Couldn't the federal government just recognize the CSA but not it's illegal attempt at annexation of Dixie? That would technically make the rebels supporters of a foreign government in making war on the United States, therefore they'd be traitors.
United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:Couldn't the federal government just recognize the CSA but not it's illegal attempt at annexation of Dixie? That would technically make the rebels supporters of a foreign government in making war on the United States, therefore they'd be traitors.
So, assembling an army and attacking federal property, other states, and the capital itself is a pretty clear-cut example of Treason. I suppose even supplying the rebel army and paying taxes of the Confederate government technically counts as "giving them Aid and Comfort". You can also argue that slaves, not being citizens, also cannot be charged with Treason by definition.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
It's like Benjamin Butler's answer to several Virginians demanding the return of their slaves, basing their demands on the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.Except that, arguably, the Confederates ceased to be citizens when their states passed the ordinances of secession. And whether that was legal or not is not a question of law anyone's going to want brought up in court when it's already been settled on the battlefield.
HEADQUARTERS FIFTEENTH ARMY CORPS, Camp of Big Black, Miss., September 17, 1863.
Major General H. W. HALLECK,
General-in-Chief, Washington, D. C.:
DEAR GENERAL: I have received your letter of August 29, and with pleasure confide to you fully my thoughts on the important matters you suggest, with absolute confidence that you will use what is valuable and reject the useless or superfluous.
That part of the continent of North America known as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas is in my judgment the key to the whole interior. The Valley of the Mississippi is America, and although railroads have changed the economy of intercommunication, yet the water channels still mark the line of fertile land and afford carriage to the heavy products of it. The inhabitants of the country on the Monongahela, the Illinois, the Minnesota, the Yellowstone, and Osage are as directly concerned in the security of the Lower Mississippi as are those who dwell on its very banks in Louisiana, and now that the nation has recovered its possession this generation of men would commit a fearful mistake if we again commit its charge to a people liable to mistake their title, and assert, as was recently done, that because they dwell by sufferance on the banks of this mighty stream they had a right to control its navigation.
I would deem it very unwise at this time, or for years to come, to revive the State Governments of Louisiana, etc., or to institute in this quarter any civil government in which the local people have much to say. They had a government, and so mild and paternal that they gradually forgot they had any at all, save what they themselves controlled; they asserted absolute right to seize public moneys, forts, arms, and even to shut up the natural avenues of travel and commerce. They chose war; they ignored and denied all the obligations of the solemn contract of government and appealed to force. We accepted the issue, and now they begin to realize that war is a two-edged sword, and, it may be, that many of the inhabitants cry for peace. I know them well and the very impulses of their nature, and to deal with the inhabitants of that part of the South which borders the great river we must recognize the classes into which they have naturally divided themselves.
First, the large planters owning lands, slaves, and all kinds of personal property. These are on the whole the ruling class. They are educated, wealthy, and easily approached. In some districts they are as bitter as gall, and have given up slaves, plantations, and all, serving in the armies of the Confederacy, whereas in others they are conservative. None dare admit a friendship to us, though they say freely that they were opposed to war and disunion. I know we can manage this class, but only by action; argument is exhausted, and words have not their usual meaning. Nothing but the logic of events touches their understanding, but of late this has worked a wonderful change. If our country were like Europe, crowded with people, I would say it would be easier to replace this population than to reconstruct is [sic] subordinate to the policy of the nation; but as this is not the case, it is better to allow them, with individual exceptions, gradually to recover their plantations, to hire any species of labor, and adapt themselves to the new order of things. Still their friendship and assistance to reconstruct order out of the present ruin cannot be depended on. They watch the operations of our armies, and hope still for a Southern Confederacy that will restore to them the slaves and privileges which they feel are otherwise lost forever. In my judgment we have two more battles to win before we should even bother our minds with the idea of restoring civil order, viz, one near Meridian in November, and one near Shreveport in February and March, when Red River is navigable by our gunboats. When these are done, then, and not until then, will the planters of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi submit. Slavery is already gone, and to cultivate the land negro or other labor must be hired. This of itself is a vast revolution, and time must be afforded to allow men to adjust their minds and habits to the new order of things. A civil government of the representative type would suit this class far less than a pure military rule, one readily adapting itself to actual occurrences and able to enforce its laws and orders promptly and emphatically.
