Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: West Virginia?

Expand Messages
  • Carl Williams
    What if the President of Serbia tricks Kosovo into attacking some strategic spot that Serbia refuses to vacate? ... Virginia to the Union....few days ago
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 20 4:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      What if the President of Serbia tricks Kosovo into attacking some
      strategic spot that Serbia refuses to vacate?

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "rbaquero@..." <rbaquero@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Dic 31, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln sign and act admits West
      Virginia to the Union....few days ago President George Bush back the
      secessecion of Kosovo from Serbia....I wonder if the state of South
      Carolina, Lousiana or Florida could do the same thing now ....... ???
      > - Raul
      >
      > _____________________________________________________________
      > Become a pharmacy assistant. Click here to start your career now.
      >
      http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4vg0Im4FQpqYN7XYV2Ojhyj1pNmNPjF2Oduyyqj5Stg9iu25/
      >
    • Carl Williams
      [snips] only the most profoundly cynical person could seriously believe the below was a legitimate action. ... Quibbling away here! Certainly at this date and
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 20 4:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        [snips]

        only the most profoundly cynical person could seriously believe the
        below was a legitimate action.

        > The loyal legislature of Virginia (sitting at Wheeling) approved the
        > splitting of the state...
        >
        >
        >
        > Of course one can quibble about the legitimacy of the Wheeling.


        Quibbling away here! Certainly at this date and time can't be much
        more than that. *Fait Accompli*



        >But then the
        > folks in Richmond were in no position to complain since those
        legislatures
        > claimed they were no longer part of the US...



        again, seems like an extremely cynical argument.

        5 electoral votes for Lincoln 1864 resulted, too.
      • Bill Bruner
        I m still disapointed that they didn t name the state Kanawa. Bill Bruner ... the
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 20 2:05 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm still disapointed that they didn't name the state Kanawa.

          Bill Bruner


          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > [snips]
          >
          > only the most profoundly cynical person could seriously believe the
          > below was a legitimate action.
          >
          > > The loyal legislature of Virginia (sitting at Wheeling) approved
          the
          > > splitting of the state...
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Of course one can quibble about the legitimacy of the Wheeling.
          >
          >
          > Quibbling away here! Certainly at this date and time can't be much
          > more than that. *Fait Accompli*
          >
          >
          >
          > >But then the
          > > folks in Richmond were in no position to complain since those
          > legislatures
          > > claimed they were no longer part of the US...
          >
          >
          >
          > again, seems like an extremely cynical argument.
          >
          > 5 electoral votes for Lincoln 1864 resulted, too.
          >
        • NPeters102@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/20/2008 5:05:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, banbruner@bellsouth.net writes: I m still disapointed that they didn t name the state Kanawha
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 20 2:11 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/20/2008 5:05:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, banbruner@... writes:
            I'm still disapointed that they didn't name the state Kanawha
             
            I guess we'll have to be satisfied with a county & a river named such. :)
             
            Respectfully,

            Mike Peters
            npeters102@...




            Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
          • CashG79@aol.com
            In a message dated 2/20/2008 4:02:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes: And there still is talk about the legality of WVA since it
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 20 3:20 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 2/20/2008 4:02:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes:
              And there still is talk about the legality of WVA since it never
              received two thirds majority approval in Congress. Thirteen Southern
              States were not in attendence and Lincoln always claimed that they were
              still part of the United States. Enuff about WVA, how about Eastern
              Tennessee being mostly for the Union while Western Tennessee was for
              the Confederacy/ Hmmmmm

              JEJ
              -----------------
              A 2/3 majority wasn't needed.  All that's needed is a simple majority of the members present in each house to express the approval of Congress.
               
              Regards,
              Cash




              Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
            • Bill Bruner
              When men (populations) take up muskets and cannon and put their lives on the line for what they believe, the niceties of parlimentary rules and procedures go
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 20 6:00 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                When men (populations) take up muskets and cannon and put their
                lives on the line for what they believe, the niceties of
                parlimentary rules and procedures go out the window.

                Bill Bruner


                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, CashG79@... wrote:
                >
                >
                > In a message dated 2/20/2008 4:02:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                > civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes:
                >
                > And there still is talk about the legality of WVA since it never
                > received two thirds majority approval in Congress. Thirteen
                Southern
                > States were not in attendence and Lincoln always claimed that
                they were
                > still part of the United States. Enuff about WVA, how about
                Eastern
                > Tennessee being mostly for the Union while Western Tennessee was
                for
                > the Confederacy/ Hmmmmm
                >
                > JEJ
                >
                >
                > -----------------
                > A 2/3 majority wasn't needed. All that's needed is a simple
                majority of the
                > members present in each house to express the approval of Congress.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Cash
                >
                >
                >
                > **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL
                Living.
                > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-
                campos-duffy/
                > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
                >
              • Ricky Washburn
                did w. virgina have a right to secede from virginia? seems that since it fit the union cause it was just fine, they can bend the rules if you support us
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 20 6:23 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  did w. virgina have a right to secede from virginia? seems that since it fit the union cause it was just fine, they can bend the rules if you support us hummmm?

