FormerBlue

Accomplished.

One last post before I go back to trolling. http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=29246 That is the thread. Ken Estes knows what he's talking about. As do a number of posters. I won't name them all but many have knowledge that is really in depth. It's fun and informative to read their posts. You, Evans, do not. You just dog other posters with nonsense. Pure thread poison. They're too nice to really chop you down to size. I had no problem doing it and some of them are much much smarter than I am. Why the hostility? Because I was tired of your thread poison. That thread above, and another where the OP told you up front to buzz off, did it. It was time for you to get what you do back. When you do it it's worse though. You do it with nonsense. I dogged you with correct information. You simply can not admit when you are wrong. Ever. You won't learn. I'm done posting here. I'll go back to what you should be doing - reading what people post when they know what they're covering. Chip in only if you have something of value. Yes, I dogged you. Wasn't that hard. In fact it was painfully easy.

Everything you write is wrong. That Common Law nonsense? Chief Justice Marshall disagrees with you. Brown vs United States, 1814, Marshall for the Majority. The Confiscation acts, if you read them, would only apply during the lifetime of the owner and only if they were a hostile party. Read them completely along with Marshall's ruling in Brown. If that document had been invalid, the swords would have belonged to his daughter in 1862 when Twiggs died. The document wasn't "of questionable value" as the Court of Claims was clear on. The swords belonged to Rowena. They were returned to her. Butler wasn't going to get the sword either way. I'll post Supreme Court cite after cite on the expiration of confiscations if you need them. It's in the act. The Congressional Globe is pretty clear on it. I won't bother correcting all of your nonsense on all the other stuff - there is simply too much of it. With one exception. Missouri being a "slave state." You jumped in with rash assumptions again. Those figures, and how they were organized, were the beginning documents in a long set of hearings. I didn't create them. I didn't organize them that way. You jumped in before I even started dealing with them. I don't need to go into painful detail here about how and why they were assembled. Look deeper at them. Regards Missouri, look at California's totals. Both are higher than one would expect based strictly on "slave state vs non-slave state." Because segregating them that way was nonsense and done to contrive a point. Ripley's did that. "Missouri" being St. Louis Arsenal. California being Benecia. In other words, the two arsenals supplying the bulk of the arms and equipment to the regular army - located in the west. It just gets more silly from there. The totals for Missouri had nothing to do with slave state or non-slave state. I won't bother covering the rest of it - go look on your own. Name calling is fun isn't it? "You started it!" Just operating at your level. "Confederate Sympathizer" ring a bell? Another rash assumption. The war needed to happen and the south needed to lose. Given that they wouldn't be rational on ending slavery. Why the hostility about that? Because you served in a uniform of the United States. That "oath breaker's deserve to have their property taken" nonsense caused heartache at the time. The Confederates used it to take blankets and footwear from Union prisoners. A rash act caused so much pointless suffering. You simply don't understand that as you haven't studied the effect of those acts. I have. General Orders 100 of 1863 ("Lieber code") started restoring sanity. The Hague Convention specifically prohibits confiscation of private property and the U.S. signed it. Yet you still haven't learned that lesson. You used present tense on "rebels deserving it" when the law is clear that private property is off limits. You haven't learned that yet wore a uniform of the U.S.. I've read your posts. It's the only way to deal with you. Normally I'm quite reasonable. I'm aware of your methods though so I just operated at your level. Tone down your hostility and you might not get it back. I don't think you're capable of it. ____________________ For others. West Virginia being separated from Virginia. If one accepts my basic premise that the south had the legal right to form their own country, and I believe they did from a strictly legal basis, when they attacked Sumter they started a war. They were at that time a "foreign country." West Virginia was annexed. No different from California. Further thoughts on the legality of succession: The U.S. has really been two countries. The first was superseded by the second (articles of confederation and all that). The Declaration of Independence was thus superseded by the Constitution. In the absence of coverage in the Constitution, and modifications thereof, the Declaration is a very strong document. No different from one circuit looking at rulings in another. Once the issue is addressed in regards to the Constitution, the Declaration becomes a dead letter. The Supreme Court made a ruling. It's the ruling of the land. _______________________ Thread dead for me. Stick a fork in it. I have to get back to working on my real hobby.