Second, the smaller farmers, mechanics, merchants, and laborers. This class will probably number three-fourths of the whole, have in fact no real interest in the establishment of a Southern Confederacy, and have been led or driven into war on the false theory that they were to be benefitted somehow, they knew not how. They are essentially tired of the war, and would slink back home if they could. These are the real tiers-etat of the South, and are hardly worthy a thought, for they swerve to and fro according to events they do not comprehend or attempt to shape. When the time for reconstruction comes they will want the old political system of caucuses, legislatures, etc., something to amuse them believe [sic] they are achieving wonders, but in all things they will follow blindly the lead of the planter. The Southern politicians, who understand this class, use them as the French use their masses. Seemingly consulting their prejudices, they make their orders and enforce them. We should do the same.
Third, the Union men of the South. I must confess I have little respect for this class. They allowed a clamorous set of demagogues to muzzle and drive them as a pack of curs. Afraid of shadows, they submit tamely to squads of dragoons, and permit them, without a murmur to burn their cotton, take their horses, corn, and everything, and when we reach them they are full of complaints if our men take a few fence rails for fire or corn to feed our horses. They give us no assistance or information, and are loudest in the complaints at the smallest excess of our soldiers. Their sons, horses, arms, and everything useful are in the army against us, and they stay at home, claiming all the exemptions of peaceful citizens. I account them as nothing in this great game.
Fourth, the young bloods of the South, sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players, and sportsmen-men who never did work nor never will. War suits them, and the rascals are brave; fine riders, bold to rashness, and dangerous subjects in every sense. They care not a sou for niggers, land, or anything. They hate Yankees per se, and don't bother their brains about the past, present, or future. As long as they have good horses, plenty of forage, and an open country, they are happy. This is a larger class than most men supposed, and are the most dangerous set of men which this war has turned loose upon the world. They are splendid riders, shots, and utterly reckless. Stuart, John Morgan, Forrest, and Jackson are the types and leaders of this class. This class of men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace. They have no property or future, and therefore cannot be influenced by anything except personal considerations. I have two brigades of these fellows to my front commanded by Cosby, of the old army, and Whitfield, of Texas, Stephen D. Lee in command of the whole. I have frequent interviews with the officers and a good understanding.
Am inclined to think when the resources of their country are exhausted we must employ them. They are the best cavalry in the world, but it will tax Mr. Chase's genius of finance to supply them with horses. At present horses cost them nothing, for they take where they find and don't bother their brains who is to pay for them. Some of the corn-fields which have, as they believe, been cultivated by a good-natured people for their special benefit, we propose to share with them the free use of these corn-fields planted by willing hands that will never gather it.
Now that I have sketched the people who inhabit the district of country under consideration, I will proceed to discuss the future. A civil government for any part of it would be simply ridiculous. The people would not regard it, and even the military commanders of the antagonistic party would treat it lightly. Governors would be simply petitioners for military assistance to protect supposed friendly interests, and military commanders would refuse to disperse and weaken their armies for military reasons. Jealousies would arise between the two conflicting powers, and instead of contributing to the end we all have in view, would actually defer it. Therefore I contend that the interests of the United States and of the real parties concerned demand the continuance of the simple military rule till long after all the organized armies of the South are dispersed, conquered, and subjugated. All this region is represented in the Army of Virginia, Charleston, Mobile, and Chattanooga. They have sons and relations in each, and naturally are interested in their fate. Though we hold military possession of the key-points of this country, still they contend, and naturally, that should Lee succeed in Virginia or Bragg at Chattanooga, a change will occur here also. We cannot for this reason attempt to reconstruct parts of the South as we conquer it till all idea of the establishment of a Southern Confederacy is abandoned. We should avail ourselves of the lull here to secure the geographical points that give us advantage in future military movements, and should treat the idea of civil government as one in which we as a nation have a minor or subordinate interest. The opportunity is good to impress on the population the truth that they are more interested in civil government than we are, and that to enjoy the protection of laws they must not be passive observers of events, but must aid and sustain the constituted authorities in enforcing the laws; they must not only submit themselves, but pay their taxes and render personal services when called on. It seems to me, in contemplating the past two years' history, all the people of our country, North, South, East, and West have been undergoing a salutary political schooling, learning lessons which might have been taught all by the history of other people, but we had all become so wise in our own conceit that we would only learn by actual experience of our own.