                  <em><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:#c00000;" face="Comic Sans MS" size="4"><font face="comic sans ms"></font></font></em> 



                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: "CashG79@..." <CashG79@...>
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:20:12 AM
                  Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] West Virginia?

                  In a message dated 2/20/2008 4:02:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com writes:
                  And there still is talk about the legality of WVA since it never
                  received two thirds majority approval in Congress. Thirteen Southern
                  States were not in attendence and Lincoln always claimed that they were
                  still part of the United States. Enuff about WVA, how about Eastern
                  Tennessee being mostly for the Union while Western Tennessee was for
                  the Confederacy/ Hmmmmm

                  JEJ
                  ------------ -----
                  A 2/3 majority wasn't needed. All that's needed is a simple majority of the members present in each house to express the approval of Congress.

                  Regards,
                  Cash


                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                  http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                • Carl Williams
                  We might like to think our country was always quite democratic at all points in history, but the ACW certainly should hammer home the fact that whoever is
                  Message 8 of 27 , Feb 21 5:22 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    We might like to think our country was always quite democratic at all
                    points in history, but the ACW certainly should hammer home the fact
                    that whoever is claiming to be the "real" or "legitimate" government
                    of a state can be very much out of luck, even faintly ridiculous, when
                    they are "ruling" in absentia. The side that is able to oust the other
                    by military power is going to have the last word, and parliamentary
                    niceties, as you say, will be trumped. The rump government is
                    powerless and any parliamentary claim to legitimacy soon forgotten.
                    IIRC, for the CSA, the Missouri rump government had the best
                    parliamentary claim to legitimacy. Elected but ultimately ousted I
                    believe?. The Kentucky Reb government, I think, couldnt really claim
                    to have been voted in by all Kentucky.

                    A little bit odd to me is the fact that the CSA never claimed
                    Maryland, even though that state was prevented from voting on
                    Secession by throwing the legislature in the Hoosegow. [or some
                    similar action]. But somehow, to the Confederacy, no vote for
                    secession was respected as final on the matter.

                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > When men (populations) take up muskets and cannon and put their
                    > lives on the line for what they believe, the niceties of
                    > parlimentary rules and procedures go out the window.
                    >
                    > Bill Bruner
                  • huddleston.r@comcast.net
                    Maryland’s Status During The American Civil War One of the endearing myths about the Civil War is that the Lincoln Administration prevented Maryland from
                    Message 9 of 27 , Feb 21 8:06 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Maryland�s Status During The American Civil War

                      One of the endearing myths about the Civil War is that the Lincoln Administration prevented Maryland from seceding, even though the majority of their population wanted to.

                      To start with, the argument that a state or region was forcibly retained in the Union presupposes that secession was legal. However, although we can argue the legality until the cows come home, the reality is that secession was not ipso facto legal: as James McPherson remarks slavery caused secession and secession caused the Civil War. It is a waste of time to argue the legality of secession: as long as the Northern states and the Lincoln Administration were unwilling to admit the legality, secession had to maintain its de facto status before it could become de jure.

                      So, without conceding the legality of preventing secession, I will proceed to the status and loyalty of Marylanders to the National Government.

                      Maryland seems to be unique in this line of argument: no one argues that Kentucky or Missouri were forcibly retained in the Union; only Maryland is subjected to that sort of discussion. Yet only tiny Delaware (1,798 slaves in 1860) and Maryland of the slave states failed to establish Confederate state governments, a source of embarrassment to the post war creators of the Lost Cause (for Bradley Johnson�s post-bellum role in attaching Maryland to the Confederates, see the article by Thomas Will, �Bradley T. Johnson�s Lost Cause: Maryland�s Confederate Identity in the New South� in the Spring 1999 issue of Maryland Historical Magazine, pp. 5ff)

                      This very failure of the antebellum Maryland political leadership to create even a government in exile, as happened in Missouri and Kentucky, shows the lack of support in the state for secession. Governor Thomas Hicks was a strong Unionist and refused to buckle to the demands of the secessionists to call a special convention to take Maryland out of the Union. When Ben Butler occupied Annapolis, Hicks did call the state legislature in to session to consider what they should do, but he had them meet in Frederick, a lot closer to Virginia troops and potential Southern support than either Union held Annapolis or secession mob held Baltimore. On the other hand, Frederick was, as Lee discovered in 1862, very pro-Unionist.

