# Wrong Choice of Ben Silver Tie



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

This is an old article (1994), but I found it interesting. I, actually, have the same tie from Ben Silver. Note to self: Do not wear this tie with blazer that has the Ben Silver enamelled Great Seal of the Confederacy buttons.......

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941005/10050525.htm


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

I sense a topic that may be moved to the interchange.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Here's the tie in question, since it's a twist on a British tie this is stretching it . . . sounds like revisionist B.S. to me for anyone to have a qualm w/ this. Robb isn't Senator any longer, this article is over 12 years old.

I have a great tie from Chipp which has all the CSA flags on it. 

If we don't learn and learn from history we're destined to repeat it.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Maybe I need to get one of those...


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

I've always been dubious of Ben Silver's story regarding the origin of the pattern, i.e., that it was worn in the UK to evidence southern sympathy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

TACKY and immature. I'm all for dressing well but, to intentionally wear an item of clothing that is sure to prove socially offensive to individuals or groups, raises legitimate questions as to one's intent and/or judgement.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> TACKY and immature. I'm all for dressing well but, to intentionally wear an item of clothing that is sure to prove socially offensive to individuals or groups, raises legitimate questions as to one's intent and/or judgement.


That's a ludicrous comment based on what's been posted.

First, it's a striped tie; what, exactly, do you find offensive about it? And how does it significantly differ in design from any other repp/school/regimental tie?

Second, lots of things are offensive nowadays. Some people are offended by other people wearing suits or ties (class ridden, oppressive, etc). Some people are offended by pink shirts, some by crucifixes, some by cut-off shorts.........Should a person refrain from wearing school/team colors for fear of offending someone?

Third, I find your response insulting and offensive - and you obviously meant it to be so - what does that say about you other than that you're a hypocrite?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen

Wow! I love this place. I agree with Rocker here gentlemen. It is a nice striped tie, I would wear it.
I wear most regimental ties from Britain, some I have earned myself, when serving with the British.
On the other hand, ties are my weakness.
This is a nice tie. 
Again, eagle, saw nothing wrong with this post or its intent.
I dont think any harm was meant.


Have nice day my friends


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

I have worn the same Ben Silver "Anglo Confederate Society" tie for a few years now and have even worn it for fun with the aforementioned CSA blazer buttons. Most dont recognize either as Confederate unless they know of my affinity for the CSA. My most favorite outing with the tie was to a reception at the Union League Club in NYC. 

True story - 
Due to the influence of Andy's Trad Forum I've begun wearing bowties on occasion and wanted to acquire the same design as a bowtie, but was a bit put off by Ben Silver's steep price. I must say the Lord moves in mysterious ways. When shopping at J. Press in NYC during the recent sale, what did I find peeking out from the rack of bowties, but said tie at 25% off! Steedappeal can vouch for my story as he sold it to me (he was admittedly unaware of the origin of the design). 

In my book, anyone who thinks the tie is offensive needs to take it up with Mr. Press. Deo Vindice


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That's a ludicrous comment based on what's been posted.
> 
> First, it's a striped tie; what, exactly, do you find offensive about it? And how does it significantly differ in design from any other repp/school/regimental tie?
> 
> ...


Rocker/Duke Grad: First let me assure both of you, it was never my intention to insult or offend anyone and also to say I agree with you that "it is a nice stripped tie." Had I seen the tie before reading the article referrenced in Rocker's initial post, I might have chosen to wear it myself. However, the design was clearly offensive to "the states highest ranking black elected official," whose support Robb was seeking, and to a significant segement of the electorate, as evidenced by Robb's representatives' statement to a reporter, "nobody in his wildest dreams had any idea the tie is what you said it was!" Knowing this background information, I personally would not wear the tie today. For years I have owned and worn, occassionally, a nice tie with little elephants embroidered on it. However, I never wore it to work, all the years I was employed to carry out "the peoples business" and I would certainly never wear it to a "Democratic Party" event. I don't do things designed to intentionally hurt or offend others. I will however, stand up for what I believe in and Rocker, trust me...I am not a hypocrite! Sorry if I caused you distress.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Rocker/Duke Grad: First let me assure both of you, it was never my intention to insult or offend anyone and also to say I agree with you that "it is a nice stripped tie." Had I seen the tie before reading the article referrenced in Rocker's initial post, I might have chosen to wear it myself. However, the design was clearly offensive to "the states highest ranking black elected official," whose support Robb was seeking, and to a significant segement of the electorate, as evidenced by Robb's representatives' statement to a reporter, "nobody in his wildest dreams had any idea the tie is what you said it was!" Knowing this background information, I personally would not wear the tie today. For years I have owned and worn, occassionally, a nice tie with little elephants embroidered on it. However, I never wore it to work, all the years I was employed to carry out "the peoples business" and I would certainly never wear it to a "Democratic Party" event. I don't do things designed to intentionally hurt or offend others. I will however, stand up for what I believe in and Rocker, trust me...I am not a hypocrite! Sorry if I caused you distress.


<rushes to side wielding finely honed saber>

Now then, scoundrels, back! Back I say! 

I can appreciate that, Eagle.

Allen


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

Sounds like this guy would wear that tie.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Rocker/Duke Grad: First let me assure both of you, it was never my intention to insult or offend anyone and also to say I agree with you that "it is a nice stripped tie." Had I seen the tie before reading the article referrenced in Rocker's initial post, I might have chosen to wear it myself. However, the design was clearly offensive to "the states highest ranking black elected official," whose support Robb was seeking, and to a significant segement of the electorate, as evidenced by Robb's representatives' statement to a reporter, "nobody in his wildest dreams had any idea the tie is what you said it was!" Knowing this background information, I personally would not wear the tie today. For years I have owned and worn, occassionally, a nice tie with little elephants embroidered on it. However, I never wore it to work, all the years I was employed to carry out "the peoples business" and I would certainly never wear it to a "Democratic Party" event. I don't do things designed to intentionally hurt or offend others. I will however, stand up for what I believe in and Rocker, trust me...I am not a hypocrite! Sorry if I caused you distress.


Thank You, Eagle - I guess I got riled up after I had stated that I had the tie in question and then you posted the words "Tacky." I don't mind my judgment or intelligence being called into question, but it really fires me up to have my taste in clothes attacked. :icon_smile:


----------



## Plainsman (Jun 29, 2006)

Just curious, can one even purchase this tie anymore? I've never seen it on Ben Silver's web site. If they discontinued it, seems like a moot point to be arguing over it. Although I would buy one if I could find it.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Just curious, can one even purchase this tie anymore? I've never seen it on Ben Silver's web site. If they discontinued it, seems like a moot point to be arguing over it. Although I would buy one if I could find it.


Here:

https://www.bensilver.com/fs_storefront.asp?root=1&show=12&display=2937


----------



## Plainsman (Jun 29, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Here:
> 
> https://www.bensilver.com/fs_storefront.asp?root=1&show=12&display=2937


Huh. I've been all over Ben Silver and never seen it. Thanks.


----------



## tweedchap (Sep 13, 2005)

Rocker said:


> I've always been dubious of Ben Silver's story regarding the origin of the pattern, i.e., that it was worn in the UK to evidence southern sympathy.


