Did Black Rebellion Win the Civil War?

[Hanny]

The US Constitution forbade President Thomas Jefferson from purchasing the Louisiana Purchase. To abbreviate: Jeff was a savvy shopper. It was a good buy. Well, how could he do something he wasn't supposed to do ?! Apparently, some some political maneuvering going on.

Hi Bob

Im a pretty strict constructionist, but i dont see the problem as you do.

Constitution assigns the authority to make treaties to the Executive, Jefferson used this to make a treaty to acquire LA from France. Requires consent of 2/3 congress to ratify. Constitution assigns to Congress how admit new states and terr.

Congress ratified the treaty,24-7 and created new states from the land acquired by treaty.

All constitutional.

Later confirmed as such by the USSC

American Insurance Co. v. Canter*. Marshall “The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union, the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty,”

*https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/26/511/

[Hanny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng

[South]

Good morning Hanny,

Some head notes;

- Recall I wrote of the US Constitution's status with emphasis on - paste tense - .

- That famous 20th century political philosopher was Mao; "Politics comes out of a gun barrel".

You fortified my point that these "foundation documents" were more inspirational and aspirational than "political-legal documents; "Thou better not commit adultery because the penalty is your death with no appeals or insanity defense". The crown subject to the will of the people ?! Merciless Indian savages as per Jefferson's written term ?! Western civilization's 10 Commandments changed over the eons. Daniel Defoe and a few others knew about this and wrote about it.

I knew you were a strict constructionist. I am a pragmatic realist. A strict constructionist would accept John C. Calhoun's point that a sovereign state can leave any alliance such as a United States of America. A pragmatic realist understands that a domestic railroad cannot be built from an Atlantic port city to California if Texas is not a component of the US. A pragmatic realist understands that a US military outpost cannot be built on foreign territory. Apparently Lord Protector Cromwell did not govern with the - full - will of the people.

Congress, in political theory, CANNOT consent to matters outside the legal documents governing what could be consented to. The US Supreme Court was...and now even more refined in this...a de facto legislative arm of the national government.

It's all changed - just like always. Freud wrote about this in "Civilization and its Discontent".

Meanwhile, Runnymead was necessary wetlands and ruined by those Barons. US railroads are now so subsidized as to serve as a heavy albatross around Americans' necks.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Hanny]

Apparently Lord Protector Cromwell did not govern with the - full - will of the people.

Lord protector was a new title, not to be bound by Uk laws, he was offered the crown by paliment, he refused (‘I would not build Jericho again’, he thought hereditary monarchy a corupt form of government God had determined to end by giving cromwell the victory) the crown so as not to be hindered by the law that applied to kings. Monarchy returned after his son failed at being lord protector.

[Hanny]

A pragmatic realist understands that a domestic railroad cannot be built from an Atlantic port city to California if Texas is not a component of the US.

Rail lines exist now as in the WBTS period, between the two without entering into Texas, Texas as a member of the union, is not a pre requisite for internal domestic rail lines between California and Atlantic ports as a land route exist external to Texas.

Plans for a slave rout and free state route,The Transcontinental Railroad: "Not only would the Republicans Northern route stop the South from establishing trade links with the Far West, but the South would have to bear the ultimate costs (via the import tariff) of building the exorbitantly expensive Northern rail line".Republican Party platform speech on why its such a peach of a plan to use the northern states to build it.

Your point about internal improvements is a good example of the different economic models between the sections.During the 1850's, the South managed to hold down these expenditures to an average of$370,000 a year. In the next decade, when the Republicans ruled supreme, the figure
averaged $1,272,300 per year - and kept climbing. In 1880, the federal government spent $8,080,000 on such projects - almost none of which benefitted the South.

A pragmatic realist understands that a US military outpost cannot be built on foreign territory.

Constitution requires full land title to such property, before for any federal funding to erect any federal building can be allocated.

[South]

Good morning Hanny,

Ref my Cromwell comment and your reply; That's my point !

It's all like William Harvey and research on blood circulation; fatiguing trial and error, over and over and over again. No simple "Thou shalt not" and "Thou must".

Three rail lines were planned - and accomplished - Hanny, civilization didn't change that much since Pharaoh's time. Votes can't be acquired for a northern route without a southern route - and Indian Territory, later the state of Oklahoma, was planned to be a state with a Congressional delegation.... Texas was destined - planned - to become a state. As an aside: Confederate President Jefferson Davis was a "known-known". All this is not based on Aristotelian logic.

The southern route required Texas dirt for the tracks.

I believe US military outposts were present in California prior to statehood. I believe USN vessels also were assigned to this area prior to statehood. US military outposts require infantry units, without neglecting dragoons, cavalry, and definitely artillery. Congressional appropriations were not guided by "holy writ". The President/CEO of the Union Pacific Railroad (some company name changes at this time) can best explain.

Recommend disregard Aristotelian logic. Recommend review Mao's political philosophical principle number one.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Hanny]

Good morning Hanny,

Ref my Cromwell comment and your reply; That's my point !

Hi Bob

I dont agree, England has been a monarchy since the 8th century, it has had a constitution based on the consent of the governed, since the 12th, 20 years as a protectorate is barely worth a mention, 13 centuries of government.

It's all like William Harvey and research on blood circulation; fatiguing trial and error, over and over and over again. No simple "Thou shalt not" and "Thou must".