                      The special session, meeting on April 25 1861, one week after the attack on United States troops in Baltimore, refused to approve legislation to withdraw Maryland or to call a convention to consider secession. The ante-bellum legislature was gerrymandered in favor of the slave counties so their refusal to take action speaks loads about the secession sentiment.

                      The legislature voted overwhelmingly that (a) they could not take Maryland out of the Union themselves and (b) they also refused to call a convention to consider secession.

                      Just as some of the Virginian delegates were talking about seceding from Virginia if the latter tried to secede from the US, so some of the Western Maryland delegates voiced the same opinion in Frederick.

                      Chuckle: West Maryland along with West Virginia! Perhaps they could have united as West Virginland!

                      The other action taken by the special session was to call for an election of U.S. Congressmen in June. Normally Maryland elected their congressmen in November of odd-numbered years, but Lincoln�s call for a special session of Congress to meet on July 4 forced several states to schedule elections in May and June. At the June election, without the arrest of anyone, and in what even Bradley Johnson called a fair election, five unconditional Unionists were re-elected. The sixth member of congress, from Baltimore, was closer to being a conditional unionist. But no pre-secessionists were selected.

                      It is important to remember, since Maryland-in-the-Confederacy advocates often mix up their dates, that there had been no arrests of anyone by US officials when the legislature met.

                      Pay attention also to the issue that no influential civilian leaders went South; to the contrary, without exception, the antebellum leadership were Unionists. And there were a number of very strong politicians in the Union camp: the Blair family, Revardy Johnson, Henry Winter Davis, Roger Taney, and John Pendleton Kennedy to pick the more prominent names.

                      These men are all in DAB and ANB so I do not need to outline their qualifications here. But let me point out that, while Taney disapproved of Lincoln�s suspension of habeas corpus (ex parte Merryman), he was an unconditional Unionist, as one would expect of an old Jacksonian and Taney never wavered in his support of the United States.

                      Leaving aside political leadership, look at the numbers of soldiers contributed to the two armies. Ignoring that �majority� excludes African Americans and only considers European Americans, it is instructive to see how the young white males felt about the choices towards America�s future in 1861.

                      It is impossible to provide totally accurate figures about the number of men who joined the Confederate Army since so much of their paperwork disappeared at the end of the War. But in the 1890�s the Pension Office of the War Department gathered as much material as possible about both Union and Confederate soldiers, assembling them as �Consolidated Military Service Records.� The size of individual records varied with the length of service and the amount of paper work generated � generals have much more than privates! �so the volume of the total CSR�s do not tell much about the numbers.

                      However, the Pension Office compiled 3X5 cards on each individual and in the 1930�s the National Archives microfilmed these.

                      Even making allowances for duplicate enrollments and for the fact that not all Confederates are there, the difference in the number of reels of microfilm for the border states says something about the relative strengths of pro-Union and pro-secessionists in the states.

                      For instance, pre-War Virginia has 62 reels of Confederate cards and one reel of Unionist Virginia and 13 of West Virginia troops: roughly 4 1/2 to 1 in favor of secession.

                      Kentucky has 14 reels of Confederate cards and 30 of Union, for a 2:1 Union ratio.

                      Missouri has 16 reels of Confederate cards and 54 of Union, for a 4.5:1 Union ratio.

                      Tennessee provided 48 reels of Rebels and 16 of Yankees: about 3 to 1 pro-Confederate.

                      Maryland has 2 reels of Confederate cards and 13 of Union, for a 6:1 Union ratio.

                      Trying to tie down any Civil War statistics is notoriously a slippery slope. Several authors have attempted to do that with Maryland. Let�s see how their efforts compare with my microfilm count.

                      Sponsored by the General Assembly, The History and Roster of Maryland Volunteers, War of 1861-65 appeared in two volumes in 1898 and 1899. Volume 1 listed all white Union soldiers and volume 2 all black Union soldiers plus those serving in the Navy and Marine Corps. Daniel Carroll Toomey published in 1986 a computerized index to the History and Roster. Looking only at volume 1, there are 42,220 names. However, removing duplications (and triplications), as well as some 575 �enlisted� but never assigned a company leaves 29,285. 4,400 of these were substitutes: many would not have been Marylanders, although there is no way to be certain without going individually through the 1860 Census returns. About 1,500 were draftees. In 1865, the Provost Marshall�s report credited Maryland with 25,391 volunteers � which accords fairly closely to the Toomey index: about 25 to 30,000 white Union soldiers. In addition there were about 5,020 white sailors and Marines and 8,718 USCT credited to Maryla
                      nd. The sailors and Marines are not on the index cars but the USCT�s are, making a total of around 35-40,000 Maryland Union soldiers.

                      Hartzler�s Marylanders in the Confederacy identified roughly 9,640 Maryland Confederates. But Hartzler made no effort to eliminate duplications, so his figure is high. In fact his figure would have to be compared with the Toomey figure of 42,220 plus 8,718 USCT or 51,000.