Works both ways - see Union engineered succession of West Virginia from parent. "apologise for the South in stating it was about states rights and not slavery" this bit though. You'll see no such claim in my posts so maybe you're addressing others. Let there be no doubt that slavery was the over-riding issue. States rights was a legal mechanism used by the southern states to end-around the issue. It left them open in other ways. I was specifically addressing the legal issue of succession in previous posts. At no point did I cover the slavery issue. I did cover the direct cause of the war - the attack on Sumter. That is the direct cause of the war. Slavery is what prepared that issue. Which was an act of war. Made it easy for Lincoln to respond. IOW, very stupid on the part of the South Carolina contingent. Not that it was unexpected. If it hadn't have been them it would have been somebody else. Rich, you're above straw men. I guess maybe there are people in that school? If you're counting me though - let's not. The politicians of the south were no longer, if they'd ever been, students of Jefferson. I think it's safe to say Patrick Henry was still a bigger influence. It'd be more accurate to say that the ghost of Calhoun was still roaming their halls. There is a school of thought that believes that the Declaration of Independence cannot be easily swept under the rug. Which it can't. Once the southern states left they were their own "State." The Union would be, in my opinion, justified in invading the south to stamp out slavery. After getting their own house in order. Again, we can't just sweep the Declaration under the rug: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Likely it would have never come to that - again, the politicians in the south were too far gone to act in any kind of reasonable fashion. They were bound to do something stupid. I'm surprised it took as long as it did. Regardless of the juvenile name-calling above, the situation wasn't simple. The south, given the Declaration, and no counter document, were likely in the right regards the issue succession itself. That is simply one aspect to a complex situation. There was no way they were going to give up slavery easily - too much financial investment. There simply was no way to abolish slavery short of war. So war it was. The war was just. I have to be consistent (lesson there for some others). I believe we had a right to invade Iraq for similar reasons. When diplomacy fails, other means are necessary. Painful and deadly but, sadly, necessary. Post facto but now the law. So, finally, after wrapping yourself around a tree you decide to study the most basic of material? A bit late aren't you? I was even polite enough to warn you of the train-wreck you were having: "Missed this did you?: "It took the Twiggs family 30 years to get the swords he removed from their house back." The entry point was the "civility" of Butler. He confiscated display swords, not exactly tools of war, from a 20 year old girl. A girl holding a written document of ownership. Butler wanted that sword something bad. Another warning you ignored: "I'm not going to bother responding to your posts. You don't take the time to read the materials. " Yet another: "You're still barking up the wrong tree based on an incorrect assumption you made. Which would be easily dispelled if you'd have read any of the source documents. You obviously haven't. You didn't even read Butler's memoirs. It's obvious. " You just kept on in your fantasyland. His memoirs were relevant as they, along with every other document on this issue, cover the written transfer of ownership. Which was upheld by the Court of Claims of the United States, and further enforced by the Congress of same. You wrapped yourself around a fence post based on your own ignorance. It was rather amusing to watch.

That's all you have? You'd be better sticking with your larcenous tendencies - at least they're more honest. I said you missed something basic. You built your responses on your own fantasy world: The act of Congress was in response to the decision of the Court of Claims, which was in turn a result of a Congressional directive to determine ownership. "Political considerations" is pretty funny. The Court of Claims wasn't a political body in that sense. Congress enforcing their decision is precisely "an operation of the law." Not that you'd recognize it as such given your absolute lack of knowledge about law. Judges don't chase people down streets with six-shooters. They make decisions but other organs enforce them. In this case Congress. My dog knows more about law than you. Neither law applied. Go read them. You'll find this gem right up front: "This law authorized the federal government to seize the property of all those participating directly in rebellion." Per your own cite. The court case and the statute are pretty reliable. Bulter's memoirs are not in disagreement in the detail you missed. Twiggs wasn't the legal owner of the swords when they were seized. The legal owner was a non-combatant. Every post you made was predicated on Twiggs being the owner of the swords. He wasn't. I don't know where you received your "education" but if ever anyone deserved their money back you do.

