A Piece of History for our Civil War series (1 Viewer)

[Peter Reuss]

 

[jazzeum]

Pete,

Is this an advertisement on the back of Toy Soldiers or a new brochure?

 

[Peter Reuss]

I think it'll be a flyer, but don't hold me to that.

Maybe a tattoo on Ron's back...


I can see it now...'Set right up and get your favorite toy soldier tattoo!'

 

[Capitolron]

I would wear it proudly

 

[kilted vampire]

Would that tatoo feature Gen'l Lee ? Sign me up!

 

[Shiloh]

Well I will have to say this struck a nerve, the wrong one. Just when I thought K & C would get some of my money they publish this lopsided misinformed crud. I would really like to see there history lesson on the ramifications of Rorke's Drift. How those boys held out for all the right political reasons and the Zulu's were bad or the Indian Mutiny for that matter.

 

[damian]

In what way is it misinformed? Just interested
Regards
Damian

 

[sirsydney]

Well I will have to say this struck a nerve, the wrong one. Just when I thought K & C would get some of my money they publish this lopsided misinformed crud. I would really like to see there history lesson on the ramifications of Rorke's Drift. How those boys held out for all the right political reasons and the Zulu's were bad or the Indian Mutiny for that matter.

Just remember that y'all lost. Don't be a sore loser And by the way I lived in the South for 25 years.

 

[Shiloh]

Check out the thread http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3874
you were part of the conversation where we discussed the slavery issue. Slavery was the fuse but not the bomb. The main jist was the Federal Goverment was not supposed to be able to dictate to the states what to do. Our founding fathers invisioned independent states making their own rules to deal with their own problems with a weak central govt to maintain a military and deal with foreign countries. It also was supposed to be the mediator between states if problems arose. Hence the term United States during the civil war a strong central govt emerged and from that day forth has dictated everything down to the states making the rules for all the people. Not how our founding fathers invisioned this country. Just like the income tax, they charge us but it has still not been ratified by 2/3 of the states. The states must vote for an amendment to the constitution by a 2/3 majority not the federal govt, giving the power ultimately to the states as our forefathers intended. So a step backwards to the strong cental govt structure our founding fathers rebelled against. This is my last post on the subject

 

[jazzeum]

This discussion would seem to be similar to the post that I placed in the Afrika Korps thread, which I'm reproducing below.

****

This is a forum for Toy Soldiers as Michael (maddadicus) has correctly observed. However, it also natural for the members to want to discuss toy soldiers within their historical context, which is why we have a section on this forum for historical discussions, where most of this "discussion" would be better placed.

Far be it for me to tell the members what to discuss but I find it extremely useless to see the same themes constantly popup: Monty v. Patton or did Americans save the world during WW II or did the Commonwealth forces single handedly beat the Germans and Italians in North Africa. These discussions always seem to involve some notions of national honor, machismo and who can get in the last word. Perhaps we should leave these oft repeated discussions to the former combatants (who as the Smith and Bierman book demonstrates are now brothers in arms and move on to other topics).

There is just no profit or goal to be achieved for the members of this Forum by these constant, unwinnable arguments.

 

[Pierre]

Check out the thread http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3874
you were part of the conversation where we discussed the slavery issue. Slavery was the fuse but not the bomb. The main jist was the Federal Goverment was not supposed to be able to dictate to the states what to do. Our founding fathers invisioned independent states making their own rules to deal with their own problems with a weak central govt to maintain a military and deal with foreign countries. It also was supposed to be the mediator between states if problems arose. Hence the term United States during the civil war a strong central govt emerged and from that day forth has dictated everything down to the states making the rules for all the people. Not how our founding fathers invisioned this country. Just like the income tax, they charge us but it has still not been ratified by 2/3 of the states. The states must vote for an amendment to the constitution by a 2/3 majority not the federal govt, giving the power ultimately to the states as our forefathers intended. So a step backwards to the strong cental govt structure our founding fathers rebelled against. This is my last post on the subject

Same situation here in Canada. The federal government (Ottawa) was (and is still legally) a creature of the provinces (Québec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 1867) but we have (especially with the Liberal Party of Canada) a very stong (and jealous of his alledged rights) centralized power.

Very bad.

At least, we did not had a Civil War.

Pierre.

 

[Capitolron]

Check out the thread http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3874
you were part of the conversation where we discussed the slavery issue. Slavery was the fuse but not the bomb. The main jist was the Federal Goverment was not supposed to be able to dictate to the states what to do. Our founding fathers invisioned independent states making their own rules to deal with their own problems with a weak central govt to maintain a military and deal with foreign countries. It also was supposed to be the mediator between states if problems arose. Hence the term United States during the civil war a strong central govt emerged and from that day forth has dictated everything down to the states making the rules for all the people. Not how our founding fathers invisioned this country. Just like the income tax, they charge us but it has still not been ratified by 2/3 of the states. The states must vote for an amendment to the constitution by a 2/3 majority not the federal govt, giving the power ultimately to the states as our forefathers intended. So a step backwards to the strong cental govt structure our founding fathers rebelled against. This is my last post on the subject

Shiloh

You know - I didnt even read the text until you posted this......I was excited about the pictures! But, now after careful study - it is a flawed document that is for sure. Historically incorrect.

Ron

 

[Louis Badolato]

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I don't believe slavery or states rights was really the underlying cause of the Civil War. I believe the Civil War was a power struggle between two radically different elites: the rich Northern Industrialists versus the rich Southern Plantation Owners. Up until the time of the election of Lincoln, the balance in both Congress and the Supreme Court had favored the power of the Southern Plantation owners (as evidenced by the Dred Scott Decision). By the time of Lincoln's election, the Northern Industrialists were gaining control over the Federal Government. These elites sold such concepts as the North impinging on the rights of Southerners (when the only right really being threatened was the right to own slaves, a right exercised only by the top 5% of Southerners economically) and the abolition of slavery (when Lincoln himself had stated that if to preserve the Union he had to free none of the slaves he would have) to the other 95% of society, and had them die in the millions over the power struggle.