                      Still this is about as accurate as we are likely to get and the ratios compare nicely with the index cards (nicely being a relative term!): index cards say 6:1; Toomey versus Hartzler say 5:1.

                      Even if we assume Hartzler is accurate (a dubious suggestion!) and exclude the USCT on the grounds they could not participate in the political procedure in 1861, then we have 3:1.

                      No matter how the figures are manipulated, the majority of white Marylanders supported the Union where it counted: with their bodies and their lives.

                      Ah, but the United States forces controlled the Potomac crossings making it impossible for those Marylanders who wanted to join the CS Army to do so.

                      If that is true how did the 10,000 get into the Confederate service? The myth that the Maryland Confederates had no way to reach Confederate territory ignores the relative ease with which John Wilkes Booth, with a gigantic bounty on his head, with a broken leg and with the entire United States Army searching frantically for him, was able to reach Virginia�s Northern neck. It also ignores the ease with which Mosby�s men crossed back and forth from Montgomery County, northwest of the District of Columbia, into Virginia or the ease with which Stuart crossed through Maryland en route to Gettysburg. If Stuart�s thousands could go north with impunity, then pro-Confederate hundreds, if there had been such numbers, could have gone south as easily. The �border� was wide open for individuals and not terribly difficulty for large bodies of men.

                      The conclusion is inescapable: the average white Marylander in the 1860�s was pro-Union, not pro-secession.

                      For more information, see Arthur Zilversmit, The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North (1967), Fields, Barbara Jeanne, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century, New Haven: Yale University Press, c1985, William J. Evitts, A Matter of Allegiance: Maryland from 1850 to 1861 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1974, Jean H. Baker, The Politics of Continuity: Maryland Political Parties from 1858 to 1870 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1973, George Radcliffe Governor Thomas H. Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War JHU Studies in Historical and Political Science XIX No 11-12, 1901.

                      --
                      Take care,

                      Bob

                      Judy and Bob Huddleston
                      10643 Sperry Street
                      Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                      huddleston.r@...

                      "Problems will always torment us because all important problems are insoluble: that is why they are important. The good comes from the continuing struggle to try and solve them, not from the vain hope of their solution."

                      - Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.


                      -------------- Original message ----------------------
                      From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                      > We might like to think our country was always quite democratic at all
                      > points in history, but the ACW certainly should hammer home the fact
                      > that whoever is claiming to be the "real" or "legitimate" government
                      > of a state can be very much out of luck, even faintly ridiculous, when
                      > they are "ruling" in absentia. The side that is able to oust the other
                      > by military power is going to have the last word, and parliamentary
                      > niceties, as you say, will be trumped. The rump government is
                      > powerless and any parliamentary claim to legitimacy soon forgotten.
                      > IIRC, for the CSA, the Missouri rump government had the best
                      > parliamentary claim to legitimacy. Elected but ultimately ousted I
                      > believe?. The Kentucky Reb government, I think, couldnt really claim
                      > to have been voted in by all Kentucky.
                      >
                      > A little bit odd to me is the fact that the CSA never claimed
                      > Maryland, even though that state was prevented from voting on
                      > Secession by throwing the legislature in the Hoosegow. [or some
                      > similar action]. But somehow, to the Confederacy, no vote for
                      > secession was respected as final on the matter.
                      >
                      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > When men (populations) take up muskets and cannon and put their
                      > > lives on the line for what they believe, the niceties of
                      > > parlimentary rules and procedures go out the window.
                      > >
                      > > Bill Bruner
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • hank9174
                      ... So are east virginians ;) HankC
                      Message 10 of 27 , Feb 21 8:07 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm still disapointed that they didn't name the state Kanawa.
                        >

                        So are east virginians ;)


                        HankC
                      • hank9174
                        ... all ... when ... other ... For whom do the 2 extra stars on the confederate flag stand: Maryland, Kentucky or Missouri? HankC p.s. please refrain from
                        Message 11 of 27 , Feb 21 8:11 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > We might like to think our country was always quite democratic at
                          all
                          > points in history, but the ACW certainly should hammer home the fact
                          > that whoever is claiming to be the "real" or "legitimate" government
                          > of a state can be very much out of luck, even faintly ridiculous,
                          when
                          > they are "ruling" in absentia. The side that is able to oust the
                          other
                          > by military power is going to have the last word, and parliamentary
                          > niceties, as you say, will be trumped. The rump government is
                          > powerless and any parliamentary claim to legitimacy soon forgotten.
                          > IIRC, for the CSA, the Missouri rump government had the best
                          > parliamentary claim to legitimacy. Elected but ultimately ousted I
                          > believe?. The Kentucky Reb government, I think, couldnt really claim
                          > to have been voted in by all Kentucky.
                          >
                          > A little bit odd to me is the fact that the CSA never claimed
                          > Maryland, even though that state was prevented from voting on
                          > Secession by throwing the legislature in the Hoosegow. [or some
                          > similar action]. But somehow, to the Confederacy, no vote for
                          > secession was respected as final on the matter.
                          >

                          For whom do the 2 extra stars on the confederate flag stand:
                          Maryland, Kentucky or Missouri?


