, I tend to think that had they fully committed themselves to the war and brought the full weight of the Royal Navy to bear then they probably could have made a little gap somewhere along the line. ;)

so in essence since the south had little faith in itself, it really couldn't do much of a job of getting outside help in winning. So we're back to the point that the South started a war that it knew it wouldn't win. Especially since the Brits were very interested in getting involved if for no other reason to attempt to reestablish colonialism.

[SicEmBaylor]

so in essence since the south had little faith in itself, it really couldn't do much of a job of getting outside help in winning.
I'd take issue that they didn't do much to try to get outside help. They did virtually everything they could possibly do including setting up embassies in both London and Paris and badgering their governments on an almost daily basis to side with them.


So we're back to the point that the South started a war that it knew it wodn't win.
The south did not start the war. I'm not sure where the Constitution says that if a State leaves the union then it's an automatic declaration of war against the remaining states. If you're arguing that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the south starting the war then I would argue that it was the Union who started it by not withdrawing their forces from the sovereign state of S. Carolina which continually requested that they do so. If the British had kept forces after the Revolution within the United States indefinitely with no plan to remove those troops then would we not consider that a tacit declaration of war?


Especially since the Brits were very interested in getting involved if for no other reason to attempt to reestablish colonialism.

France didn't exactly side with us in the Revolution because of their love of individual rights and liberty. Everyone has different motivations.

[royalfan5]

I'd take issue that they didn't do much to try to get outside help. They did virtually everything they could possibly do including setting up embassies in both London and Paris and badgering their governments on an almost daily basis to side with them.


The south did not start the war. I'm not sure where the Constitution says that if a State leaves the union then it's an automatic declaration of war against the remaining states. If you're arguing that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the south starting the war then I would argue that it was the Union who started it by not withdrawing their forces from the sovereign state of S. Carolina which continually requested that they do so. If the British had kept forces after the Revolution within the United States indefinitely with no plan to remove those troops then would we not consider that a tacit declaration of war?



France didn't exactly side with us in the Revolution because of their love of individual rights and liberty. Everyone has different motivations.
South started the war. If they don't try and leave they don't get their *** beat. Doesn't matter what the South thought the constitution said, they knew what the deal was in reality, and they went ahead anyway. Why would they think the United States would care what a piece of paper said, when they saw how the United States treated other agreements and treaties?

[Scott D]

I'd take issue that they didn't do much to try to get outside help. They did virtually everything they could possibly do including setting up embassies in both London and Paris and badgering their governments on an almost daily basis to side with them.

Clearly their ambassadors were cut from Baylor cloth.


The south did not start the war. I'm not sure where the Constitution says that if a State leaves the union then it's an automatic declaration of war against the remaining states. If you're arguing that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the south starting the war then I would argue that it was the Union who started it by not withdrawing their forces from the sovereign state of S. Carolina which continually requested that they do so. If the British had kept forces after the Revolution within the United States indefinitely with no plan to remove those troops then would we not consider that a tacit declaration of war?

They fired the first shot, they started it. They were also demanding that Federal troops abandon Federal property. Ft. Sumter was not South Carolina property, it was Federal property that was in the State of South Carolina.


France didn't exactly side with us in the Revolution because of their love of individual rights and liberty. Everyone has different motivations.

Obviously France sided with us because it was a chance to take another shot at their eons long enemy. Conversely, we did assist 'the people' during the French Revolution.

[SicEmBaylor]

They fired the first shot, they started it. They were also demanding that Federal troops abandon Federal property. Ft. Sumter was not South Carolina property, it was Federal property that was in the State of South Carolina.

They fired on Federal property AFTER S. Carolina had left the union and become a completely sovereign state. Now, intellectually you have to accept that fact if you're going to accept the legitimacy of post-war reconstruction efforts which hinged on the principle that the Congress was free to take certain constitution run-arounds because the southern states had left and their re-acceptance to the union could be determined by the Congress.

Now, Lincoln said that such arguments were useless which is a very nice way of getting people to ignore the fact that for the purposes of post-war Reconstruction the Union recognized the fact that the South had left but had executed the war under the justification that no state could voluntarily leave the union.

[FaninAma]

South started the war. If they don't try and leave they don't get their *** beat. Doesn't matter what the South thought the constitution said, they knew what the deal was in reality, and they went ahead anyway. Why would they think the United States would care what a piece of paper said, when they saw how the United States treated other agreements and treaties?

What you are saying, in essence, is that you will always trust the federal government to do what is right and that there is no chance that the current slow leaching of power and liberties to the federal government( and it's beaurocratic minions) from the people won't turn into a fatal hemorrhaging. We the people have no recourse except to pledge our eternal loyalty to the government of the United States.