The people, even of small and unimportant localities, North as well as South, had reasoned themselves into the belief that their opinions were superior to the aggregated interest of the whole nation. Half our territorial nation rebelled on a doctrine of secession that they themselves now scout, and a real numerical majority actually believed that a little State was endowed with such sovereignty that it could defeat the policy of the great whole. I think the present war has exploded that notion, and were this war to cease now, the experience gained, though dear, would be worth the expense.
Another great and important natural truth is still in contest and can only be solved by war. Numerical majorities by vote is our great arbiter. Heretofore all have submitted to it in questions left open, but numerical majorities are not necessarily physical majorities. The South, though numerically inferior, contend they can whip the Northern superiority of numbers, and therefore by natural law are not bound to submit. This issue is the only real one, and in my judgment all else should be deferred to it. War alone can decide it, and it is the only question left to us as a people. Can we whip the South? If we can, our numerical majority has both the natural and constitutional right to govern. If we cannot whip them, they contend for the natural right to select their own government, and they have the argument. Our armies must prevail over theirs. Our officers, marshals, and courts must penetrate into the innermost recesses of their land before we have the natural right to demand their submission.
I would banish all minor questions and assert the broad doctrine, that as a nation the United States has the right, and also the physical power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain, and that we will do it; that we will do it in our own time, and in our own way; that it makes no difference whether it be in one year or two, or ten or twenty; that we will remove and destroy every obstacle-if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper; that we will not cease until the end is attained. That all who do not aid are enemies, and we will not account to them for our acts. If the people of the South oppose, they do so at their peril; and if they stand by mere lookers-on the domestic tragedy, they have no right to immunity, protection, or share in the final result.
I even believe, and contend further, that in the North every member of the nation is bound by both natural and constitutional law to "maintain and defend the Government against all its opposes whomsoever." If they fail to do it they are derelict, and can be punished or deprived of all advantage arising from the labors of those who do. If any man, North or South, withholds his share of taxes or physical assistance in this crisis of our history, he should and could be deprived of all voice in the future elections of this country, and might be banished or reduced to the condition of a denizen of the land.
War is upon us; none can deny it. It is not the act of the Government of the United States but of a faction. The Government was forced to accept the issue or submit to a degradation fatal and disgraceful to all the inhabitants. In accepting war it should be pure and simple as applied to the belligerent. I would keep it so till all traces of the war are effaced; till those who appealed to it are sick and tired of it, and come to the emblem of our nation and sue for peace. I would not coax them or even meet them half way, but make them so sick of war that generations would pass before they would again appeal to it.
I know what I say when I repeat that the insurgents of the South sneer at all overtures looking to their interest. They scorn the alliance with copperheads. They tell me to my face that they respect Grant, McPherson, and our brave associates who fight manfully and well for a principle, but despise the copperheads and sneaks who profess friendship for the South and opposition to the war as mere covers for their knavery and poltroonery.
God knows that I deplored this fratricidal war as such as any man living; but it is upon us, a physical fact, and there is only one honorable issue from it. We must fight it out, army against army and man against man, and I know and you know and civilians begin to realize the fact that reconciliation and reconstruction will be easier through and by means of strong, well-equipped and organized armies than through any species of conventions that can be framed.
The issues are made, and all discussion is out of place and ridiculous.