                          HankC

                          p.s. please refrain from asking 'which' confederate flag ;)
                        • huddleston.r@comcast.net
                          Kentucky and Missouri. Even the CS Congress never claimed MD. -- Take care, Bob Judy and Bob Huddleston 10643 Sperry Street Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                          Message 12 of 27 , Feb 21 8:12 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Kentucky and Missouri. Even the CS Congress never claimed MD.

                            --
                            Take care,

                            Bob

                            Judy and Bob Huddleston
                            10643 Sperry Street
                            Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                            huddleston.r@...

                            "Problems will always torment us because all important problems are insoluble: that is why they are important. The good comes from the continuing struggle to try and solve them, not from the vain hope of their solution."

                            - Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.


                            -------------- Original message ----------------------
                            From: "hank9174" <clarkc@...>
                            SNIP
                            >
                            > For whom do the 2 extra stars on the confederate flag stand:
                            > Maryland, Kentucky or Missouri?
                            >
                            >
                            > HankC
                            >
                            > p.s. please refrain from asking 'which' confederate flag ;)
                          • huddleston.r@comcast.net
                            That would make a good thesis: why did the WV not rename their state. There was a long history of antagonism and hostility between the Tidewater and the
                            Message 13 of 27 , Feb 21 8:16 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              That would make a good thesis: why did the WV not rename their state. There was a long history of antagonism and hostility between the Tidewater and the Mountains. This comes out very clearly in the debates held in the Virginia secession convention before, and indeed, after, Sumter. Long complaints about the inequality of taxation -- slaves got off very cheaply -- one western representation complained that his horses, worth less than his slaves, were taxed at a higher rate.

                              Gerrymandering in favor of the slave-heavy tidewater was also an issue.

                              --
                              Take care,

                              Bob

                              Judy and Bob Huddleston
                              10643 Sperry Street
                              Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                              huddleston.r@...

                              "Problems will always torment us because all important problems are insoluble: that is why they are important. The good comes from the continuing struggle to try and solve them, not from the vain hope of their solution."

                              - Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.


                              -------------- Original message ----------------------
                              From: "hank9174" <clarkc@...>
                              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...>
                              > wrote:
                              > >
                              > > I'm still disapointed that they didn't name the state Kanawa.
                              > >
                              >
                              > So are east virginians ;)
                              >
                              >
                              > HankC
                              >
                              >
                            • keeno2@aol.com
                              In a message dated 2/21/2008 10:11:50 A.M. Central Standard Time, clarkc@missouri.edu writes: p.s. please refrain from asking which confederate flag ;)
                              Message 14 of 27 , Feb 21 9:38 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 2/21/2008 10:11:50 A.M. Central Standard Time, clarkc@... writes:
                                p.s.  please refrain from asking 'which' confederate flag ;)
                                Talk about waving the red cape!




                                Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
                              • CashG79@aol.com
                                In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes: A little bit odd to me is the fact that the CSA never
                                Message 15 of 27 , Feb 21 4:15 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                  A little bit odd to me is the fact that the CSA never claimed
                                  Maryland, even though that state was prevented from voting on
                                  Secession by throwing the legislature in the Hoosegow. [or some
                                  similar action].
                                  -----------
                                  In actuality, there's little evidence Maryland would have voted to secede even absent the arrest of the 20-odd legislators.  The arrests were due to the fears that there was a conspiracy to act in conjunction with a rebel military raid into Maryland.
                                   
                                  Regards,
                                  Cash




                                  Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
                                • CashG79@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes: did w. virgina have a right to secede from virginia?
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Feb 21 4:16 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                     
                                    did w. virgina have a right to secede from virginia? seems that since it fit the union cause it was just fine, they can bend the rules if you support us hummmm?
                                     
                                    --------------
                                    It was done by the letter of the Constitution.
                                     
                                    Regards,
                                    Cash
                                     




                                    Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
                                  • Ricky Washburn
                                    Cash what is the letter of constitution?
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Feb 21 5:07 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Cash what is the letter of constitution?

                                       


                                       
                                      <em><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:#c00000;" face="Comic Sans MS" size="4"><font face="comic sans ms"></font></font></em>&nbsp;


                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: "CashG79@..." <CashG79@...>
                                      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:16:43 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] West Virginia?