I have no such faith in human beings and I would much rather have other options available. And I feel fairly confident that the Founding Fathers would side with me.

[royalfan5]

What you are saying, in essence, is that you will always trust the federal government to do what is right and that there is no chance that the current slow leaching of power and liberties to the federal government( and it's beaurocratic minions) from the people won't turn into a fatal hemorrhaging. We the people have no recourse except to pledge our eternal loyalty to the government of the United States.

I have no such faith in human beings and I would much rather have other options available. And I feel fairly confident that the Founding Fathers would side with me.
If you hadn't figured it out, I am pretty much just mocking your and Sic'em's view on this.

However, I will say one thing. The South is lucky they lost, because an independent South would be an english speaking Mexico. They had poor land distribution under the plantation system, and were dependent on soil depleting, labor intentsive commodities for export, much like a Brazil. They had no industrial base, and they would have had no real advantages in the development of one. They had no benefical in-migration, and like would have had plenty of people emmigrating because of opportunities in the industrial North.(Just like they did in real life) In addition the decentralized Gov't would have been an additional hinderance to development. Centralization has been key to industrialization throughout history. The C.S.A would have evolved much like a latin American nation, with a small upper class dominating, and the rest without a pot to **** in. Do you honestly think Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisana would have suddenly started to kick *** if they were given State's rights? Would the later migration to the sun-belt occur if it was another country? I doubt it. The South would have had serious structural problems to overcome, to catch up to the North.

[Vaevictis]

If you're arguing that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the south starting the war then I would argue that it was the Union who started it by not withdrawing their forces from the sovereign state of S. Carolina which continually requested that they do so. If the British had kept forces after the Revolution within the United States indefinitely with no plan to remove those troops then would we not consider that a tacit declaration of war?

The problem is that once you yield up land to the feds, it's not part of your state anymore. Even if you accept the premise that the states had the right to secede, it's a stretch of the highest order to claim that they also have the right to take land with them that isn't theirs.

[Okla-homey]

If you're arguing that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the south starting the war then I would argue that it was the Union who started it by not withdrawing their forces from the sovereign state of S. Carolina which continually requested that they do so. If the British had kept forces after the Revolution within the United States indefinitely with no plan to remove those troops then would we not consider that a tacit declaration of war?


Just passing thru and noticed this little nugget. I would like to point out that the US base at Guantanamo represents a "refusal to withdraw forces from a sovereign state" [Cuba.] Even at the height of "the Cuban Missile Crisis" our retention of that facility was not deemed an act of war, despite Cuba's repeated requests of "Yankee Go Home!" If Castro had tried to forcibly eject us from GTMO, that would have been an act which would have been met by force. To Castro's credit, unlike Cornfed officials a hundred years earlier, he understood that fact.

I would state, for the record, that the "fire eaters" in SC in 1860 were irrational radicals. In fact, it was often stated by people on both sides of the issue, shortly after SC ratified her illegal secession; "South Carolina, too small to be an independent republic, too large to be an insane asylum.";)

[Okla-homey]

What you are saying, in essence, is that you will always trust the federal government to do what is right and that there is no chance that the current slow leaching of power and liberties to the federal government( and it's beaurocratic minions) from the people won't turn into a fatal hemorrhaging. We the people have no recourse except to pledge our eternal loyalty to the government of the United States.

I have no such faith in human beings and I would much rather have other options available. And I feel fairly confident that the Founding Fathers would side with me.


IMHO, this limiting of the states power often occured at the behest of the states themselves. The single most powerful 20th century blow against "states rights" was probably the ratification of the XVII amendment in 1913. That amendment had very strong support in the South. You'll recall the XVIIth established direct election of senators. Previous to the enactment and ratification of this amendment, senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Thus, the amendment was a very powerful limiting of the individual state's power, formerly wielded by its elected legislature, to influence and control the federal government. It was ratified by all former Cornfed states almost immediately after its introduction.

Contrast the popularity in the South of this voluntary "hamstringing" of state legislatures with the support for the XIXth which gave women the vote. Proposed in 1919, only two former slave states ratified it, before it achieved the required 3/4's of the states in order to become the law of the land. Perhaps interestingly,this amendment was specifically rejected by Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Delaware and Louisiana during the 1919 ratification process. SC didn't ratify the XIXth until August of 1973!

[landrun]

You learn something new every day!

I learned from reading this thread that the south didn't really fight the civil war. :rolleyes: If they did, they would have kicked Lincoln's butt.

Now, THAT is a rewriting of history.

[FaninAma]

If you hadn't figured it out, I am pretty much just mocking your and Sic'em's view on this.
Well it's nice of you to let me know that in the future I needn't bother engaging you and can disregard your input and opinion on a serious subject.