It sounds a bit dodgy to me, too! Didn't regimental and college and old school ties start in Britain the late C19th early C20th century, anyway? Maybe someone could help here?


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Just curious, can one even purchase this tie anymore? I've never seen it on Ben Silver's web site. If they discontinued it, seems like a moot point to be arguing over it. Although I would buy one if I could find it.


I own the same tie, and I wear it with pride. 99.9999999% of the people in this world do not know the genesis of the tie. Even if they knew, I do not care. As most Confederate sympathizers will attest, the War of Southern Independence was about independence, and not the retention of slavery.

Certainly there was a great deal of sympathy for the Confederacy in Great Britain during the Civil War. Great Britain traded quite happily with the Confederacy, and sold them large quantities of arms and other material goods, since the South had a paucity of manufacturing ability.

PS - I purchased mine from Benson & Clegg. Their price was quite a bit less, even including postage from England. There is also a strong rumor that Benson & Clegg makes a number of ties for Ben Silver. I compared the construction of my Benson & Clegg ties to those of my Ben Silver's, and the comparison is quite striking.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

I don't think Ben Silver is trying to perfectly replicate an exact tie that was worn during the 1860s by pro-south MPs in Britain, rather it is rougly basing the design, from their sources etc.

Many a John Bull in Parliament were pro-South for economic reasons. You could easily argue the entire war was fought over the future economic course of the nation, I am sure it's legit.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Okay, I'm moving this one to the Interchange.

Deo Vindice.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Good idea to move it to The Interchange.

I've never seen the tie before or heard of the design, but to claim that the Civil War was not about slavery is ludicrous. Read the secession resolutions, most particularly of South Carolina. It is clear that the right that they claim the federal government was infringing on was the right to own human beings.

You have a right to wear a tie with a confederate design, or even a confederate flag on it. You have a right to fly the confederate flag at your home, and I will defend that right. You have the right to burn the confederate or any other flag if you own it and it's on your property.

Just remember, though, that displaying confederate symbols is very similar to displaying swastikas. The one difference is that the Nazis were just enemies, the confederates were traitors.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Just remember, though, that displaying confederate symbols is very similar to displaying swastikas. The one difference is that the Nazis were just enemies, the confederates were traitors.


Please. The Nazis were far more than mere enemies; and those members of the Confederacy were not traitors. The Southern states all passed secession resolutions in their respective state legislatures, resigned their statehood as they believed they had the right to do, and formed a Confederacy based on their common beliefs and aspirations. There is no definition of "traitor" which I am aware that could possibly be construed as the action taken by the Confederate States. The South did not betray the trust of the U.S. Government; neither did they commit a treasonous act.

At no time did the South commit atrocities such as the Nazis did. The Nazis were hell bent on dominating western Europe, and then defeating the USSR. Their butchery of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Russians, Euro-Asians, and other ethnic groups was on an epic scale. To mention the Confederacy in the same sentence as one of the most criminal regimes in the twentieth century, goes beyond the pale.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It's rather bizarre that you would claim that taking up arms against the government to which you owe the duty of allegiance is not treason, but that seems to be your position.

I guess we're not going to agree on this one.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*South Carolina Secession Resolution*

Here are some excerpts. The whole thing isn't that long, but it speaks volumes.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

. . .

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

In case you're wondering, the "rights of property established in fifteen of the States" that they're talking about is the right to own slaves.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

jackmccullough said:


> Just remember, though, that displaying confederate symbols is very similar to displaying swastikas. The one difference is that the Nazis were just enemies, the confederates were traitors.


Self-righteous Yankee propaganda, and a historically ludicrous assertion.

The Southern secessionists had at least the same rights of secession as the Founders. Robert E. Lee was a traitor if George Washington was.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> It's rather bizarre that you would claim that taking up arms against the government to which you owe the duty of allegiance is not treason, but that seems to be your position.
> 
> I guess we're not going to agree on this one.


The allegiance to the United States of America stopped with the creation of the Cofederate States of America. The Confederate States only took up arms when threatened by Union Forces. President Lincoln's attempt to re-supply Fort Sumter was taken as aggression on the South by the North, and they reacted accordingly.

Every Confederate state believed that voluntary admission to the union could be countered by voluntary secession.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I feel a Civil War reenactment coming on. 

Time to rejoin the real world. 

Cheers.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

BertieW said:


> I feel a Civil War reenactment coming on.
> 
> Time to rejoin the real world.
> 
> Cheers.


Bertie, sometimes it's fun just to take the argument to its logical end.

I'm a sympathizer for the South - States rights, smaller government, etc. My great-great-great grandfathers were all soldiers in the Union Army, however. My birthplace and Commonwealth (State) of allegiance is Kentucky.

Slavery by anyone is most abhorrent to me. I read in an ecnomics history volume many years ago, that slavery would have been passed out of existence without the Civil War by about 1880. The economic pressure on Southern farms and plantations to mechanize would have been the driver. Also, manufacturing would have moved southward with the growth of railroads and highways. Manufacturing economies make it almost impossible for slavery to exist.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It's hard to say that the slavery regime was one of smaller government. It took a considerable amount of government force to keep the slaves in captivity.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

*Winner Takes All*



pendennis said:


> Every Confederate state believed that voluntary admission to the union could be countered by voluntary secession.


Oops.



> There is no definition of "traitor" which I am aware that could possibly be construed as the action taken by the Confederate States. The South did not betray the trust of the U.S. Government; neither did they commit a treasonous act.


Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution states, in part: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

In 1795 one of the first cases to intepret this section of the Constitution defined "levying war" thus: "to resist or prevent by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the United States, is a levying of war against the United States, and consequently is treason, within the true meaning of the constitution." 

This definition was adopted by later courts, and the Confederacy's rebellion appeared to be an indisputable "levying [of] war," hence treason. However, the matter was clouded somewhat by the Supreme Court's 1862 decision in _The Prize Cases_, in which the court emphasized that a state of civil war existed between the North and South because of actions taken by the South, and prior to any act by the US Congress; thus, Lincoln's executive order blockading southern ports was a lawful act of war, not piracy. In reaching this conclusion the Court relied, in part, upon the following passage from Vattel's _The Law of Nations_:



> A civil war breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies, and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms.


This seemed to suggest that so long as a state of civil war existed between the Confederacy and the Union the Confederates were not traitors, but hostile agents of a foreign nation who owed no allegiance to the Union. This was a useful view for the North to encourage during the war; however, after hostilities ended the view that the rebellion was an act of treason reasserted itself. _Shortridge v. Macon_, an 1867 North Carolina Circuit Court opinion authored by Chief Justice Chase, llustrated the prevailing post-war view:



> [C]ounsel for the defendant rely upon the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, to the effect that the late rebellion was a civil war, in the prosecution of which belligerent rights were exercised by the national government, and accorded to the armed forces of the rebel Confederacy. . . . But these decisions do not in our judgment sustain the propositions in support of which they are cited . . . The national constitution declares that 'treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' . . . War, therefore, levied against the United States by citizens of the republic, under the pretended authority of the new state government of North Carolina, or of the so-called Confederate government which assumed the title of the 'Confederate States,' was treason against the United States. . . Nor can we agree with some persons . . . who insist that when rebellion attains the proportions and assumes the character of civil war, it is purged of its treasonable character, and can only be punished by the defeat of its armies, the disappointment of its hopes, and the calamities incident to unsuccessful war.