                                      In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:13:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com writes:
                                       
                                      did w. virgina have a right to secede from virginia? seems that since it fit the union cause it was just fine, they can bend the rules if you support us hummmm?
                                       
                                      ------------ --
                                      It was done by the letter of the Constitution.
                                       
                                      Regards,
                                      Cash
                                       



                                      Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.



                                      Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                                    • CashG79@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 2/22/2008 3:29:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes: Cash what is the letter of constitution? Article IV,
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Feb 22 4:47 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 2/22/2008 3:29:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                        Cash what is the letter of constitution?
                                        Article IV, Section 3.
                                         
                                        Regards,
                                        Cash




                                        Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
                                      • Carl Williams
                                        I did find the below interesting. Refraining from discussing the Secession bit, other than to say it must be clear I don t totally agree, I ll instead look at
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Feb 23 4:40 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I did find the below interesting. Refraining from discussing the
                                          Secession bit, other than to say it must be clear I don't totally
                                          agree, I'll instead look at the bit about the soldiers. I don't quite
                                          buy the idea that the recruitment of soldiers from Maryland was not
                                          greatly affected by circumstances. Those circumstances, to me, would
                                          mean that only the most ardently pro-South young men would have tried
                                          to travel past the barriers to Confederate service. And once it became
                                          clear that a draft was necessary, you have to be kidding me to think
                                          there was any way to affect that in Maryland!

                                          Think of all the complications the other states had. There were plenty
                                          of Southerners gung-ho to join the state militia, who were dismayed at
                                          later being mustered in to Confederate service. And Maryland, like all
                                          Southern states, had regions unfriendly to Secession altogether; those
                                          other states, however, could still pull from those regions; Maryland?
                                          come on!

                                          Just seems to me all these things meant you could hardly expect
                                          anything like the usual percentages from Maryland.