Homey, I fail to see how taking the the election of Senators away from the state legislatures and giving that power directly to the people deludes state's right's. My reason for supporting states' rights is that it brings power closer to the electorate. So the process of electing Senators resting in the hands of the voters themselves would seem to increase the power of the individual.

I need to clarify my postion. I am for any action that returns or leaves more power in the hands of the electorate(the people). The closer to the people that the real power resides the more control the people have over that power. Individual>local(town)>state>federal.

I hope you aren't denying the dilution of control over our government that has occured with the continued federalization of the power base. The explosion of federal regulatory agencies with un-Constitutionally derived powers and no real oversight has been a major negative development in terms of their impact over civil liberties such as property rights. The emergence of a federal judicial system that sees little problem with overturning the will of the electorate is another detrimental development and obstacle to the intent of the Constituion which is to leave the power of important decisions(especially in the social arena) to the people..

The centralization of power makes the potential for abuse of that power much higher , IMO.

[royalfan5]

Well it's nice of you to let me know that in the future I needn't bother engaging you and can disregard your input and opinion on a serious subject.

Homey, I fail to see how taking the the election of Senators away from the state legislatures and giving that power directly to the people deludes state's right's. My reason for supporting states' rights is that it brings power closer to the electorate. So the process of electing Senators resting in the hands of the voters themselves would seem to increase the power of the individual.

I need to clarify my postion. I am for any action that returns or leaves more power in the hands of the electorate(the people). The closer to the people that the real power resides the more control the people have over that power. Individual>local(town)>state>federal.

I hope you aren't denying the dilution of control over our government that has occured with the continued federalization of the power base. The explosion of federal regulatory agencies with un-Constitutionally derived powers and no real oversight has been a major negative development in terms of their impact over civil liberties such as property rights. The emergence of a federal judicial system that sees little problem with overturning the will of the electorate is another detrimental development and obstacle to the intent of the Constituion which is to leave the power of important decisions(especially in the social arena) to the people..

The centralization of power makes the potential for abuse of that power much higher , IMO.
I wouldn't call throwing a hissy fit over a war that was lost 140+ years ago a serious subject.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just passing thru and noticed this little nugget. I would like to point out that the US base at Guantanamo represents a "refusal to withdraw forces from a sovereign state" [Cuba.] Even at the height of "the Cuban Missile Crisis" our retention of that facility was not deemed an act of war, despite Cuba's repeated requests of "Yankee Go Home!" If Castro had tried to forcibly eject us from GTMO, that would have been an act which would have been met by force. To Castro's credit, unlike Cornfed officials a hundred years earlier, he understood that fact.

GitMo is there via an agreement with the Cuban government pre-dating Castro's regime. The United States, to this day, pays a nominal fee to "rent" the property.

Now, unless you can provide me with an example of the United States agreeing with the state of S. Carolina to pay rent on the property then your argument has no real merit or comparison.

[SicEmBaylor]

Homey, I fail to see how taking the the election of Senators away from the state legislatures and giving that power directly to the people deludes state's right's. My reason for supporting states' rights is that it brings power closer to the electorate. So the process of electing Senators resting in the hands of the voters themselves would seem to increase the power of the individual.

Now, on this issue I disagree with you. I believe it's because we have a somewhat different justification for supporting the south in the WONA.

The direct election of US Senators hurt states' rights by stripping the individual states of their "seat at the table" within the Federal government. Just as individuals have representatives to the Federal government in the form of the House, so to did the individual states in the Senate represent the state entity rather than individuals within that entity.

Essentially, the direct election of Senators resulted in the individual politician representing the interests of the individual (just as a House member would but on a state wide scale) rather than the interests of the state itself. This changed the Senate, which keep in mind is the upper house, from representing the state to just being a more selective group of House members.

One of the brilliant balances of the Constitution was the division of Congress between the people's representatives and the representatives of the states giving the Federal government input from two distinct political bodies. An added benefit to the system was that it increased the importance of state legislative races.

[def_lazer_fc]

what you really never hear is how the east and west fared in this battle.

[SicEmBaylor]

what you really never hear is how the east and west fared in this battle.

Well, that's easy. The west fared well along with half the East (geographically).

[jk the sooner fan]

what you really never hear is how the east and west fared in this battle.

i'll say this, for a troll you do a good job of masking what your original handle is.......

[FaninAma]

I wouldn't call throwing a hissy fit over a war that was lost 140+ years ago a serious subject.

And I wouldn't think the above post was written by a mature adult who apparently has taken the time to respond multiple times to what in his opinion was a frivolous subject........but apparently it was.

[def_lazer_fc]

i'll say this, for a troll you do a good job of masking what your original handle is.......
im not masking anything.

[royalfan5]

And I wouldn't think the above post was written by a mature adult who apparently has taken the time to respond multiple times to what in his opinion was a frivolous subject........but apparently it was.
I wouldn't call myself mature.