In rejecting the argument that this conclusion conflicted with the Supreme Court's holding in _The Prize Cases_, Justice Chase stated: "there is nothing in that opinion which gives countenance to the doctrine which counsel endeavor to deduce from it, that the insurgent states, by the act of rebellion, and by levying war against the nation, became foreign states, and their inhabitants alien enemies." 

Finally, the Court concluded with a comparison of the failed Confederacy and the successful Revolutionary Republic:




> Nor can the defense in this case derive more support from the decisions affirming the validity of confiscations during the war for American independence. That war began, doubtless, like the recent civil war-in rebellion . . . Had the recent rebellion proved successful, and had the validity of the confiscations and sequestrations actually enforced by insurgent authorities, been afterwards questioned in Confederate courts, it is not improbable that the decision of the state courts made during and after the revolutionary war, might have been cited with approval. But it hardly needs remark that those decisions were made under circumstances widely differing from those which now exist. They were made by the courts of states which had succeeded in their attempt to sever their colonial connection with Great Britain, and sanctioned acts which depended for their validity wholly upon success; and can have no application to acts of a rebel self-styled government, seeking the severance of constitutional relations of states to the Union, but defeated in the attempt, and itself broken up and destroyed. Those who engage in rebellion must consider the consequences. If they succeed, rebellion becomes revolution, and the new government will justify its founders. If they fail, all their acts hostile to the rightful government are violations of law, and originate no rights which can be recognized by the courts of the nation whose authority and existence have been alike assailed.


This last passage pretty much sums it up: law, like history, is written by the victors. In either event, the view expressed by Justice Chase in _Shortridge _seems to me correct; although I don't know if it is the view that prevails among scholars on the matter. More importantly, as Justice Chase also noted, whatever its legal status the defeated South was treated with exceptional leniency by the victorious North: "In some respects the forbearance and liberality of the nation exceed all example."


----------



## HSC87 (Mar 28, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That's a ludicrous comment based on what's been posted.
> 
> First, it's a striped tie; what, exactly, do you find offensive about it? And how does it significantly differ in design from any other repp/school/regimental tie?
> 
> ...


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

As a means of tying together this thread and the flag-burning thread, one might note that forty-eight states have statutes prohibiting flag desecration, excluding only Wyoming and Alaska. Of course, since _Texas v. Johnson_ was decided in 1989 these laws have been unenforced and unenforceable; but they remain on the books, dormant and threatening, awaiting future developments. Four of these states, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina, extend the same protection to the Stars and Bars (and other Confederate flags) as to the Stars and Stripes. Thus, if _Johnson_ and _Eichman _were overruled the desecration of the Confederate Battle Flag would be a punishable crime, at least in those four Southern States.

*However.* Virtually all state flag desecration statutes also prohibit the _commercial_ use of the flag. Indeed, three states, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Maine, prohibit _only_ commercial exploitation of the flag; and the first US Supreme Court decision addressing flag desecration, _Nebraska v. Halter_ (1907), upheld the constitutionality of a state statute that punished "the use of the flag of the United States for purposes of mere advertisement." Thus, if state laws against flag desecration are ever revived, either by high court decision or constitutional amendment, it might be illegal in at least four states of the former Confederacy, including South Carolina, to market products containing an image of the Confederate flag. As always, one must be careful for what one asks . . .


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

HSC87 said:


> This reminds me of a belt that i wear almost all the time displaying all of the CSA national flags as well as the battle flag, i found it in a shop in Myrtle Beach and had to get a tailor to adjust it from 38 legnth to 33 so that i could even wear it. I love these motif style belts and the fact that it displays CSA flags makes it even better. I would also love to hear someone tell me that my belt offends them.


From your description of the belt, it sounds as though I'd find it offensive. I recall that when I saw it in the catalog I thought the Ben Silver tie under discussion to be in poor taste.

It would, in my view, be in poor taste to hassle you about your belt, or tie, etc., however offensive I might find them.

I assume some would find the delightful (to me) peace symbol ties in the current Ben Silver catalog offensive.

As I think about it, motifs of almost any kind are a bit dodgy when it comes to being well-dressed. It is the fact of having a message of any kind on one's clothing rather than what that message might be that suggests vulgarity.

Perhaps it is just as well that I prefer paisley ties to regementals. (Except for the ones that remind me of ribbon candy from a fondly remembered Christmas 56 years ago.)

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> As I think about it, motifs of almost any kind are a bit dodgy when it comes to being well-dressed. It is the fact of having a message of any kind on one's clothing rather than what that message might be that suggests vulgarity.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Well said Gurdon


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

HSC87 said:


> This reminds me of a belt that i wear almost all the time displaying all of the CSA national flags as well as the battle flag, i found it in a shop in Myrtle Beach and had to get a tailor to adjust it from 38 legnth to 33 so that i could even wear it. I love these motif style belts and the fact that it displays CSA flags makes it even better. I would also love to hear someone tell me that my belt offends them.


I am pretty sure I would find the design of the belt you describe to be offensive. I am certain, based on the last sentence in your post, that it is worn in bad taste. Can you name and provide the design intent of each of those flags? Do you wear the belt because of the history it represents or do you wear the belt specifically to rankle people? While "Gurdon" finds cause to remember ribbon candies from Christmas, 56 years ago, that last statement reminds my of exchanges with "school yard bullies," almost 50 years ago. As "Gurdon" alludes and I fully agree, you have every right to wear it and to express yourself but, ask yourself why you are wearing it?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm backing eagle on this one. The motif, when taken out of it's intended context, is a nice tie. And I don't consider southerners to be (or have been) traitors or in any way. There is no comparison of the South to Nazi Germany. I believe that the issue of States Rights, secession and the Civil War, while being a loyal Yankee, is something that can be debated by us as gentlemen. What leads to the impropriety of wearing the tie is the issue of slavery, which the War and the Confederacy will be inexorably linked. You can't get away from it. Part of the reason the South seceeded was to continue _that_ institution. That's why people are offended by the wearing of Confederate memorabilia, and rightly so. So don't wear the damn tie. :icon_smile:

Cheers,

Yankee Ken


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Sorry guys, but I think most will choose not to let a bunch of Yankees decide whether or not it's okay to display or wear motifs associated with the Confederacy. You may repeat 'slavery, slavery' as your mantra while pretending that the Northern states were as a pure as the wind driven snow, but historical reality isn't quite that simple. The conduct of men like Grant and Sherman in their war on the population of the South was deplorable. And certain Northern states (Indiana, anyone?) made it illegal for blacks even to move to the state. The US flag itself flew over slavery for decades. Certainly slavery played a part in the War of Northern Aggression, but read, for example, James McPherson's 'What They Fought For' to see if Northerners were fighting to free slaves or not.

Y'all have spent too much time in Yankee government schools.

Deo Vindice
[><]


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Lushington, the contents of Article III, Section 3 notwithstanding, you have taken a decision which would not be decided by the courts, and attempted to apply legal logic, and case precedence to a cause which would not be bound by a court decision.

The Confederacy, for all practical purposes, had completely seceded by mid-1861. Therefore, they would not have recognized any U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1862.