Except you reference to Bible and commandments is odd, the words/intent behind them in meaning, of the commandments have not changed since they were inscribed over 2000 years ago. Centuries of government by consent in the UK has not changed, but evolved in legal expression.

Three rail lines were planned - and accomplished - Hanny, civilization didn't change that much since Pharaoh's time. Votes can't be acquired for a northern route without a southern route - and Indian Territory, later the state of Oklahoma, was planned to be a state with a Congressional delegation.... Texas was destined - planned - to become a state. As an aside: Confederate President Jefferson Davis was a "known-known". All this is not based on Aristotelian logic.

The southern route required Texas dirt for the tracks.

No idea what the Davis reference means.

Your timeline is all over the place, little of what you post is factual correct, California came into the Union in 1850, Texas in 1845 both were already states when Congress chose from the 4 routes*Oklahoma did not exist as a Terr for another 38 years and as a state not till 1907.

*http://cprr.org/Museum/Construction_1883.html
During the years 1853 to 1856, in accordance with the act of March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 219), the Government of the United States, under the War Department, organized and executed a series of surveys and explorations from the Mississippi River westward to the Pacific Ocean, for ascertaining the most practicable and economical railroad route to the Pacific Ocean. The report reviewed the resources and prospects of the following routes: The extreme northern route (Stevens's) between the forty-seventh and forty-ninth parallels, north latitude; the route of the forty-first parallel (Mormon route); the route of the thirty-eighth parallel (Benton's great central or Buffalo Trail route); the route of the thirty-fifth parallel (Rusk's route); and the route of the thirty-second parallel (El Paso and Gila to the Pacific) through the Gadsden Purchase.

Gadsen purchase went through Mexican terr**, so Davis sent out James Gadsden, a Southern railroad builder, to buy the region in question from Mexico. In December of 1853, Gadsden persuaded the Mexican government to sell a strip of land that today comprises part of Arizona and New Mexico for $ 10 million, the so-called Gadsden purchase.

** Map of Pacific RR 1855 https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701p.rr0 ... 72,0.332,0

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 1up;seq=15
Davis speech on the pacific Southern Rail road.

I believe US military outposts were present in California prior to statehood. I believe USN vessels also were assigned to this area prior to statehood. US military outposts require infantry units, without neglecting dragoons, cavalry, and definitely artillery.

Constitution requires full land title before congress can allocate any funds to devolp the land for federal use. The most famous example is Fort sumter, land title claim by laval held up construction and by the time of the war, USA held land title while the state of SC had payed 80% of the cost of building the Fort as congress failed to provide the funds and the state payed. It was not fully owned by the USA till the 2oth century when congress payed back to SC for the fortifications it payed for.

Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best. Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes. In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people

https://www.fletc.gov/audio/territorial ... operty-mp3

Congressional appropriations were not guided by "holy writ". The President/CEO of the Union Pacific Railroad (some company name changes at this time) can best explain.

Correct. They are determined by Laws.

Recommend disregard Aristotelian logic. Recommend review Mao's political philosophical principle number one.

I never take/act on bad recomendations.

[South]

Good afternoon Hanny,

We are in complete disagreement.

Loved reading: "...not changed, but evolved in legal expression".

Funny: "Gadsden persuaded the Mexican government..." !

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Hanny]

Good afternoon Hanny,

We are in complete disagreement.

Hi Bob

So, time for a beer and munchies then!

Funny: "Gadsden persuaded the Mexican government..." !

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Could have been worse, say if Polk was still alive, and wanted that land.

[Hanny]

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/ ... nstitution

Might interest peeps.

[South]

Good afternoon Hanny,

Well received.

Instead of a few dozen thimbles of Whitstones, am now in the mood for an espresso and for munchies: some apple bread from Zinns Bake Shop, Alexandria, Northern Virginia Autonomous Oblast.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Stephen_Rynerson]

To respond to the OP, my main critique of DuBois' hypothesis is that I see no "sudden cessation" to the ACW. The Confederacy didn't economically implode like Germany in WW I with its home territory still largely intact -- the Confederacy had been thoroughly dismembered by Union forces and cut off from foreign supplies by the time the war ended. Thus, while it is correct that vast numbers of slaves stopped being productive (whether due to directly being liberated, fleeing across the front lines, or just being able to reduce their workload due to mismanagement and reduced oversight in the chaos of the wartime economy), it's the success of the Union army which facilitated that, with the loss of slave labor subsequently accelerating the Confederacy's final defeat rather than being the principal cause.

[Hanny]

To respond to the OP, my main critique of DuBois' hypothesis is that I see no "sudden cessation" to the ACW. The Confederacy didn't economically implode like Germany in WW I with its home territory still largely intact -- the Confederacy had been thoroughly dismembered by Union forces and cut off from foreign supplies by the time the war ended. Thus, while it is correct that vast numbers of slaves stopped being productive (whether due to directly being liberated, fleeing across the front lines, or just being able to reduce their workload due to mismanagement and reduced oversight in the chaos of the wartime economy), it's the success of the Union army which facilitated that, with the loss of slave labor the subsequently accelerating the Confederacy's final defeat.

I would go further, i see no end of over exploitation of former slaves either in the conflict or past it for that matter, they just changed who/how was exploiting them. Average slave maintenance cost, to the owner, was in 1860 c$110, per slave per year, while free and serving the Union the male would get $15 a month at wars end, $180 per annum, his partner around half that,( from 62 to 64 he got $10 less a subsistence cost of $3) to support the average coloured family of 6 former slaves.