As far as Shiloh's point about States Rights versus the control of the Central Government, I'm sorry to say that the framers of the Cosntitution completely disagree with you. Before the Constitutional Convention, the U.S. existed pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, perhaps the document tp which Shiloh refers. However, the loose confederation without a centralized government did not work, so the Constitution was drafted. The principal aggitators for the drafting of the Constitution were Hamilton, Madison and Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers. A reading of these papers demonstrates that the framers saw the need for a strong central government to ensure the survival of the States as against both internal and external threats. The dominance of the central Federal Government over the States was again clearly demonstrated by the Dred Scott Decision, where the Missouri Compromise, along with an individual free state's right to ban slavery within its own borders was overrun by the Supreme Court.

Shiloh is correct that under a fair and rational reading of the Consitution, the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that any Federal Tax be levied equally among the several states. Pursuant to this article of the constitution, several attempts to levy an income tax (which by definition cannot be levied equally amongst the States) were struck down by the Supreme Court. Then, the Court, packed by political appointies, reinterpreted the plain language of the constitution to permit for an income tax. That is another unintended side effect of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was never expressly intended to have the power to determine constitutionality (a power the Courts in England, upon which our legal system is based, do not possess). The First Justice Marshall's opinion in the famous (perhaps infamous) Marbury v. Madison decision claimed this right for the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby empowering 5 of 9 old men (and later women as well) to undo the will of the people and change the meaning of the words of the constitution, adding to and subtracting from it as they choose.

When you think about this, as well as all the undemocratic institutions built into our system, including the Senate (where the 10 people in Montana have the same power as the 10,000,000 people in New York) and the electoral college (where not only does a majority of the popular vote not guaranty a victory, but where the electors are not even legally obligated to vote the way their state voted!), its quite frightening.

 

[Shiloh]

As far as Shiloh's point about States Rights versus the control of the Central Government, I'm sorry to say that the framers of the Cosntitution completely disagree with you. Before the Constitutional Convention, the U.S. existed pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, perhaps the document tp which Shiloh refers. However, the loose confederation without a centralized government did not work, so the Constitution was drafted. The principal aggitators for the drafting of the Constitution were Hamilton, Madison and Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers. A reading of these papers demonstrates that the framers saw the need for a strong central government to ensure the survival of the States as against both internal and external threats. The dominance of the central Federal Government over the States was again clearly demonstrated by the Dred Scott Decision, where the Missouri Compromise, along with an individual free state's right to ban slavery within its own borders was overrun by the Supreme Court.

Louis I hate to disagree with you but your a lawyer from New york and probably believe the Federalist papers were the only opinion but
Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, controversy arose as to how to interpret the enumerated powers granted the federal government. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist party favored a broad interpretation, which meant a strong central government deriving its authority from implied as well as express powers contained in the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson and his followers, "strict constructionists," insisted that all powers not specifically granted the federal government be reserved to the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written by Jefferson and James Madison, represent the first formulation of the doctrine of states' rights. The Civil War settled pretty much all of this, strong central govt prevailed the rift went back much further than 1860.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis I hate to disagree with you but your a lawyer from New york and probably believe the Federalist papers were the only opinion but
Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, controversy arose as to how to interpret the enumerated powers granted the federal government. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist party favored a broad interpretation, which meant a strong central government deriving its authority from implied as well as express powers contained in the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson and his followers, "strict constructionists," insisted that all powers not specifically granted the federal government be reserved to the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written by Jefferson and James Madison, represent the first formulation of the doctrine of states' rights. The Civil War settled pretty much all of this, strong central govt prevailed the rift went back much further than 1860.

You are certainly correct that after it was drafted and ratified, there was a lot of struggle as to the meaning of its provisions, but as a lawyer, I am trained to interpret a constitution or statute based on the intent of its framers, and for the Constitution that was Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Another little known but extremely important factor that convinces me of the intention for a strong central government was the genesis of the Bill of Rights: New York State, recognizing the broader powers conferred upon the Central Federal Government by the Constitution, declined to ratify it unless upon its ratification the other states all agreed to an immediate amendment guarantying the rights of individial citizens, which the States could no longer effectively guarantee. The other States agreed, and the first 10 amendments, our most precious liberties, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, was born.

 

[Capitolron]

Louis

The problem is your a YANKEE and a LAWYER !!

Thats hard for us Southerners to trust

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis

The problem is your a YANKEE and a LAWYER !!

Thats hard for us Southerners to trust

I lived in Texas for 8 years, and worked as a federal clerk in the same courthouse as United States District Court Judge Howell Cobb, the great grandson of the Confederate General of the same name, so I think I have some Southern roots. Besides, Tim Tyler vouches for me, so I'm in with the Confederate crowd.

 

[jazzeum]

Yes, but he's still a Yankee (fan)

 

[Capitolron]

Louis

8 years - huh? Well I am not sure if that gives you enough time certification - hmmmmmmmmmm, what do think Shiloh?

Maybe we need to give Louis the Confederate Test ?

You see Louis - you just cant come across the border and take up residence in the South and expect to be given Citizenship with the Confederate States of America - we have no Amesty here - my friend.

Shiloh we need to convene the CSA Citizenship Committee. Louis you better call Tim Tyler and let him know that he will be presenting you as potential Citizen of the CSA......We also going to need firm documentation that you were at some point of your Yankee existance indeed a RESIDENT of the South.

Ron

 

[kilted vampire]

Ron He is not a bad guy for being a carpet bagger