As to your citation, starting with a 1795 interpretation; the secession of the Confederate States was not a rebellion, per se. U.S. courts may have interpreted things that way, but again, U.S. courts were not recognized as legitimate by the Confederacy. Once the constitutional bond was broken, U.S. law and courts would have no jurisdiction in the Confederacy.

I fall back to my original argument, and that is that secession was not considered rebellion by the Confederacy. It was considered a dissolution of U.S. statehood by the seceding states, and the creation of a Confederate States of America.

Repeating also, no shots were fired by the Confederacy, until President Lincoln attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter. The Confederacy considered this as an overt act of war by the Union.

There is a Latin phrase which aptly fits: *silent leges inter arma* - The laws are silent in the midst of arms.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I don't pretend that the North was as pure as the driven snow. And having read enough on the Civil War I certainly understand that many Union soldiers were not fighting to end slavery and could not have cared less whether the institution survived or not. But the fact remains that one reason the North fought (Emancipation Proclamation, anyone) was to end slavery.

I had no problem attending "Yankee" schools. They did right by me. And "War of Northern Aggression", please! I hope you were just being tongue in cheek.

War is hell. The South seceeded, the North said no and if Grant and Sherman waged total war, well that's what happens.

Please do not regard my debating as a condemnation of the South. There were a great many noble aspects to the Confederacy's fight, and as a student of the Civil War, respected their courage, pluck and good generalship.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pendennis said:


> The allegiance to the United States of America stopped with the creation of the Cofederate States of America. The Confederate States only took up arms when threatened by Union Forces. President Lincoln's attempt to re-supply Fort Sumter was taken as aggression on the South by the North, and they reacted accordingly.
> 
> Every Confederate state believed that voluntary admission to the union could be countered by voluntary secession.


1. It's obvious that the allegiance stopped, but my point is that it was treason to take up arms against the national government, to which the citizens of all the States owe a duty of allegiance.

2. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. If there were a right to secede wouldn't you think it would be found somewhere in the Constitution? In the absence of a legal right to secede, all the provisions of the Constitution, including the authority of the central government, are binding on all the States.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Sorry guys, but I think most will choose not to let a bunch of Yankees decide whether or not it's okay to display or wear motifs associated with the Confederacy. You may repeat 'slavery, slavery' as your mantra while pretending that the Northern states were as a pure as the wind driven snow, but historical reality isn't quite that simple. The conduct of men like Grant and Sherman in their war on the population of the South was deplorable. And certain Northern states (Indiana, anyone?) made it illegal for blacks even to move to the state. The US flag itself flew over slavery for decades. Certainly slavery played a part in the War of Northern Aggression, but read, for example, James McPherson's 'What They Fought For' to see if Northerners were fighting to free slaves or not.
> 
> Y'all have spent too much time in Yankee government schools.
> 
> [><]


Yankee government schools? Instead of talking about what the USA was fighting for, how about responding to the content of the South Carolina secession resolution?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Sorry guys, but I think most will choose not to let a bunch of Yankees decide whether or not it's okay to display or wear motifs associated with the Confederacy. You may repeat 'slavery, slavery' as your mantra while pretending that the Northern states were as a pure as the wind driven snow, but historical reality isn't quite that simple. The conduct of men like Grant and Sherman in their war on the population of the South was deplorable. And certain Northern states (Indiana, anyone?) made it illegal for blacks even to move to the state. The US flag itself flew over slavery for decades. Certainly slavery played a part in the War of Northern Aggression, but read, for example, James McPherson's 'What They Fought For' to see if Northerners were fighting to free slaves or not.
> 
> Y'all have spent too much time in Yankee government schools.
> 
> ...


It wasn't until the 1970's that Boston and Chicago public schools were finally integrated.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Tu quoque*



pt4u67 said:


> It wasn't until the 1970's that Boston and Chicago public schools were finally integrated.


From The Fallacy Files:

Tu Quoque
Translation: "You, also" or "You're another", Latin 
Type:
Argumentum ad Hominem

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Analysis

Exposition:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation. 
Source:
S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 204-206.

Resource:
Julian Baggini, "Tu Quoque", Bad Moves, 10/1/2004


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> 1. It's obvious that the allegiance stopped, but my point is that it was treason to take up arms against the national government, to which the citizens of all the States owe a duty of allegiance.
> 
> 2. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. If there were a right to secede wouldn't you think it would be found somewhere in the Constitution? In the absence of a legal right to secede, all the provisions of the Constitution, including the authority of the central government, are binding on all the States.


Jack, one of the things recognized in many legal arguments is that those things not specifically denied, are inherently permissible.

The argument by the Confederacy was that each state entered voluntarily into the Union; ergo, each could voluntarily secede.

Again, the Confederate States did not take up arms until President Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter re-supplied.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

pendennis said:


> Again, the Confederate States did not take up arms until President Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter re-supplied.


What did the Confederacy expect, Abe Lincoln to wave a handkerchief goodby? The re-supply of Fort Sumpter was not a beligerent act taken for no apparent reason. The secession of the southern states started the war.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Yankee government schools? Instead of talking about what the USA was fighting for, how about responding to the content of the South Carolina secession resolution?


Jack, here's the ordinance, as passed by the South Carolina legislature:

*South Carolina Secession Ordinance*
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> From The Fallacy Files:
> 
> Tu Quoque
> Translation: "You, also" or "You're another", Latin
> ...


Not attempting to justify anything with an ad hominem attack. Just stating that the problem of racism was not just a southern phenomenon. I've never lived in the south but I think too many people are quick to label southerners as racists or bigot based on their choice of something like a tie.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pendennis said:


> Jack, here's the ordinance, as passed by the South Carolina legislature:
> 
> *South Carolina Secession Ordinance*
> AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
> ...


 South Carolina Secession Resolution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some excerpts. The whole thing isn't that long, but it speaks volumes.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

. . .

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

In case you're wondering, the "rights of property established in fifteen of the States" that they're talking about is the right to own slaves.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Not attempting to justify anything with an ad hominem attack. Just stating that the problem of racism was not just a southern phenomenon. I've never lived in the south but I think too many people are quick to label southerners as racists or bigot based on their choice of something like a tie.


I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that racism was just a southern phenomenon.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

pendennis said:


> Lushington, the contents of Article III, Section 3 notwithstanding, you have taken a decision which would not be decided by the courts, and attempted to apply legal logic, and case precedence to a cause which would not be bound by a court decision.


 Treason has been a matter of statute in the English speaking world since 1351, and in the United States it is a matter of constitutional law. Thus, I think the best way to determine whether the Southern Rebellion was an act of treason is to examine how the United States federal courts interpreted and applied the Article III, Section 3 definition of treason before, during, and after the Civil War. There are other ways, surely, and one might fall back upon natural law concepts, such as those found in the Declaration of Independence, to justify insurrection and revolt. However, I have a weakness for legal logic and case precedence, so I employed those in my analysis.


> The Confederacy, for all practical purposes, had completely seceded by mid-1861. Therefore, they would not have recognized any U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1862.


