The Decleration says we have the obligation to rebel..

[Rogue 9]

That court belonged to a government that was comitted to keeping its dominance over the member states even if the member states no longer wanted to participate in that government. That is not what the Constitution was made for, it was made for the States to work together better and to help the people in it. What else can one expect it to rule?

Most people who argue your position on this matter are only aware of one effect of Texas vs. White; that it declared secession illegal. But are you aware of the other ramifications, and what would have happened if White had won the case?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Northern aggression my ass. when you leave the union, YOU start the war. You break the law, you distrupt a nation, YOU pay for it son unless you win. You lost, therefore you get punished.

On the infamous day of 12 April 1861, when an attempt was made to re-supply Fort Sumter at Charleston, South Carolina, the southern forces opened fire beginning the Civil War. Lincoln retaliated [...]

Sorry, but I'd rather call it the war of southern agrression. They attacked the property of the Federal Government, therefore, they started it. They also started it with their arcane social system, disrespect for law, and whiney-ass hillybilly mentalities.

Link

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

And don't try and say the North started it by confiscating federal assests in the south. It was their god damn property in the first place.

[Jeremy]

Attempting to withdraw from the Union because you want to continue enslaving another race of people strikes me as a rather unjustifiable reason for rebellion.

Do you expect arguement from anyone on this point?

A secession, especially an armed one, is an at of rebellin and warmaking..

Attacking government facilities for the imposition of laws the attacker sees as unjust in an attempt to change those laws is rebellion. Warmaking is attacking a forgein country's own territory. Secession in a democratic peaceful attempt with an effort to reconcile investments made by the (for lack of a better word at the moment) parent country are neither.

Not all countries are states. They are Nation-states. There is a major difference. You can have a state, a city-state, and a nation-state.

A state can have multiple nations, such as the superstate of the USSR. Several states can all be made up or have components of the same nation.

Wouldn't a city-state fall under the many states housing one nation category?

They destroyed a union which was prospering and working for the majority of its members.

The Union of the several states was by no means destroyed, as shown in its war efforts against the CSA, but diminished.

In a Democractic nation, the general concept is majority rules, albeit not always. The majority did not want secession, and the slavery supporters were dwindling too.

That is the whole point for secession, the minority felt oppressed and decided to leave.

If everyone just up and left, the government would be weak and pathetic.

If everyone "up and left" there would be no government.

If the CSA had its way, the united states would not be the nation it is today. And that's a bad thing for Americans.

Absolutely correct.

But are you aware of the other ramifications

Well Chief Justice Chase certainly gave much room for the power of State governments (though setting the idea of a hotel with only an entrance door) and basically said that the Federal Government has a duty to keep those State governments prosperous and functioning. Was that what you ment?

And until that decission is over ruled my assertion for a modern legal basis for secession is wrong. I just maintain, now, that there is a conflict in this ruling and the Constitution; which means, as you said, jackshit.

Northern aggression my ass. when you leave the union, YOU start the war. You break the law, you distrupt a nation, YOU pay for it son unless you win. You lost, therefore you get punished.

Lincoln didn't try to talk the point with the seceded states, and did try to maintain and supply troops stationed in seceded land--correct? Hence the War of Northern Aggression. BTW, to my knowledge the Congress did officially name it the War Between the States.

whiney-ass hillybilly mentalities

[Alyrium Denryle]

Attacking government facilities for the imposition of laws the attacker sees as unjust in an attempt to change those laws is rebellion. Warmaking is attacking a forgein country's own territory. Secession in a democratic peaceful attempt with an effort to reconcile investments made by the (for lack of a better word at the moment) parent country are neither.

Hey dumb ass, confederate troops attacked Frt. Sumpter.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Lincoln didn't try to talk the point with the seceded states, and did try to maintain and supply troops stationed in seceded land--correct? Hence the War of Northern Aggression. BTW, to my knowledge the Congress did officially name it the War Between the States.

I pointed out that the south was the agressor, and he ignored it. He only came back with: "well, we attacked because you didn't try to reason it out with us."

That's not entirely correct. The north had been in a confrontation with the south for quite some time, and by this point, no real dialogue could exist, because the south was intelligent, yet too stuborn.