                                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, huddleston.r@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Maryland's Status During The American Civil War
                                          >
                                          > One of the endearing myths about the Civil War is that the Lincoln
                                          Administration prevented Maryland from seceding, even though the
                                          majority of their population wanted to.
                                          >
                                          > To start with, the argument that a state or region was forcibly
                                          retained in the Union presupposes that secession was legal. However,
                                          although we can argue the legality until the cows come home, the
                                          reality is that secession was not ipso facto legal: as James McPherson
                                          remarks slavery caused secession and secession caused the Civil War.
                                          It is a waste of time to argue the legality of secession: as long as
                                          the Northern states and the Lincoln Administration were unwilling to
                                          admit the legality, secession had to maintain its de facto status
                                          before it could become de jure.
                                          >
                                          > So, without conceding the legality of preventing secession, I will
                                          proceed to the status and loyalty of Marylanders to the National
                                          Government.
                                          >
                                          > Maryland seems to be unique in this line of argument: no one argues
                                          that Kentucky or Missouri were forcibly retained in the Union; only
                                          Maryland is subjected to that sort of discussion. Yet only tiny
                                          Delaware (1,798 slaves in 1860) and Maryland of the slave states
                                          failed to establish Confederate state governments, a source of
                                          embarrassment to the post war creators of the Lost Cause (for Bradley
                                          Johnson's post-bellum role in attaching Maryland to the Confederates,
                                          see the article by Thomas Will, "Bradley T. Johnson's Lost Cause:
                                          Maryland's Confederate Identity in the New South" in the Spring 1999
                                          issue of Maryland Historical Magazine, pp. 5ff)
                                          >
                                          > This very failure of the antebellum Maryland political leadership to
                                          create even a government in exile, as happened in Missouri and
                                          Kentucky, shows the lack of support in the state for secession.
                                          Governor Thomas Hicks was a strong Unionist and refused to buckle to
                                          the demands of the secessionists to call a special convention to take
                                          Maryland out of the Union. When Ben Butler occupied Annapolis, Hicks
                                          did call the state legislature in to session to consider what they
                                          should do, but he had them meet in Frederick, a lot closer to Virginia
                                          troops and potential Southern support than either Union held Annapolis
                                          or secession mob held Baltimore. On the other hand, Frederick was, as
                                          Lee discovered in 1862, very pro-Unionist.
                                          >
                                          > The special session, meeting on April 25 1861, one week after the
                                          attack on United States troops in Baltimore, refused to approve
                                          legislation to withdraw Maryland or to call a convention to consider
                                          secession. The ante-bellum legislature was gerrymandered in favor of
                                          the slave counties so their refusal to take action speaks loads about
                                          the secession sentiment.
                                          >
                                          > The legislature voted overwhelmingly that (a) they could not take
                                          Maryland out of the Union themselves and (b) they also refused to call
                                          a convention to consider secession.
                                          >
                                          > Just as some of the Virginian delegates were talking about seceding
                                          from Virginia if the latter tried to secede from the US, so some of
                                          the Western Maryland delegates voiced the same opinion in Frederick.
                                          >
                                          > Chuckle: West Maryland along with West Virginia! Perhaps they could
                                          have united as West Virginland!
                                          >
                                          > The other action taken by the special session was to call for an
                                          election of U.S. Congressmen in June. Normally Maryland elected their
                                          congressmen in November of odd-numbered years, but Lincoln's call for
                                          a special session of Congress to meet on July 4 forced several states
                                          to schedule elections in May and June. At the June election, without
                                          the arrest of anyone, and in what even Bradley Johnson called a fair
                                          election, five unconditional Unionists were re-elected. The sixth
                                          member of congress, from Baltimore, was closer to being a conditional
                                          unionist. But no pre-secessionists were selected.
                                          >
                                          > It is important to remember, since Maryland-in-the-Confederacy
                                          advocates often mix up their dates, that there had been no arrests of
                                          anyone by US officials when the legislature met.
                                          >
                                          > Pay attention also to the issue that no influential civilian leaders
                                          went South; to the contrary, without exception, the antebellum
                                          leadership were Unionists. And there were a number of very strong
                                          politicians in the Union camp: the Blair family, Revardy Johnson,
                                          Henry Winter Davis, Roger Taney, and John Pendleton Kennedy to pick
                                          the more prominent names.
                                          >
                                          > These men are all in DAB and ANB so I do not need to outline their
                                          qualifications here. But let me point out that, while Taney
                                          disapproved of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (ex parte
                                          Merryman), he was an unconditional Unionist, as one would expect of an
                                          old Jacksonian and Taney never wavered in his support of the United
                                          States.
                                          >
                                          > Leaving aside political leadership, look at the numbers of soldiers
                                          contributed to the two armies. Ignoring that "majority" excludes
                                          African Americans and only considers European Americans, it is
                                          instructive to see how the young white males felt about the choices
                                          towards America's future in 1861.
                                          >
                                          > It is impossible to provide totally accurate figures about the
                                          number of men who joined the Confederate Army since so much of their
                                          paperwork disappeared at the end of the War. But in the 1890's the
                                          Pension Office of the War Department gathered as much material as
                                          possible about both Union and Confederate soldiers, assembling them as
                                          "Consolidated Military Service Records." The size of individual
                                          records varied with the length of service and the amount of paper work
                                          generated – generals have much more than privates! –so the volume of
                                          the total CSR's do not tell much about the numbers.
                                          >
                                          > However, the Pension Office compiled 3X5 cards on each individual
                                          and in the 1930's the National Archives microfilmed these.
                                          >
                                          > Even making allowances for duplicate enrollments and for the fact
                                          that not all Confederates are there, the difference in the number of
                                          reels of microfilm for the border states says something about the
                                          relative strengths of pro-Union and pro-secessionists in the states.
                                          >
                                          > For instance, pre-War Virginia has 62 reels of Confederate cards and
                                          one reel of Unionist Virginia and 13 of West Virginia troops: roughly
                                          4 1/2 to 1 in favor of secession.
                                          >
                                          > Kentucky has 14 reels of Confederate cards and 30 of Union, for a