The section of 30-pounder Parrott rifles now drilling before my tent is a more convincing argument than the largest Democratic meeting the State of New York could assemble at Albany, and a simple order of the War Department to draft enough men to fill our skeleton regiments would be more convincing as to our national perpetuity than an humble pardon to Jeff. Davis and all his misled host.
The only government now needed or deserved by the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi now exists in Grant's army. It needs simply enough privates to fill its ranks; all else will follow in due season. This army has its well-defined code of laws and practice, and can adapt itself to the wants and necessities of a city, the country, the rivers, the sea; indeed, to all parts of this land. It better subserves the interest and policy of the General Government, and the people prefer it to any weak or servile combination that would at once, from force of habit, revive and perpetuate local prejudices and passions. The people of this country have forfeited all right to a voice in the councils of the nation. They know it and feel it, and in after years they will be the better citizens from the dear-bought experience of the present crisis. Let them learn now, and learn it well, that good citizens must obey as well as command. Obedience to law-absolute; yea, even abject-is the lesson that this war, under Providence, will teach the free and enlightened American citizen; as a nation we will be the better for it. I never have apprehended foreign interference in our family quarrel. Of course governments founded on a different, and it may be antagonistic, principle with ours, would naturally feel a pleasure at our complications, but in the end England and France will join with us in jubilations in the triumph of a constitutional government over faction; even now the English manifest this.
I do not profess to understand Napoleon's design in Mexico, but I do not see that his taking military possession of Mexico concerns us. We have as much territory as we want. The Mexicans have failed in self-government, and it was a question to what nation she would fall a prey. That is solved, and I don't see that we are damaged. We have the finest part of the North American continent, all we can people and take care of, and if we can suppress rebellion in our land and compose the strife generated by it, we will have people, resources, and wealth which, if well combined, can defy interference from any and every quarter.
I therefore hope the Government of the United States will continue as heretofore in collecting in well-organized armies the physical strength of the nation; apply it as heretofore in asserting the national authority, persevering without relaxation to the end. This, whether near or far off, is not for us to say, but, fortunately, we have no choice. We must succeed; no other choice is left us but degradation. The South must be ruled or will rule. We must conquer them ourselves or be conquered. There is no middle course. They ask and will have nothing else, and all the talk of compromise is bosh, for we know they would even now scorn the offer. I wish the war could have been deferred for twenty years, till the superabundant population of the North should flow in and replace the losses sustained by war, but this could not be, and we are forced to take things as they arise.
All therefore I can now venture to advise is the pushing the draft to its maximum, fill the present regiments to as large a standard as possible, and push the war, pure and simple.
Great attention should be paid to the discipline of our armies, for on them will be founded the future stability of our Government. The cost of the war is of course to be considered, but finances will adjust themselves to the actual state of affairs, and even if we would we could not change the cost. Indeed, the larger the cost now the less will it be in the end, for the end must be attained somehow, regardless of cost of life and treasure, and is merely a question of time.
Excuse so long a letter.
With great respect,
W. T. SHERMAN,
SEPTEMBER 17, 1863.
What I think he meant was seizing their property and shutting them out totally and permanently from their positions as social elites. It's only because they're such a large portion of the highly educated classes - businessmen, lawyers, bankers, all being scions with educations bankrolled by Daddy's income from the plantation - that you can't find enough local people to take their jobs.umm in that letter does replace mean genocide?
That why I like Beast Butler. For as corrupt as he was in politics when it came to civil rights he was an absolute based Chad.It's like Benjamin Butler's answer to several Virginians demanding the return of their slaves, basing their demands on the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
- If you are citizens of the United States, then you are acting in rebellion against the government, so these slaves are confiscated.
- If you aren't citizens of the United States, then the laws of the United States don't apply to you and you are foreign combatants, and I can confiscate these slaves.
I hope that ITTL Grant's contributions are acknowledged more. IOTL he already pioneered the "live of the land" strategy during the Vicksburg campaign. He did so as well here, alongside his Mississippi strategy that including devastation of Southern resources and widespread land redistribution. That's the way forward and I think Grant fully deserves the recognition.That's what i like to hear! Death to the Confederacy!