1. Lincon could not convince the south to do anything or it would have injured federal power. I am glad he did not allow appeasement of a minority.

2. He resupplied a Federal base which was rightly the property of the United States of America. It was not the property of the state, since states are not allowed to have militaries of their own. You cannot blame the north for taking what was its property in the first place. So no, your point is not correct.

3. Yes, it is the war between the states, but it is by far not the war of northern aggression. Just because the United States couldn't reason with Japan, doesn't mean the USA was the aggressor in the pacific war. THe japanese attacked Federa Properity just like an unreasonable south attacked federal property. This started the war. He who fires the first shot is the aggressor, not he who retaliates.

Hey dumb ass, confederate troops attacked Frt. Sumpter.[/quoite]

Exactly as you say, Alyrium Denryle. The south attacked federal territory for no justified reason. Just because you seccede, it does not mean you take all federal property with you.

Attempting to withdraw from the Union because you want to continue enslaving another race of people strikes me as a rather unjustifiable reason for rebellion.

Do you expect arguement from anyone on this point?

This, amoung other things, was attempted justisfication for calling it war of northern aggression, when it was not.

Attacking government facilities for the imposition of laws the attacker sees as unjust in an attempt to change those laws is rebellion. Warmaking is attacking a forgein country's own territory. Secession in a democratic peaceful attempt with an effort to reconcile investments made by the (for lack of a better word at the moment) parent country are neither.

Secession is against the law. When the south seceded, it made a military and tried to engage in foreign alliances. States are not allowed to do this. It then attacked the United States, which it was still a part of, since they are not allowed to leave. It IS a rebellion, because the south didn't like Federal laws, sothey decided to change them by leaving and making up their own laws.

Wouldn't a city-state fall under the many states housing one nation category?

A city state is a nation unto itself if I remember Western Civ correctly. The USSR was a nation with many republican states in it,but they weren't city-states. They were nation-states. THe USSR was like a big Communist Federation of non-independent states, yes. The united states is not made up of nations or city-states. It is just made up of republican style former territories. I think there is a difference between a nationstate and a state of the USA.

[Alyrium Denryle]

A city state is a nation unto itself if I remember Western Civ correctly. The USSR was a nation with many republican states in it,but they weren't city-states. They were nation-states. THe USSR was like a big Communist Federation of non-independent states, yes. The united states is not made up of nations or city-states. It is just made up of republican style former territories. I think there is a difference between a nationstate and a state of the USA.

There is a very big difference. A state in the US sense is not sovereign. But ratther is shares its power with the federal government on certain issues. However, federal law trumps state law and thus the state is not sovereign.

In a nationstate IIRC, the state is sovereign and is basically in a large alliance.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well no one has tried it since 1860.....

[Joe]

Total bullshit. The entire catalyst for southern secession was the fear that Lincoln was going to try and abolish slavery.

That's awfully simplistic, certainly it is a stretch to state that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would march off to die for a rich man's slaves. Slavery was a big reason but certainly not the only one.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Mostly it was the Unfair Terriff's that the North kept pushing through to protect the very primative and begining US industries, that was killing the entire southern economy. Also the factory towns of Chicago and Pensyvania treated their workers worse then the south treated slaves...

or do we want to go into how many Irish got worked to death or burried in a mine?

[Alyeska]

Total bullshit. The entire catalyst for southern secession was the fear that Lincoln was going to try and abolish slavery.

That's awfully simplistic, certainly it is a stretch to state that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would march off to die for a rich man's slaves. Slavery was a big reason but certainly not the only one.

Slavery was the ONLY reason the war was fought. Sure you had hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died fighting for states rights, but it was complete bullshit. You see it was the people in control of the southern governments who were reliant upon slavery that came up with the "states rights" claim in order to get popular public support. The entire war was actualy about Slavery and the unwillingness of rich southern landowners to give that up. They were even willing to send hundreds of thousands of boys to their deaths under a false claim. It was always about slavery.