                                          2:1 Union ratio.
                                          >
                                          > Missouri has 16 reels of Confederate cards and 54 of Union, for a
                                          4.5:1 Union ratio.
                                          >
                                          > Tennessee provided 48 reels of Rebels and 16 of Yankees: about 3 to
                                          1 pro-Confederate.
                                          >
                                          > Maryland has 2 reels of Confederate cards and 13 of Union, for a 6:1
                                          Union ratio.
                                          >
                                          > Trying to tie down any Civil War statistics is notoriously a
                                          slippery slope. Several authors have attempted to do that with
                                          Maryland. Let's see how their efforts compare with my microfilm count.
                                          >
                                          > Sponsored by the General Assembly, The History and Roster of
                                          Maryland Volunteers, War of 1861-65 appeared in two volumes in 1898
                                          and 1899. Volume 1 listed all white Union soldiers and volume 2 all
                                          black Union soldiers plus those serving in the Navy and Marine Corps.
                                          Daniel Carroll Toomey published in 1986 a computerized index to the
                                          History and Roster. Looking only at volume 1, there are 42,220 names.
                                          However, removing duplications (and triplications), as well as some
                                          575 "enlisted" but never assigned a company leaves 29,285. 4,400 of
                                          these were substitutes: many would not have been Marylanders, although
                                          there is no way to be certain without going individually through the
                                          1860 Census returns. About 1,500 were draftees. In 1865, the Provost
                                          Marshall's report credited Maryland with 25,391 volunteers – which
                                          accords fairly closely to the Toomey index: about 25 to 30,000 white
                                          Union soldiers. In addition there were about 5,020 white sailors and
                                          Marines and 8,718 USCT credited to Maryla
                                          > nd. The sailors and Marines are not on the index cars but the USCT's
                                          are, making a total of around 35-40,000 Maryland Union soldiers.
                                          >
                                          > Hartzler's Marylanders in the Confederacy identified roughly 9,640
                                          Maryland Confederates. But Hartzler made no effort to eliminate
                                          duplications, so his figure is high. In fact his figure would have to
                                          be compared with the Toomey figure of 42,220 plus 8,718 USCT or 51,000.
                                          >
                                          > Still this is about as accurate as we are likely to get and the
                                          ratios compare nicely with the index cards (nicely being a relative
                                          term!): index cards say 6:1; Toomey versus Hartzler say 5:1.
                                          >
                                          > Even if we assume Hartzler is accurate (a dubious suggestion!) and
                                          exclude the USCT on the grounds they could not participate in the
                                          political procedure in 1861, then we have 3:1.
                                          >
                                          > No matter how the figures are manipulated, the majority of white
                                          Marylanders supported the Union where it counted: with their bodies
                                          and their lives.
                                          >
                                          > Ah, but the United States forces controlled the Potomac crossings
                                          making it impossible for those Marylanders who wanted to join the CS
                                          Army to do so.
                                          >
                                          > If that is true how did the 10,000 get into the Confederate service?
                                          The myth that the Maryland Confederates had no way to reach
                                          Confederate territory ignores the relative ease with which John Wilkes
                                          Booth, with a gigantic bounty on his head, with a broken leg and with
                                          the entire United States Army searching frantically for him, was able
                                          to reach Virginia's Northern neck. It also ignores the ease with which
                                          Mosby's men crossed back and forth from Montgomery County, northwest
                                          of the District of Columbia, into Virginia or the ease with which
                                          Stuart crossed through Maryland en route to Gettysburg. If Stuart's
                                          thousands could go north with impunity, then pro-Confederate hundreds,
                                          if there had been such numbers, could have gone south as easily. The
                                          "border" was wide open for individuals and not terribly difficulty for
                                          large bodies of men.
                                          >
                                          > The conclusion is inescapable: the average white Marylander in the
                                          1860's was pro-Union, not pro-secession.
                                          >
                                          > For more information, see Arthur Zilversmit, The First Emancipation:
                                          The Abolition of Slavery in the North (1967), Fields, Barbara Jeanne,
                                          Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the
                                          Nineteenth Century, New Haven: Yale University Press, c1985, William
                                          J. Evitts, A Matter of Allegiance: Maryland from 1850 to 1861
                                          Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1974, Jean H. Baker, The Politics of
                                          Continuity: Maryland Political Parties from 1858 to 1870 Baltimore:
                                          Johns Hopkins Press, 1973, George Radcliffe Governor Thomas H. Hicks
                                          of Maryland and the Civil War JHU Studies in Historical and Political
                                          Science XIX No 11-12, 1901.
                                          >
                                          > --
                                          > Take care,
                                          >
                                          > Bob
                                          >
                                          > Judy and Bob Huddleston
                                          > 10643 Sperry Street
                                          > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                                          > huddleston.r@...
                                          >
                                          > "Problems will always torment us because all important problems are
                                          insoluble: that is why they are important. The good comes from the
                                          continuing struggle to try and solve them, not from the vain hope of
                                          their solution."
                                          >
                                          > - Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > -------------- Original message ----------------------
                                          > From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                                          > > We might like to think our country was always quite democratic at all
                                          > > points in history, but the ACW certainly should hammer home the fact
                                          > > that whoever is claiming to be the "real" or "legitimate" government
                                          > > of a state can be very much out of luck, even faintly ridiculous, when
                                          > > they are "ruling" in absentia. The side that is able to oust the other
                                          > > by military power is going to have the last word, and parliamentary
                                          > > niceties, as you say, will be trumped. The rump government is
                                          > > powerless and any parliamentary claim to legitimacy soon forgotten.
                                          > > IIRC, for the CSA, the Missouri rump government had the best
                                          > > parliamentary claim to legitimacy. Elected but ultimately ousted I
                                          > > believe?. The Kentucky Reb government, I think, couldnt really claim
                                          > > to have been voted in by all Kentucky.
                                          > >
                                          > > A little bit odd to me is the fact that the CSA never claimed
                                          > > Maryland, even though that state was prevented from voting on
                                          > > Secession by throwing the legislature in the Hoosegow. [or some
                                          > > similar action]. But somehow, to the Confederacy, no vote for
                                          > > secession was respected as final on the matter.
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@> wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > When men (populations) take up muskets and cannon and put their
                                          > > > lives on the line for what they believe, the niceties of
                                          > > > parlimentary rules and procedures go out the window.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Bill Bruner
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.