 With _The Prize Cases_ the issue is not really whether the Confederacy would have recognized the Supreme Court's ruling, but how the Court interpreted the South's action in seceding from the Union and taking up arms. Relying upon the authority I quoted, and many others, the Court seemed to adopt a position similar to yours. As I stated, this was a useful position for the Court to at least impliedly adopt during the war, for many reasons. Whether that would remain the official position after the War was an issue on the minds of many men, most of them residing south of the Mason-Dixon, after Appomattox.


> As to your citation, starting with a 1795 interpretation; the secession of the Confederate States was not a rebellion, per se. U.S. courts may have interpreted things that way, but again, U.S. courts were not recognized as legitimate by the Confederacy. Once the constitutional bond was broken, U.S. law and courts would have no jurisdiction in the Confederacy.
> I fall back to my original argument, and that is that secession was not considered rebellion by the Confederacy. It was considered a dissolution of U.S. statehood by the seceding states, and the creation of a Confederate States of America.


 So many argued at the time, both North and South. However, Chief Justice Chase put paid to those arguments in _Shortridge_. He plainly acknowledged that had the South prevailed in the same manner as had the revolutionary colonies, the Rebellion would in no wise be considered treason, but a successful revolt. However, as Justice Chase further noted, the South lost; thus, it did not matter a damn how the former Confederacy viewed its actions. The only thing that mattered was how the men and institutions of the victorious Union viewed those actions. And, notwithstanding what may have been inferred from the Supreme Court's decision in _The Prize Cases,_ from where Chase sat in 1867, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court charged with interpreting Article III, Section 3, the South's action looked an awful lot like "levying war," and therefore treason. The implication being that if the triumphant Union had decided to hang the lot of the surviving rebels it had a sound legal basis for doing so. But, as Justice Chase concluded, the triumphant Union did not exercise its legal right to exact vengeance on Jeff Davis & Co. Rather, the North wisely chose to act with "forbearance and liberality," relatively speaking, of course. 


> Repeating also, no shots were fired by the Confederacy, until President Lincoln attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter. The Confederacy considered this as an overt act of war by the Union.


 This raises an issue that is somewhat further afield that we need go at the moment, although I see that others have taken it up. . 


> There is a Latin phrase which aptly fits: *silent leges inter arma* - The laws are silent in the midst of arms.


 There are many such maxims, all expressing some truth, none expressing the whole. The law does not fall entirely silent during wartime; and once the arms are stacked, the law resumes its habitual cacophony. This is what Chief Justice Chase meant when he said "Those who engage in rebellion must consider the consequences." Win, and you will be writing the law anew, and it will hold no terror for you; lose, and you may find yourself exposed to the full fury of outraged Justice.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> Treason has been a matter of statute in the English speaking world since 1351, and in the United States it is a matter of constitutional law. Thus, I think the best way to determine whether the Southern Rebellion was an act of treason is to examine how the United States federal courts interpreted and applied the Article III, Section 3 definition of treason before, during, and after the Civil War. There are other ways, surely, and one might fall back upon natural law concepts, such as those found in the Declaration of Independence, to justify insurrection and revolt. However, I have a weakness for legal logic and case precedence, so I employed those in my analysis.
> 
> With _The Prize Cases_ the issue is not really whether the Confederacy would have recognized the Supreme Court's ruling, but how the Court interpreted the South's action in seceding from the Union and taking up arms. Relying upon the authority I quoted, and many others, the Court seemed to adopt a position similar to yours. As I stated, this was a useful position for the Court to at least impliedly adopt during the war, for many reasons. Whether that would remain the official position after the War was an issue on the minds of many men, most of them residing south of the Mason-Dixon, after Appomattox.
> 
> ...


Lushington,

I think you're quite wrong. The analysis does not begin with "how the United States federal courts interpreted and applied the Article III, Section 3 definition of treason before, during, and after the Civil War." The analysis begins with the issue of State Sovereignty. As you indirectly pointed out, looking at post-bellum case law does not involve "legal logic," it's merely a case of after the fact rationalization - the winner makes up the rules - which is how we get the extortionate adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't think citing cases post-war provides anything useful about the true legality/justification of secession as the nation would have looked at it, say, in 1860. Citing this stuff is basically like stating that seccession is unconstitutional because we beat you and we say it is - that's not analysis, it's real politic.

A true legal analysis must begin with the nature of the ratification of the Constitution - If it was ratified by sovereign states, which, except for the certain discrete and enumerated powers given to the federal government, retained their sovereignty, then why could such sovereigns not withdraw from the union? Can the Sovereign U.S. not withdraw from treaties - of course it can. Why was it not treasonous for sovereign states to dissolve the prior Articles of Confederation? By what power was a sovereign state allowed to withdraw fro the Articles of Confederation in the first place? If 14 states wanted to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation, but one wanted to remain, must all the others stay in at the whim of the single state? By what reasoning was it OK for a sovereign state to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation, but not the Constitution?. You assume too many things - among which is that, as a legal matter, the U.S. Constitution definition of treason applied to Sovereign powers which dissolved their bonds with the United States.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Sorry guys, but I think most will choose not to let a bunch of Yankees decide whether or not it's okay to display or wear motifs associated with the Confederacy. You may repeat 'slavery, slavery' as your mantra while pretending that the Northern states were as a pure as the wind driven snow, but historical reality isn't quite that simple. The conduct of men like Grant and Sherman in their war on the population of the South was deplorable. And certain Northern states (Indiana, anyone?) made it illegal for blacks even to move to the state. The US flag itself flew over slavery for decades. Certainly slavery played a part in the War of Northern Aggression, but read, for example, James McPherson's 'What They Fought For' to see if Northerners were fighting to free slaves or not.
> 
> Y'all have spent too much time in Yankee government schools.
> 
> ...


I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and now almost 60 years later, find myself living in Indiana but, does that make one a "damn Yankee." Or does simply being born, raised or living in one of the southern states make one a 
"Johnnie Reb?" Last time I checked, I was simply an American, an American that never ceases to be amazed at the level of passion with which so many continue to fight the Civil War...thankfully now with words, rather than bullets. Years ago, when I was assigned as an AFROTC instructor at Mississippi State University (and also served as the detachmentt recruiting officer) I was actually refused entry into a prospective cadets home when her grandmother learned I was a "damn Yankee." It seemed unbelievable that I was there to interview the young lady as part of a scholarship selection process and I wasn't allowed to come into her home. To make a long story short, the prospective cadet and her parents met with me at a local restraurant to complete the interview and she eventually did recieve the ROTC scholarship. What is it about this subject that cause so many to forfiet any sense of restraint and/or reason?

AlanC, Having read and greatly appreciating what you said in many previous posts, I suspect the present post was offered (at least partially) tongue in cheek. However, I want the record to clearly show that, "this American" is not presuming to tell anyone what they should or should not wear. He is however saying very clearly, it is irresponsible and immature for a person to intentionally wear a garmet or accessory, for the express purpose of or, that could reasonably be expected to, offend and/or prove hurtfull to those with whom that person will be associating. If one does the research, they would find that both the North and the South committed atrocities during the civil war that make those occurring in Iraq or (go back a few years) Vietnam, pale in comparison...and the most shameful thing is, we did it to our brothers!