[Alyeska]

Now I was under the impression that secession is infact part of the constitution or at least a law was passed to that affect. However I was told that it has very stringent requirements and that it must be done on the state level. Last of all I was told that the South could never fullfil these standards so they just declare indepdence on their own and waged war against the North. I guess I might have been misinformed on this bit.

[Jeremy]

I pointed out that the south was the agressor, and he ignored it. He only came back with: "well, we attacked because you didn't try to reason it out with us."

First, I am sorry for misnaming the originator of that quote.

1. Lincon could not convince the south to do anything or it would have injured federal power.

And paying blood money to Mexico didn't?

2. He resupplied a Federal base which was rightly the property of the United States of America. It was not the property of the state, since states are not allowed to have militaries of their own. You cannot blame the north for taking what was its property in the first place. So no, your point is not correct.

The land was the property of South Carolina though. It was not the north's property before or after secession, it was (before) the property of the Federal gov't.

While I do not expect any country to immediatly withdraw from its holding I would expect an attempt to maintain it in a condition not preparing for a war. Federal troops moved to the fort and supplies ment to up the armament, not maintain, were on the way. This fort was in the middle of a highly productive port and its armament could only be seen as a prelude to blockade and/or war.

The aggressor is debatable, the attacker is not.

3. Yes, it is the war between the states, but it is by far not the war of northern aggression. Just because the United States couldn't reason with Japan, doesn't mean the USA was the aggressor in the pacific war.

And the 13 Colonies couldn't reason with the British, who was the aggressor? Those who attacked the oppressors or those who did the opressing in the first place?

This, amoung other things, was attempted justisfication for calling it war of northern aggression, when it was not.

So now you accept that rebellion and secession are two seperate actions?

A city state is a nation unto itself if I remember Western Civ correctly.

So the Greek city-states were not housing one Greek nation then? Well I guess it is true that you learn something new every day (not sarcastic).

Well no one has tried it since 1860.....

Well there was Key West in the Florida Keys that formed the Conch Shell Republic for two days or something...

http://flagspot.net/flags/us-fl-cr.html Please forgive me for I do not remember how to dress my links.

[Frank Hipper]

There's a final arbiter in any discussion of the ACW, success makes rebellions legal. The South failed, there actions were illegal. Period.

[The Yosemite Bear]

would have been better if the other side had distiguished between paying people less for the work they were doing then you were charging them for basic food and housing in your overcrowed tenement buildings and actual slavery....

or how about killing babies and little kids during the civil war, by making the housing you rented their parent's who worked your factories, as cheap and unsafe as possible....

[mauldooku]

The land was the property of South Carolina though. It was not the north's property before or after secession, it was (before) the property of the Federal gov't.

Yes, and if South Carolina secedes, what is the remaining states called? The Federal Government. So it is their land, not South Carolina's.

While I do not expect any country to immediatly withdraw from its holding I would expect an attempt to maintain it in a condition not preparing for a war. Federal troops moved to the fort and supplies ment to up the armament, not maintain, were on the way. This fort was in the middle of a highly productive port and its armament could only be seen as a prelude to blockade and/or war.

Interesting logic. So it's wrong to prepare for war when the local state governments don't recognize your sovereignty anymore?

And the 13 Colonies couldn't reason with the British, who was the aggressor? Those who attacked the oppressors or those who did the opressing in the first place?

Please demonstrate how the North did 'oppressing' that became so onerous as to force the South to secede if you want this analogy to hold.

So the Greek city-states were not housing one Greek nation then? Well I guess it is true that you learn something new every day (not sarcastic).

Of course not. City-States are distinct political entities. Ever notice how Athens and Sparta were occasionally, oh, at war with each other?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Slavery was the ONLY reason the war was fought. Sure you had hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died fighting for states rights, but it was complete bullshit. You see it was the people in control of the southern governments who were reliant upon slavery that came up with the "states rights" claim in order to get popular public support. The entire war was actualy about Slavery and the unwillingness of rich southern landowners to give that up. They were even willing to send hundreds of thousands of boys to their deaths under a false claim. It was always about slavery.

No. That is absolutuly not true. The war was not over slavery at all. Provide proof please on a doctorate level, since most professors will disagree with you, and I trust their degree's in history over yours. THe war was not about ONLY slavery, it was ONE of an amalgmation of conerns.