And i can already see an epitheth for Grant: Scourge of the South.
Sherman too: Bane of the Confederacy
I'm not sure how? The consensus here seems to be that the changes thus far wouldn't affect most countries, and that overall events in the US weren't decisive for the rest of the world. Especially Reconstruction, which is essentially domestic in nature.Speaking of Egypt, any chance butterflies could affect its development ITTL?
Yeah, the first year of the war is actually rather successful for the Union. It drove the Confederacy out of Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky, didn't sustain any real defeats, and even Anacostia, with its bitter aftertaste due to lost opportunities, did manage to retake Washington. It all adds up to Lee's image as the savior of the South, the man who came and pulled them back from the brink. Even taking into account Union Mills, after Lee took over the Army of the Susquehanna started playing a game whereby they attacked, had heavy losses and retreated - much like OTL. But compared with the successful first year where every offensive did manage to drive back the Confederates, it seems like a series of failures that seem to show that Lee truly is something else.When you put it that way, the Army of the Susquehanna would appear a lot less pathetic than the Army of the Potomac for actually taking Maryland (though historiography won't be as kind). Writing OTL events ITTL would make the Virginia Campaigns after the Peninsula Campaign looks something out of Isonzo. 1862-1864 is practically about breaking the Confederate line along the Rappahannock and Rapidan Line, with 6 separate offensives (Pope's initial push, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Meade's push before Bristoe Station, Mine Run and finally the Wilderness).
Another point on ITTL's historiography: A.S. Johnson would definitely have a better reputation than OTL. Although he did ultimately get crushed badly, he had some wins versus none IOTL. Another potential importance for his character is his status. I assume he's in a PoW camp awaiting trial? It would be interesting to consider how his trial would be used. A treason trial would naturally bring on the legality of secession, no doubt a hot topic for Reconstruction politics.
For those of us ignorant in Egyptian history, how did the US Civil War affect Egypt? I know Egypt benefited from the removal of Southern cotton in the markets and that a couple of Confederate generals (Sibley and W.W. Loring - not the greatest pair) were involved with the Egyptian army during the Egyptian-Ethiopian war but that's the extent of my knowledge. With the South even more devastated post-war and freed slaves in control of the plantation and farms, it would be interesting to consider how this would affect cotton prices. It's probable that freedmen aren't exactly too eager to grow cotton though it earn plenty. It could keep prices relatively elevated on the relatively slowdown in cotton export recovery vs OTL, which could in turn affect Egypt, though I'm not sure what they'd use the money for.
On a side note, if the Redeemers never take control, economic development in the South may not be as slow as OTL. The "colonial" economy created in the South did restrict many rural laborers from moving to industries and eliminated incentives for mechanizing Southern agriculture.
Ages ago I commented my opinion of what to do with the confederate leadership. Johnston is a capable and respected (at least among the CSA's most respected before getting captured) general, who in his 60s. Making an example of him has a good chance of inflaming more resistance against the Union, and his age makes him very unlikely to be able to lead in an insurrection by the time the Northern fist will by necessity loosen, even if he wants to. A model to serve for how he might be treated is Friedrich Paulus, the commander of the German forces at Stalingrad. If Johnston is willing to, he can appeal to the South to accept surrender and serve as a witness to the post-war tribunals in exchange for a relative overlooking of his own unsavoury acts during the war. The more that the Union can use the Confederate leadership and state apparatus to discredit and dismantle itself, the better.
Empowering Scalawags is necessary for stable rule. The reliance in carpetbaggers was unfortunate, because as you note they were disliked and usually came South with the idea of becoming rich and little else. A few carpetbaggers will remain but greater and more stable White Republican support is a must. I was planning on achieving this through land redistribution, debtor relief, and other such progressive provisions that may convince many that Republican rule is worth it even if they still dislike Black people.I can see Lincoln trying to empower local Republican/Unionist scalawags as much as possible to build a sustainable Southern Republican party organization in his Reconstruction instead of just appointing Northern carpetbaggers to dictate Southern policies like IOTL. Just remember that political carpetbaggers were and are NOT popular generally - this is also the case for appointed Northern Carpetbaggers - who lacked local support base and had to rely on federal patronage.