Gentlemen, can we just be friends and move on?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and now almost 60 years later, find myself living in Indiana but, does that make one a "damn Yankee." Or does simply being born, raised or living in one of the southern states make one a
> "Johnnie Reb?" Last time I checked, I was simply an American, an American that never ceases to be amazed at the level of passion with which so many continue to fight the Civil War...thankfully now with words, rather than bullets. Years ago, when I was assigned as an AFROTC instructor at Mississippi State University (and also served as the detachmentt recruiting officer) I was actually refused entry into a prospective cadets home when her grandmother learned I was a "damn Yankee." It seemed unbelievable that I was there to interview the young lady as part of a scholarship selection process and I wasn't allowed to come into her home. To make a long story short, the prospective cadet and her parents met with me at a local restraurant to complete the interview and she eventually did recieve the ROTC scholarship. What is it about this subject that cause so many to forfiet any sense of restraint and/or reason?
> 
> AlanC, Having read and greatly appreciating what you said in many previous posts, I suspect the present post was offered (at least partially) tongue in cheek. However, I want the record to clearly show that, "this American" is not presuming to tell anyone what they should or should not wear. He is however saying very clearly, it is irresponsible and immature for a person to intentionally wear a garmet or accessory, for the express purpose of or, that could reasonably be expected to, offend and/or prove hurtfull to those with whom that person will be associating. If one does the research, they would find that both the North and the South committed atrocities during the civil war that make those occurring in Iraq or (go back a few years) Vietnam, pale in comparison...and the most shameful thing is, we did it to our brothers!
> ...


It's not that simple and your statements are simplistic. What can anyone wear that won't be offensive to some? A U.S. flag lapel pin is VERY offensive to some; A crucifcix is offensive to some; wearing fur is offensive to some; Any group affiliation/badge may be offensive to some whether its freemasons or a political party pin. If you go around worrying about that kind of thing, you'll dress in black burlap.

I'm not southern (Born in California - lived in NJ, PA, IA, NE, VA, and GA). In fact, I know I was kept out of certain fraternities in my college because, at the time I was from a northern state, but I understand why people get a bit uppity about it. Certain groups have absconded with a symbol or co-opted it and used it for offensive purposes and an entirely different group gets condemned and lectured to about it being a symbol of hate or gets compared to nazis when they merely like it as a clear badge of "southern-ness". You could apply the same reasoning against a Christian wearing a cross with all the same platitudes and inanities - Christians have killed people, the KKK uses it, the crusades were genocidal, the Christian church persecutes, the church discriminates against non-Christians, the church denies civil rights to this or that group, the church preaches hate for certain groups, the church is intolerant, the church is judgmental, blah, blah, ergo - the cross is a symbol hate and narrow minded bigotry. I find it offensive - remove all crosses. It doesn't mean what you think it means; it means what I SAY it means.

P.S. - I only intended this post to be a mildly amusing story of how a guy chose the wrong tie from a store we've all heard of.........


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Lushington,
> 
> I think you're quite wrong. The analysis does not begin with "how the United States federal courts interpreted and applied the Article III, Section 3 definition of treason before, during, and after the Civil War." The analysis begins with the issue of State Sovereignty. As you indirectly pointed out, looking at post-bellum case law does not involve "legal logic," it's merely a case of after the fact rationalization - the winner makes up the rules - which is how we get the extortionate adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't think citing cases post-war provides anything useful about the true legality/justification of secession as the nation would have looked at it, say, in 1860. Citing this stuff is basically like stating that seccession is unconstitutional because we beat you and we say it is - that's not analysis, it's real politic.
> 
> A true legal analysis must begin with the nature of the ratification of the Constitution - If it was ratified by sovereign states, which, except for the certain discrete and enumerated powers given to the federal government, retained their sovereignty, then why could such sovereigns not withdraw from the union? Can the Sovereign U.S. not withdraw from treaties - of course it can. Why was it not treasonous for sovereign states to dissolve the prior Articles of Confederation? By what power was a sovereign state allowed to withdraw fro the Articles of Confederation in the first place? If 14 states wanted to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation, but one wanted to remain, must all the others stay in at the whim of the single state? By what reasoning was it OK for a sovereign state to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation, but not the Constitution?. You assume too many things - among which is that, as a legal matter, the U.S. Constitution definition of treason applied to Sovereign powers which dissolved their bonds with the United States.


I haven't much time at the moment, so I shall only briefly address your thoughtful objections. My essential point is that "treason" is a matter of positive law, which means it is a matter for judicial interpretation. The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation; thus arguments by proponents of the Confederacy to the effect that what they contemplated under the Constitution was permitted under the Articles were to no point - if a stronger faction within the Union disagreed with those arguments. The respective strength of these competing factions was tested during the 1861 - 1865 war, and the South lost. Thus, the Confederacy's contention that it had dissolved its bonds with the Union and obtained independent sovereignty is also to no point. The victorious North insisted that the Confederacy remained in the Union, albeit in a state of armed revolt intent upon obtaining independent sovereignty, and that is the only view that has really mattered since 1865. My view is based upon a legal philosophy of extreme positivism, taken in large part from a jurist who was familiar with both the Civil War and the workings of the law: Oliver Wendell Holmes. I am with Holmes in that, while I would like to believe in natural law, and abstract states of sovereignty, and other such-like things I find that I cannot. When hard issues arise there is room for interpretation, and alternative readings of texts and precedents, but such things are seldom decisive. As Holmes once wrote to Harold Laski: "When men differ in taste as to the kind of world they want the only thing to do is go to work killing." The winner does, in fact, make up the rules.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> I haven't much time at the moment, so I shall only briefly address your thoughtful objections. My essential point is that "treason" is a matter of positive law, which means it is a matter for judicial interpretation. The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation; thus arguments by proponents of the Confederacy to the effect that what they contemplated under the Constitution was permitted under the Articles were to no point - if a stronger faction within the Union disagreed with those arguments. The respective strength of these competing factions was tested during the 1861 - 1865 war, and the South lost. Thus, the Confederacy's contention that it had dissolved its bonds with the Union and obtained independent sovereignty is also to no point. The victorious North insisted that the Confederacy remained in the Union, albeit in a state of armed revolt intent upon obtaining independent sovereignty, and that is the only view that has really mattered since 1865. My view is based upon a legal philosophy of extreme positivism, taken in large part from a jurist who was familiar with both the Civil War and the workings of the law: Oliver Wendell Holmes. I am with Holmes in that, while I would like to believe in natural law, and abstract states of sovereignty, and other such-like things I find that I cannot. When hard issues arise there is room for interpretation, and alternative readings of texts and precedents, but they are seldom decisive. As Holmes once wrote to Harold Laski: "When men differ in taste to the kind of world they want the only thing to do is go to work killing." The winner does, in fact, make up the rules.


I hear you - very clear. In the real world, I completely agree.

Do I think, as a consitutional issue, that Southern States had a right to secede? Absolutely.

Do I think, as a practical matter, that the single stupidest act of all the southern states was for bunch of hot-headed South Carolinians to fire on Sumter? Absolutely.

Once you've brought weapons into the mix, it should be no holds barred, IMHO. Dumbest thing in the world to have fired on the American flag and given Lincoln a rallying cry - They should have seceded and let what little anger there was die of ennui over time and negotiatietd the return of ports/forts and access to navigable waterways. Who the hell would have come down from Massachusetts to force a bunch of people from Georgia to stay in a Union they wanted no part of - but for that damn stupid shot.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I hear you - very clear. In the real world, I completely agree.
> 
> Do I think, as a consitutional issue, that Southern States had a right to secede? Absolutely.