[def_lazer_fc]

oh, and i'm not a troll. i'm obviously a bigfoot. jeez...

[FaninAma]

Now, on this issue I disagree with you. I believe it's because we have a somewhat different justification for supporting the south in the WONA.

The direct election of US Senators hurt states' rights by stripping the individual states of their "seat at the table" within the Federal government. Just as individuals have representatives to the Federal government in the form of the House, so to did the individual states in the Senate represent the state entity rather than individuals within that entity.

Essentially, the direct election of Senators resulted in the individual politician representing the interests of the individual (just as a House member would but on a state wide scale) rather than the interests of the state itself. This changed the Senate, which keep in mind is the upper house, from representing the state to just being a more selective group of House members.

One of the brilliant balances of the Constitution was the division of Congress between the people's representatives and the representatives of the states giving the Federal government input from two distinct political bodies. An added benefit to the system was that it increased the importance of state legislative races.

You make a valid point. At some point the individual will have to designate their representatives in a Constituional Republic that will hold the balance of power on their behalf. I can see where bypassing the state's roll in this determination undermined their postion with the federal government.

I guess the one bargaining chip the states still have is the threat of a Constituional Convention. And with that sword there is as much potential for harm as there is good.

[FaninAma]

I wouldn't call myself mature.

OK. And BTW, the discussion isn't so much about who won or lost the Civil War but rather the impact on the country following the war and the implications for the country's future based on the following notions:

#1. That a war was even waged in the first place to force citizens to reamain a part of this country against their will.
#2. That the the results established the federal government as the supreme ruling body in the land without recourse for it's citizens no matter how repressive federal policy may become.

[royalfan5]

OK. And BTW, the discussion isn't so much about who won or lost the Civil War but rather the impact on the country following the war and the implications for the country's future based on the following notions:

#1. That a war was even waged in the first place to force citizens to reamain a part of this country against their will.
#2. That the the results established the federal government as the supreme ruling body in the land without recourse for it's citizens no matter how repressive federal policy may become.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, if the south would have gained independence they would be lucky to be on Argentina's level. The economic mix was not sustainable over the long term, and likely would have imploded multiple times much as Latin American nations did.

A strong Federal Gov't is neccessity for a strong nation. I would say the ability to vote in Federal elections and amend the constitution with the vote of the people provides recourse.

[Scott D]

GitMo is there via an agreement with the Cuban government pre-dating Castro's regime. The United States, to this day, pays a nominal fee to "rent" the property.

Now, unless you can provide me with an example of the United States agreeing with the state of S. Carolina to pay rent on the property then your argument has no real merit or comparison.

Technically you could argue that southern states seizing other federal property (forts/ports) was the initial act of war in 1860. Not to mention South Carolina forces attacking the Fort after implicitly striking an agreement with Washington in regards to the fort when Buchanan was still in office.

[SicEmBaylor]

Technically you could argue that southern states seizing other federal property (forts/ports) was the initial act of war in 1860. Not to mention South Carolina forces attacking the Fort after implicitly striking an agreement with Washington in regards to the fort when Buchanan was still in office.

That's still not a valid argument. The borders of S. Carolina or any other state were not fluid. The state did not go beyond its borders seizing Federal property wherever it found it claiming it as part of the state. That Federal property was situated squarely within the state of S. Carolina. The state sent repeated demands that the troops in that property be withdrawn to no avail.

[Scott D]

That's still not a valid argument. The borders of S. Carolina or any other state were not fluid. The state did not go beyond its borders seizing Federal property wherever it found it claiming it as part of the state. That Federal property was situated squarely within the state of S. Carolina. The state sent repeated demands that the troops in that property be withdrawn to no avail.


An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had failed; provided that they were not reinforced, and their military status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding, viz., on December 9, 1860.

those negotiations were never completed. The negotiators were withdrawn home, and from that point a lot of sabre rattling went on via the Governor of South Carolina. There technically was no reinforcement of Ft. Sumter nor any of the other 4 forts the Federal Government still had in the South Carolina, there was a redistribution of manpower, thereby abandoning 3 of the 4 fort locations.

so in essence your argument, in it's entire weakness is that because the state of South Carolina acted as a petulant child and screamed and wailed that the Federal Government on Federal land needed to go away, that James Buchanan should have withdrawn every man he had stationed down there?

Perhaps if South Carolina acted less petulant it might have gotten it's wish. Perhaps the actions taken by Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana were just too intellectually challenging for the 'great state' of South Carolina to manage. Or perhaps even Governor to be Pickens actually wanted to pick a fight with the government in Washington over the matter. He certainly didn't spend much time attempting to discuss his alleged grievance with Washington.