I don't think that's practical and it would be completely out of character for Lincoln, whose position always was that the States as entities continued to exist as a part of the Union, they merely had been overtaken by delinquent terrorists who had to be ousted. Under this definition, there's no doubt that Breckinridge et al were traitors. But, ITTL, Congress created "rebellion" as a separate penal figure, mainly to engineer punishments that strike at the rebel leadership but leave the rest alone, and to skirt around constitutional prohibitions, chiefly the limits of confiscation. The 13th amendment is also meant to make this ironclad.Couldn't the federal government just recognize the CSA but not it's illegal attempt at annexation of Dixie? That would technically make the rebels supporters of a foreign government in making war on the United States, therefore they'd be traitors.
The thing is, Sherman was convinced of the supremacy of the Union and the need to impose it, but he did not wish for any real change in Southern life. He would be completely okay with White Supremacist Southern State governments as long as they were within the Union. He was moreover an unabashed racist who only accepted emancipation because it made military sense and resisted calls for Black recruitment during the march to the sea. All this is shown by his agreement with Johnston, which granted the Confederates all they could expect and more: all Confederate armies would disband on their own instead of surrendering, they would retain their arms and be allowed to enforce "peace and order", the Confederate State legislatures would be allowed to meet and be recognized as the legitimate governments, and there was no mention at all of slavery. Whereas Lincoln had expressly said he would not recognize any Confederate legislature, that the armies had to unconditionally surrender, and that before being accepted back into the Union the states had to abolish slavery.For people curious, I encountered a letter Sherman made in September of 1863 to then general-in-chief Henry Hallack, which laid out Shermans opinions of the white people of the South, how the Federal government should treat them, and why he thought it would be a mistake to so quickly reestablish civil governments in the South.
He was also solid when it came to labor rights, to the point that many equated Marxism and "Butlerism".That why I like Beast Butler. For as corrupt as he was in politics when it came to civil rights he was an absolute based Chad.
Thank you very much It'll get better once we truly enter reconstruction, I promise!I’ve never seen a more unfathomably based timeline. I can’t wait to see more!
Really nice, I love Atun-Shei.Ladies and Gentlemen I am pleased to announce that the king has returned.
Fully agreed, he's alongside Lincoln of course, the Unions greatest and foremost hero, preventing the country from beign split in two, concerving the Union and America shall be forever grateful for his service.I hope that ITTL Grant's contributions are acknowledged more. IOTL he already pioneered the "live of the land" strategy during the Vicksburg campaign. He did so as well here, alongside his Mississippi strategy that including devastation of Southern resources and widespread land redistribution. That's the way forward and I think Grant fully deserves the recognition.
I'm slightly confused. Is this Albert J. Johnston, or Josef Johnston?
I'm sorry, I thought from the context, especially the fact that I was replying to @Arnold d.c's post, it was clear that I was talking about Albert Sidney Johnston.Must be Albert because Red mentioned that Davis liked him. He did not get along with Joseph.
Those darn Iowa Caucuses, always supporting revolutionaries.such as an Iowa caucus that denounced Lincoln for having “clogged and impeded the wheels and movements of the revolution
If it was two gold bars, it might have had a chance of getting to the floor.which saw Congress inundated by petitions and letters, including a “monster” petition with over 100,000 signatures recollected by the Women’s National Loyal League, and delivered to the Senate by two Black men. Despite these efforts, the great majority of Republicans clung to the idea that Congress could not abolish slavery on its own power because the Constitution did not grant the power.