And had the Confederacy prevailed, its compact model of the Union would likely have become the prevailing theory, at least until Texas or some other former Confederate state tried to secede from the compact. However, the Confederacy did not prevail; thus the union model of the constitution became the dominant view. It is interesting to trace the judicial development of the triumphalist doctrine. In _The Prize Cases_ the Supreme Court, for matters of expediency, interpreted the South's action in a manner that implied, at least partially, that the Rebellion conferred some independent sovereignty on the rebellious states. In _Shortridge_, two years after the war, Chief Justice Chase rejected this view and held that South's rebellion was unquestionably treason. Ten years later, the Supreme Court in _Williams v. Bruffy, _a case very similar to _Shortridge_, came to the same conclusion, but employed much more sweeping language in announcing its utter rejection of the compact theory of union:



> The immense power exercised by the government of the Confederate States for nearly four years, the territory over which it extended, the vast resources it wielded, and the millions who acknowledged its authority, present an imposing spectacle well fitted to mislead the mind in considering the legal character of that organization. It claimed to represent an independent nation and to possess sovereign powers; and as such to displace the jurisdiction and authority of the United States from nearly half of their territory, and, instead of their laws, to substitute and enforce those of its own enactment. Its pretensions being resisted, they were submitted to the arbitrament of war. In that contest the Confederacy failed; and in its failure its pretensions were dissipated, its armies scattered, and the whole fabric of its government broken in pieces. The very property it had amassed passed to the nation. The United States, during the whole contest, never for one moment renounced their claim to supreme jurisdiction over the whole country, and to the allegiance of every citizen of the republic. They never acknowledged in any form, or through any of their departments, the lawfulness of the rebellious organization or the validity of any of its acts, except so far as such acknowledgment may have arisen from conceding to its armed forces in the conduct of the war the standing and rights of those engaged in lawful warfare. They never recognized its asserted power of rightful legislation.


What was it that Vince Lombardi is said to have said? "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

"It is only the atheist who adopts success as the criterion of right." - Robert Lewis Dabney

Interesting related verses:

Leviticus 25:44-45 (ESV)
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 25:44-45;&version=47;

Ephesians 6:5-9 (ESV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians 6:5-9 ;&version=47;

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (ESV)
Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy 6:1-2 ;&version=47;

Colossians 4:1 (ESV)
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians 4:1;&version=47;


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

KenR said:


> I don't pretend that the North was as pure as the driven snow. And having read enough on the Civil War I certainly understand that many Union soldiers were not fighting to end slavery and could not have cared less whether the institution survived or not. But the fact remains that one reason the North fought (Emancipation Proclamation, anyone) was to end slavery.
> 
> I had no problem attending "Yankee" schools. They did right by me. And "War of Northern Aggression", please! I hope you were just being tongue in cheek.
> 
> ...


As someone who learned of the Emancipation Proclamation in Yankee Goverment schools, I was always miffed by the date: 1863. I questioned my teacher to whit, "If the war was over slavery and started in 1861, then why did it take two more years...?" Needless to say I didnt get an answer till studying American History in college. The matter of slavery was but part of the equation as many have pointed out, and indeed on its last legs when the war began.

A limited govermnent, states rights, Yankee
Cheers


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

KenR said:


> What did the Confederacy expect, Abe Lincoln to wave a handkerchief goodby? The re-supply of Fort Sumpter was not a beligerent act taken for no apparent reason. The secession of the southern states started the war.


Ken, my intention here was not to incite a fury over the causes of the Civil War. I'm only pointing out that the Confederacy considered it an act of war when Lincoln re-supplied Ford Sumter. There were some hot heads in the Confederacy who wanted conflict, and wanted it early on. They believed that the South would win early, and the North would have no stomach for war. They badly miscalculated. There were many Southern Generals (R.E. Lee chief among them), who knew the South would not, could not, win a protracted fight.

Until 1863 at Gettysburg, the South had fought to better than a draw. Lincoln had mis-stepped badly with a series of generals (McClellan, Hooker, etc.), who couldn't beat a dusty carpet, and were not bold enough.

Lee suffered a series of setbacks starting with the death of "Stonewall" Jackson. As with the fortunes of war, several incidents acted in a string to cause the South to lose the momentum, and later the war.

After Jackson's death, Lee made a critical error by invading the North. He badly underestimated the effect this would have on the North. It served as a galvanizing event. Had Lee continued to fight a defensive campaign, the outcome may have well been different.

Lee also did not exercise enough tactical control over J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry. Being the eyes and ears of the Confederate Army, Stuart needed to maintain close contact with Lee, and do more reconnoitering for him.

At Gettysburg, General Buford's cavalrymen actually created the circumstances which allowed the North to build up their forces. Though Buford died the following November, he should have been promoted to Major General for his actions.

Colonel Joshua L. Chamberlain used a little known tactic to sweep the Alabaman's from Little Roundtop, saving the Union for further action the second day.

On the third day, Confederate communications, or lack thereof, created the circumstances for Pickett's ill-fated charge.

Even with these setbacks, the South almost carried the day.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Dennis,

You have not incited my furies at all! As a matter of fact I enjoy a good Civil War debate/discussion, especially about Gettysburg, which I have visited 8 times in the past.

Cheers,

Ken


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

KenR said:


> Dennis,
> 
> You have not incited my furies at all! As a matter of fact I enjoy a good Civil War debate/discussion, especially about Gettysburg, which I have visited 8 times in the past.
> 
> ...


Ken, having visited it four times myself, it is indeed hallowed ground. Lincoln summed it up perfectly.

I was very fortunate to have found a .58cal Minie ball in 1970, in the area behind where Pickett's charge began. Even as a 23-year-old sailor, I could hardly imagine his troops setting off in the face of near-certain death or wounding, to assault the Federal position on day three. To this day it's very chilling to even think of the horror.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

*Right to Succeed?*

Was succession ever resolved? Could Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket break away from Mass. or even the entire nation?

When California and Arizona are ready to leave the United States due to a successful reconquista by our neighbors to the south, what then? Does the Union again have the right to wage war on our own states, or do we leave the Reconquista in peace on the land that 'belongs to them'?


----------



## maddox (Apr 27, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Was succession ever resolved? Could Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket break away from Mass. or even the entire nation?


No, but could you imagine anyone saying the answer was a massive war that would kill 600 K people as the sollution?



> When California and Arizona are ready to leave the United States due to a successful reconquista by our neighbors to the south, what then? Does the Union again have the right to wage war on our own states, or do we leave the Reconquista in peace on the land that 'belongs to them'?


At that point, I would let them go, but it is a separate issue. That would be a secession because those states were little taken over by people not loyal to the United States. The people who support.

All this is moot if you ask me. I am a proud southerner, and I think the south was right. At the same time, I consider the war a tragic event in American history, consider Lincoln to be a hero, and am glad that we're still in America. Most northerners I am friends with likewise, can see the southern side and consider Lee just as American as his father in law, George Washington. This is how all Americans felt until very recently. Abraham Lincoln had the band play dixie when he went to Richmond. Joshua Chamberlain had his troops salute Robert E Lee when he accepted the Army of Northern Virginia's surrender. Until recently, everyone considered the confederate flag as American as apple pie. It's only been in the last 15 years that various cultural marxists and black groups have decided to attack it just because they can. It will not stop at the Confederate flag. If anything connected to racism and slavery is taboo, then Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and yes even Lincoln and the American Flag are evil too, and many multiculturalists have gone after them as well.