Another long on opinion but short on facts poster I see. You might want to start at a very basic level. Might I recommend American Government 101? Given the long time that has elapsed since the revolution even outdated copies of textbooks for that class would be ok. Read up on the events leading to the attack on Fort Sumter if you wish to dispel that notion. Might as well do it together with some preparation: I think he's addressing you. Certainly not me. Let's proceed: Remember this: No, as can be seen matters of that nature are not adjudicated in the courtroom - they're dealt with through diplomacy. That is the way civilized people behave. Until hotheads start in with the cannon. Then people start to die. Let's go back some years as maybe the people who wrote the basic documents the country was founded on can help us: Ring any bells for you? You might want to get that textbook if not. The States had the right to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them." So say a group of gentlemen with the names of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, etc... Government rests on the consent of the governed. It's a basic principle of civilized people. The opposite of that is called "tyranny" for a reason. Really, read the whole thing. It's beautiful. So ok, he was from Virginia....

You're still barking up the wrong tree based on an incorrect assumption you made. Which would be easily dispelled if you'd have read any of the source documents. You obviously haven't. You didn't even read Butler's memoirs. It's obvious. You don't know anything about it. At all.

"because no court would have upheld the claim in Common Law" Because no court would consider your absurd fabricated claim of "Common Law." They passed a law covering confiscation and there is a reason they passed that law - because your fabricated "Common Law" nonsense is pure vapor. That law, or more properly Act, was passed after Butler's pilfering spree. If you would have taken the time to read the relevant materials you'd be aware of that. You didn't and weren't. You're also missing a big piece of this that I won't bother educating you on it as your lack of knowledge is not my issue. When Congress, filled with people actually knowing something about law (unlike you), returned the swords to the family it was under the rule of law. Legally. Not fabricated "Common Law" only existing in your vapors. Yes, I'm aware of the actual content of your posts. No, it wasn't. It was the result of an attack on a fort held by Union troops. South Carolina left the union in December of 1860. By the 1st of February, more had left. Lincoln entered office in March. "The new administration took no immediate steps to reduce the seceded States; and for a time matters went on in about the same way as under Buchanan's Administration. In fact, the Government had no means at hand which to coerce the recalcitrant States. [skip some strength figures] In the States remaining in the Union public opinion concerning the right of States to secede, and the right of the Government to coerce a seceding State, had not as yet crystallized into such shape as to warrant the President in taking the extreme step of calling out the militia." Cite is America's Campaigns as provided earlier. Volume 1, Pages 128-129. The came the attack on the fort. You are, as usual, wrong again. Which is immaterial to the issue of the Swords in any event. You were noted, in another thread, as skating all over the place as you're always wrong and try to divert the issue. The issue is the swords, not the cause of the war, and you're wrong on a number of levels. You didn't study it at all. Your ignorance is obvious. Quite the rule of law guy you are. I'm not going to bother responding to your posts. You don't take the time to read the materials. I frankly don't care about your opinions. They're worthless.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Twiggs. Regardless of that, Butler's kleptomaniac tendencies aren't excused. I think you'll find that the allegations of Floyd stocking assets in the south were fabricated and debunked even at that time. They included Washington DC and Missouri as "Slave States" to color the totals: Numbers before the transfer of arms south and (in paren) after: ME 24,313 MA 261,082 (156082) NY 48,820 (48820) PA 27,629 MI 446 CA 48470 WA 3763 VA 14377 NC 7678 (32678) SC 2413 (17413) GA 0 (20000) AL 2364 (17364) LA 11672 (41672) TX 1301 AR 349 MD 51 [145205] MO 33015 DC 73657 I've segregated out MO and DC from Ripley's "Slave State" totals. In brackets are the total numbers of muskets in the South after the transfer. The holdings at Springfield Massachusetts exceeds the total holdings in the South. Of particular note is the paucity in Virginia (home to Harper's Ferry). California held more than any State in the south. Numbers from "The War of the Rebellion: a compilation of ..." Volume 39, Part 3. In other words - Ripley's numbers. Which might be "colored" on top of it - he did include DC as a "Slave State" after all. Also of note was the bulk of those muskets down south were .69 caliber - the .58s were at Springfield and not transferred. I've excluded the "rifles" as I'm too lazy to do those and the numbers aren't near the musket totals. Floyd was a dirtbag for a number of reasons but the "transfer" was more bunk than anything. I'm sure the numbers could be tuned further but I see little point. Floyd was a corrupt politician but the great musket transfer scandal was a tempest in a teapot. Add the MA + NY + DC numbers and the northern holdings are greatly in excess of what existing in the south.