The war was mostly about the illegality of secession, and slavery was a catalyst. IT is not known as the war for slavery, but the war to save the Union from being dissolved. THAT was the reason for the war. Slavery would have probably gone on in the territories and it was completely LEGAL in those states where it was already legal. The states of the south were paranoid, and they greedily wanted every new state to have slavery, and they couldn't stand the fact that the Government was clamping down on where slavery go expand, not exist. This is one major reason why they left, and the fact that they LEFT, not that they had slaves, was intolerable.

The entire war was actualy about Slavery and the unwillingness of rich southern landowners to give that up.

Here you are partly right, at least according to the South. However, the Emancipation proclamation would never have existed had the war not already begun due to states rights AND secession. Slavery was their exuse, but the war was not over that. If it were really only over slavery, the south would have been left alone by the Union. Want to know why they didn't? Not because they didn't dislike slavery, but because

1. The federal government wanted to maintain its power. If they left these states go, they thought they would have more problems later on with the same BS.

2. You can't lose a huge your damn country. The south was too important as a part of the nation.

4. Leaving would have left the united states as a completely different entity. They couldn't allow that.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The land was the property of South Carolina though. It was not the north's property before or after secession, it was (before) the property of the Federal gov't.

While I do not expect any country to immediatly withdraw from its holding I would expect an attempt to maintain it in a condition not preparing for a war. Federal troops moved to the fort and supplies ment to up the armament, not maintain, were on the way. This fort was in the middle of a highly productive port and its armament could only be seen as a prelude to blockade and/or war.

The aggressor is debatable, the attacker is not.

The north represented the Federal government. And the north was not the ONLY part of the Union who fought the south. The south was no longer in the union, according to them, so the NOrth had the responsibility, under the direction of the President, to reclaim federal territory. The fortress was the property of the Federal government, since it was a Federal Base, not a state base. Federal = North becaues North represented the Federal government of the United States.

While I do not expect any country to immediatly withdraw from its holding I would expect an attempt to maintain it in a condition not preparing for a war. Federal troops moved to the fort and supplies ment to up the armament, not maintain, were on the way. This fort was in the middle of a highly productive port and its armament could only be seen as a prelude to blockade and/or war.

It's a fortress man. It's whole reason for being is war and defense, especially in a hostile "foreign" land like the south. Oh yea, they were unjustified in preparing for war, so you are correct there...oh...wait...the South fucking attacked Ft. Sumpter, so no yo aren't. They were preparing for what they new was going to come when they tried to reclaim (in teh words of Lincoln) Federal possessions.

And the 13 Colonies couldn't reason with the British, who was the aggressor? Those who attacked the oppressors or those who did the opressing in the first place?

This is easy. The 13 colonies were the aggressors. SUre, they tried peace, but they were British Property, and they rebelled. As much as I like the fact they rebelled, they still were illegal, armed, and dangerous rebels to attacked his majesty's property. Just because you try the olive branch approach first, and war later, doesn't mean you are not the aggressor.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit. I would agree that the British were direct aggressors if they fired first and lexington/concord, but I don't know who did, and I don't know of anyone who does. I can only go by the fact the the Americans were rebels.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Can someone put these links as some edit in my original post two above. I forgot to put my sources in.


http://www.swcivilwar.com/+++++


1. Jackson’s message to the people of the offending state read, “Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent the execution of the laws deceived you. The object is disunion. Disunion by armed force is treason.” (That was what the war was about. Disunion and treason with its roots in slavery controversy, but not ONLY slavery. ANd the war was not to end slavery in the first place.)


2. While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.

3.

Even in the North only four states permitted free blacks to vote, and in no state could they serve on a jury. Many people wondered what could possibly be done with the huge number of blacks if they were, in fact, freed.

The war freed the slaves out of punishment, not out of logical and compassion. That was not the intention of Linconl when the war began.


4.

Lincoln was a moderate Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody’s second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from taking action against slavery where it already existed

--- South Carolina unilaterally announced that it would secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected. (Lincon wasn't even getting rid of slavery Alesyka, in fact, he supported it where it already existed!