This is not an issue that should divide north and south.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Was succession ever resolved? Could Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket break away from Mass. or even the entire nation?


Seceding from the Union is out of the question. However, the Constitution itself outlines the procedure by which states might dissolve and recombine with other states. Article IV, Section 3:



> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


I suppose the most relevant example is the creation of West Virginia during the Civil War. They may be others, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. There has also been a semi-serious movement for decades to create the state of "Jefferson" out of Northern California and Southern Oregon. The "state" even has a flag:

Not the most inspiring banner, I should think. I also recall that during the turbulent '70s there was some talk of New York City (and I believe Long Island) seceding from New York State, and becoming a separate state. If memory serves, this was seriously, if briefly, considered. I'm sure one of the Board's New York members would have a better recollection of the matter that I.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Speas said:


> "It is only the atheist who adopts success as the criterion of right." - Robert Lewis Dabney
> 
> Interesting related verses: . . .


Thus, the pious may lay up treasure in heaven and receive their reward in the world to come. In this corrupt and fallen world might makes right. Or as Stalin may or may not have said: "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

pendennis said:


> Had Lee continued to fight a defensive campaign, the outcome may have well been different.


And had McClellan taken advantage of the gift he was handed before Antietam, the war might have been over on September 18, 1862.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

pendennis said:


> I was very fortunate to have found a .58cal Minie ball in 1970, in the area behind where Pickett's charge began. Even as a 23-year-old sailor, I could hardly imagine his troops setting off in the face of near-certain death or wounding, to assault the Federal position on day three. To this day it's very chilling to even think of the horror.


This is apropos of nothing discussed in this thread, but your story reminds me of one of mine. I grew up in Manassas, VA, where, as you can imagine, Minnie balls, round shot, shells, shell fragments, buttons, and other relics of the war were all over the place. I spent a lot of time in the shop of a guy who sold coins and Civil War relics. One day, I went in to see an intact shell sitting on the counter. It turned out that a woman had found it in her back yard. She took it down to the National Battlefield Park, where they took one look at it and told her to take it away RIGHT NOW. She then took it down to Jimmy, who was more than happy to buy it and put it on his counter.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jcusey said:


> And had McClellan taken advantage of the gift he was handed before Antietam, the war might have been over on September 18, 1862.


I think that even if Lee had followed a more defensive posture and avoided a Gettysburg the Army of Northern Virginia would still have been ground down by the sheer weight of the Army of the Potomac. Up until Gettysburg the Union Army was saddled with commanding generals who were not up to the job, including McClellan. It took a Grant (and a Meade) to straighten things out.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

KenR said:


> I think that even if Lee had followed a more defensive posture and avoided a Gettysburg the Army of Northern Virginia would still have been ground down by the sheer weight of the Army of the Potomac. Up until Gettysburg the Union Army was saddled with commanding generals who were not up to the job, including McClellan. It took a Grant (and a Meade) to straighten things out.


Ken, when the Union finally got its act together, by promoting Grant, and the U.S. Navy starting to strangle Southern commerce from overseas, it became only a matter of time before defeat was assured. Little notice is paid to the Navy's contribution, but without it the Civil War would have been longer.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

pendennis said:


> Ken, when the Union finally got its act together, by promoting Grant, and the U.S. Navy starting to strangle Southern commerce from overseas, it became only a matter of time before defeat was assured. Little notice is paid to the Navy's contribution, but without it the Civil War would have been longer.


PD - a lot of people don't think about that, but I think that the civil was was a great example of a naval war - from before the conflict, the people who understood strategy on each side understood how important an impact the south's lack of industry was going to be to the war, and how a naval blockade would amplify this. the narrative of how the federal navy blockaded the south, and how the south tried to break the blockade with new ships, and how the north tried to stop the south from building and launching the new ships, is a great story.

not to get everybody upset with me, on yet another issue, but I think that it is rather clear that the southern economy and way of life, before the war, were based on slavery. and, in my opinion, the insitution of chattel slavery as found in the american south (and parts of the caribian and south america) was an evil that is similar to the evil of the 3rd riech. the war was about the south wanting to seperate from the federal government, because the economic model of the south was based on slavery and it could see that it was facing a future where it would be in a minority and would be pressured to change its economy, and by extenstion, culture.

I can understand the feelings of pride that southerners have for the symbols of the confederacy - there were many very good parts of southern culture. I can also understand the feeling that a black person could feel for the symbol of the confederacy, which, lets face it, was formed to protect the culture that was based on the institution of slavery.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I feel like Rhett Butler seeking refuge behind the loveseat. What's sad is the rapid reconciliation Lincoln hoped to promote.Grant sent 25,000 rations to Lee's army with generous terms allowing the retention of personal horses. Lee enjoined his men to be good citizens of the reunited nation. Lincoln had Dixie played upon the good news. His assassination set up a harsh reconstruction with ensuing hatreds that linger with us today. It's a handsome tie,and, like a cigar sometimes thats all it is, or should be.


----------



## HSC87 (Mar 28, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> I am pretty sure I would find the design of the belt you describe to be offensive. I am certain, based on the last sentence in your post, that it is worn in bad taste. Can you name and provide the design intent of each of those flags? Do you wear the belt because of the history it represents or do you wear the belt specifically to rankle people? While "Gurdon" finds cause to remember ribbon candies from Christmas, 56 years ago, that last statement reminds my of exchanges with "school yard bullies," almost 50 years ago. As "Gurdon" alludes and I fully agree, you have every right to wear it and to express yourself but, ask yourself why you are wearing it?


.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I taught for a year at Ole Miss and there is still discussion there about the Confederate Flag as many might imagine. 

It is often said that to the victor goes the spoils, what is rarely pointed out is that to the victors goes the writing of the history books as well.

Had the South prevailed the "War of Northern Aggression" would be talked about differently.

Had the American Revolution gone the other way we'd read about our founding fathers as a band of terrorists.

I wonder how History books in Russia describe the rise and fall of communism now and how that compares to what the schools taught about Stalin 20 years ago.

In order to clarify the question about whether residing in the North makes one a damned Yankee the answer is no. Just a yankee. Yankees live in the north, Damned yankees move to the South and GD yankees move to the south and marry your daughter. Important distinctions.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Chuck Franke said:


> ...GD yankees move to the south and marry your daughter. Important distinctions.


I thought those were known as 'soon to be dead' Yankees...


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

AlanC said:


> I thought those were known as 'soon to be dead' Yankees...


Especially if your daughter is not treated like the proper Southern lady by her groom!!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

AlanC said:


> I thought those were known as 'soon to be dead' Yankees...


Two words: Plausible deniability


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Yet another informative thread*

This thread had the potential to become unpleasant. That it did not is a tribute to the civility and good manners of most of the participants much of the time.

I learned a lot and got to read several interesting exchanges among articulate writers.

Thanks and best regards,

Gurdon


----------