Amusing. All of my ancestors in that war wore a uniform of ... blue. Including a direct one buried in Louisiana. A couple more are buried outside of Memphis. No, I'm just able to view it rationally from both sides. Incidentally, the only time I've ever lived in the "South" it was at the orders of the government; I was in uniform. Blue like the ancestors. I am currently sitting about 10 miles from the camp where my Great Grandfather's older brother drilled at in 1862. It's quite far north. Nice try though. The POW thing I agree with you on. He should have negotiated for their return to whichever side they originated from before vacating the posts. He was in command and was responsible for his men. The posts though - those revert to Texas. Those in Texas anyway. He didn't "join the enemy." He responded to the needs of his State. Nationalism is a product of the later 1800 really. It was the Spanish/American War where there were the "3rd U.S. Volunteers" and such. In the 1860s it was the "3rd Mississippi" and "1st Iowa." An overriding federal government is a result of that war; didn't really exist before. I visited Vicksburg last Spring. The markers were all erected by the States. That forward was written on September 23rd, 1909. Sad that 100 years and one day later people still can't learn that lesson.

A number of responses. I'll cover them in series. Missed this did you?: "It took the Twiggs family 30 years to get the swords he removed from their house back." A 30 year process to get the swords returned from the US treasury. The swords were returned, as having been improperly taken, at the direction of the US Congress. So "since at least 1862 but more probably 1776" is when items received protection from simple theft. Disagree with Congress but you're on the short end of that stick. Blaming a failure of that magnitude on the troops is nonsense. The troops on both sides were not much different. The difference was leadership. Forrest didn't have the benefit of a Regular Army education. Sturgis did. USMA in fact. Forrest had half the troops, also "poorly trained" and poorly armed to boot, yet he completely routed Sturgis. Blaming the troops is simply bunk. Those same poorly trained troops seemed to do fine under other commanders. Very similar troops, with even less experience, took Fort Donelson. They took Vicksburg. "Poor leadership" is the postscript of Brice's Crossroads. Lee had a (well deserved) reputation but that didn't seem to deter Grant. Rommel had a reputation but it was brought down to size. The Japanese had a "fearsome reputation" in 1942; it didn't last. Reputations don't win battles. Poor leadership is catastrophic. Nobody "deserves" to have their stuff stolen. See above. Twiggs didn't "go south" as he was in Texas. When a union is dissolved, it's common that "joint property" is divided appropriately. A good divorce attorney can clarify the basic concept I'm sure. The Constitution didn't address the dissolution of the union, in whole or in part, at all. The succeeding states would have had claim to X% of the common property. Apportioned based on total population would seem right. So perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 of the Federal holdings. Jefferson Davis (not a fan) made one specific point in his book that I did note - when the Navy ships ported, they ported in the North. Southern Captains of those vessels delivered all of the vessels to the Union; thereby depriving the South of their portion. Whether you like that or not it's something to consider. If you can get past your own bias. Butler was a petty thief. Sturgis gets my vote as the poorest General of that war. Yes, there are others. Sturgis gets my vote.

"Civil" wasn't an observation on "Generalship." He confiscated private property before any act permitting that was passed. 3 presentation swords in particular - the General Twiggs swords. He sent them to Lincoln with a request that, having read it a few times, he be permitted to keep one. The silver plate from the house went mysteriously missing when he left. He was a petty thief. That's not particularly "civil." It took the Twiggs family 30 years to get the swords he removed from their house back. They never did recover the silver. He did start a nice cartridge company - had the good fortune to hire Meigs for that. Maybe funded with silver.... Sturgis was simply a marching QM supply depot for Forrest. I'm sure there were others as bad but he was the first to come to mind.

The TMs and many of the FMs are up at ibiblio. The 8" in question: http://www.kadiak.org/artillery/8in.html Which points to the origin: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-45_mk6.htm The TM from ibiblio: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/PDFs/TM9-463.pdf Each weapon normally had 3 basic documents: FM - kind of a user's guide. TM - a bit more technical. SNL - the ordnance manuals. This could be a set. The SNL for that particular item was first published in March of 1942. There are other heavy cannon but that's the only 8" railway mounted one I saw. I have gone through all of them though. 3rd page of the TM has a picture.

Worst Civil? Butler. Worst General? Sturgis.

FM4-49 (Seacoast Artillery) Service of the Piece, 8-Inch Gun, Mk VI, Modification 3A2 on Railway Mount M1A1 FM4-50 (Seacoast Artillery) Service of the Piece, 8-Inch Gun, Railway Artillery