5.

Lincoln’s inaugural address was at once firm and conciliatory. Unwilling to strike the initial blow to compel the southern states back into the Union, he decided to bide his time.

This is ment as a rebuttle to an earlier statement by the orginal poster that Lincoln never tried to persuade the South to join the union again. He did not go into the south guns a' blazing as he believes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Aleskya. Maybe I should be more specific. I do not think you are wrong because you are not a PHD in history. I just think it contradicts well-established historical fact's supported by them, and they are reasonable to believe due to their degree, so please don't take it as an Appeal to Authority. If you have sufficient evidence, it shouldn't really matter, however, it would be unlikely, since that's the point of getting degrees.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Note as Tevar's residence of WEST Virginia will show, to you history addled types, there were southern states and counties that sided with the Federal government, there were slave owning territories that sided with the federal government. Virginia was torn in half by the question of state vs. federal, and until reconstruction still had slavery. The INDIAN TERRITORIES still had slavery and were part of the forces fighting the rebellion. The amancipation proclomation only applied to the states that had rebelled, it didn't apply to west virginia or the indian territories until congress made it so retroactivly.

[Jeremy]

Amazing that I wanted to avoid the Civil War but managed to still talk about it.

Yes, and if South Carolina secedes, what is the remaining states called? The Federal Government. So it is their land, not South Carolina's.

It was land purchased for the defense of that State, which no longer a member of that union all the territory of the state should be recognized as a component of that state just as its people should.

Interesting logic. So it's wrong to prepare for war when the local state governments don't recognize your sovereignty anymore?

That is a little bit of an oversimplification but yes.

Please demonstrate how the North did 'oppressing' that became so onerous as to force the South to secede if you want this analogy to hold.

A series of unfair tarrifs namely. And as I maintain there is no need for their to be a clear series of grievences to seceed, all one member state has to do is wish it.

Of course not. City-States are distinct political entities. Ever notice how Athens and Sparta were occasionally, oh, at war with each other?

I'll shut up now.

The south was no longer in the union, according to them, so the NOrth had the responsibility

California? The boarder states? The Midwest?

the South fucking attacked Ft. Sumpter

A preemptive strike on a base infringing on their rights and to be the base for a denial of their pusuit of happiness and freedom.

This is easy. The 13 colonies were the aggressors

Okay...

[mauldooku]

Yes, and if South Carolina secedes, what is the remaining states called? The Federal Government. So it is their land, not South Carolina's.

It was land purchased for the defense of that State, which no longer a member of that union all the territory of the state should be recognized as a component of that state just as its people should.

What does the reason for purchase have any relevance? It is the property of the federal government, correct? If the South secedes, they are no longer a member of the federal government! Therefore, it isn't their land!

Interesting logic. So it's wrong to prepare for war when the local state governments don't recognize your sovereignty anymore?

That is a little bit of an oversimplification but yes.

That's fucking retarded. So it's wrong for nations to protect their own existence? Jesus H. Christ, do you realize that nations would have no power if their hands are completely tied when their very existence is threatened?

Please demonstrate how the North did 'oppressing' that became so onerous as to force the South to secede if you want this analogy to hold.

A series of unfair tarrifs namely. And as I maintain there is no need for their to be a clear series of grievences to seceed, all one member state has to do is wish it.

So they weren't getting their way in Congress, therefore, they have the right to secede? By that logic, there's no point in having a country, the states don't even have to cooperate!

Of course not. City-States are distinct political entities. Ever notice how Athens and Sparta were occasionally, oh, at war with each other?

I'll shut up now.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The land was the property of South Carolina though. It was not the north's property before or after secession, it was (before) the property of the Federal gov't.

No, the and was the property of the federal government, not S. Carolina

While I do not expect any country to immediatly withdraw from its holding I would expect an attempt to maintain it in a condition not preparing for a war. Federal troops moved to the fort and supplies ment to up the armament, not maintain, were on the way. This fort was in the middle of a highly productive port and its armament could only be seen as a prelude to blockade and/or war.

If you are expecting rebellion, wouldnt you stock up your forts and military bases?