The ways the US Constitution turned into the holy book of a civic religion will always be a curiosity. I partially think the reasons why it's developed this way is because of just how damned hard it is to amend, especially for anything of consequence. The political system, or at least the party system, has to damn near break for constitutional law to ever be applied to a major issue. That and/or decades and decades of ongoing political action and lobbying.Though a logical, almost obvious step, amending the Constitution had not been considered even by abolitionists because the document had been “almost universally revered as the capstone of the American Revolution—the near-perfect handiwork of the Founders”. Abolitionists had spent several decades arguing that the Founders had been actually against slavery and had carefully constructed an anti-slavery reading of the Constitution
Parliamentary language has never been so polite. Gotta love Stevens.you, sir, would be hanging from a hemp rope right now – as you and all other traitors ought to!
And cults of personality have never been so deserving. Though, they are still disturbing to see regardless. Honestly, I prefer it when people are comfortable enough to scheme and maneuver about, like Chase and co. That at least means that the political environment is dynamic.exhibited a mix of extreme bitterness against traitors and effusive praise for Lincoln. “The Almighty has saved Father Abraham to led us on to victory and peace”, Republicans cheered in the streets of Philadelphia, as mock effigies of Booth were burned, and people held “Lincoln Logs”. “Do it again Uncle Abe”, said banners that depicted the President hitting Booth and also Confederates like Breckinridge and Lee.
Damn. Gonna need an amendment to nationalize anything.nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Now this is likewise a piece of language that will be used against dissidents. Though I suppose it's also up to the congress and political climate as to how such loyalty and respect should be enforced.giving the nation the power to enforce loyalty and respect for the Constitution.
It's always nice to see an old one go out with conviction and consideration for the younger generations. It's a rare thing these days.The ailing Owen Lovejoy, who would die just a few days later, was brought into the chamber to say a weak but convinced “aye”, clinging to life just to see “his great wish, that for which his brother and thousands of brothers, fathers, and sons gave their lives” accomplished
Hey it's very nice to have you back hopefully you don't somehow silence the thread again lol. This is actually the penultimate chapter. Do you have any thoughts for the last one?Those darn Iowa Caucuses, always supporting revolutionaries.
If it was two gold bars, it might have had a chance of getting to the floor.
The ways the US Constitution turned into the holy book of a civic religion will always be a curiosity. I partially think the reasons why it's developed this way is because of just how damned hard it is to amend, especially for anything of consequence. The political system, or at least the party system, has to damn near break for constitutional law to ever be applied to a major issue. That and/or decades and decades of ongoing political action and lobbying.
It's almost religious, the level of conviction it takes to push forward an amendment. So I suppose it's not a shock that you need a mountain of people, a movement, to even make the gears turn.
Parliamentary language has never been so polite. Gotta love Stevens.
And cults of personality have never been so deserving. Though, they are still disturbing to see regardless. Honestly, I prefer it when people are comfortable enough to scheme and maneuver about, like Chase and co. That at least means that the political environment is dynamic.
The only thing that keeps the entire machinery from falling into Lincoln's lap is the fact of the war, and the disparate coalition that can only exist in its shadow.
Damn. Gonna need an amendment to nationalize anything.
Now this is likewise a piece of language that will be used against dissidents. Though I suppose it's also up to the congress and political climate as to how such loyalty and respect should be enforced.
It's always nice to see an old one go out with conviction and consideration for the younger generations. It's a rare thing these days.
I think it’s not so surprising given the background of the country. There aren’t a lot of other obvious points to build a national identity around—ethnicity is out, religion doesn’t work, geography is…well, theoretically possible, but that would require avoiding a Manifest Destiny attitude that predates the Revolution. Something about Freedom(TM) is pretty much the only thing that I can think of, and that tends to lead back to the constitution as a rallying point and symbol of Freedom(TM).Frankly it's weird to see Americans venerate the Constitution so much, especially when many of its framers never thought of it as a perfect unchangeable document. Especially when I come from a country with, like, 30 constitutions lol.
It's probably because America had to create a national Identity and you have to revere something and that reverence probably helped protect the nation's democracy on a national level.Frankly it's weird to see Americans venerate the Constitution so much, especially when many of its framers never thought of it as a perfect unchangeable document. Especially when I come from a country with, like, 30 constitutions lol.