Poll: 37% of Miss. Republicans would back new Confederacy

[Gandalf]

I'm surprised that we don't see more arguments based around the question of "Was it really the US' land to lose?"

[Rogue 9]

I'm surprised that we don't see more arguments based around the question of "Was it really the US' land to lose?"

For the Confederates themselves, that's self-defeating.

[Patroklos]

It's funny how "state's rights" to this very day are almost always used to bolster some kind of conservative cause. Don't like gay marriage? You don't have to hate gays - just say it's a violation of state's rights. Don't like abortion? You're not anti-woman, but it's a violation of state's rights! Blah blah etc.

Has anyone ever even heard the term "state's rights" thrown around in support of some liberal cause? Liberalism seems to have a lot better luck at the federal level in the US, most likely because Washington D.C. is on the East Coast - so "state's rights" have become the go-to rallying cry whenever conservatives don't like something the Federal government is doing.

Unless of course, we're talking about the 2nd amendment, in which case conservatives demand their Federal-level right to salivate over firearms.

States rights was how near half the states went slave free (or effectively that) before any war. The Feds are generally followers on everything, though they do pull the minority of stragglers to the finish line, gernerally at the prodding of those first trail blazing states and their politicians.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm surprised that we don't see more arguments based around the question of "Was it really the US' land to lose?"

For the Confederates themselves, that's self-defeating.

Maybe it's the lack of sleep but do you mind elucidating?

[Zaune]

Maybe it's the lack of sleep but do you mind elucidating?

I think he might mean the fact that a fairly significant percentage of Confederate territory was forcibly appropriated from Mexico, and they would like it back.

[Raw Shark]

There's also the small matter of Fort Sumter sitting on real estate that most definitely was the US' land to lose, by mutual written agreement with South Carolina some time previous to the latter's attempt to pull a smash and grab on it.

[Gandalf]

There's also the small matter of Fort Sumter sitting on real estate that most definitely was the US' land to lose, by mutual written agreement with South Carolina some time previous to the latter's attempt to pull a smash and grab on it.

Was that not Native American land?

[Raw Shark]

There's also the small matter of Fort Sumter sitting on real estate that most definitely was the US' land to lose, by mutual written agreement with South Carolina some time previous to the latter's attempt to pull a smash and grab on it.

Was that not Native American land?

What, originally? Sure, but South Carolina gave it to the federal government fair and square after stealing it from the previous occupants, then tried to steal it back from the federal government, ironically evoking a racist canard referring to a perceived tendency among the natives.

[Patroklos]

Gentlemen, there was no land at the site of Fort Sumter prior to there being Fort Sumter. It was built on top of a submerged sand bar by dumping tons and tons of granite on top of it for the specific purpose of building that fort. You both just made up everything you said above out of thin air.

[Titan Uranus]

While you are correct in that Fort Sumter was built upon New England granite, I am not sure how that lovely map proves it.

[General Zod]

Isn't that just a bunch of semantic nitpicking?

[Patroklos]

While you are correct in that Fort Sumter was built upon New England granite, I am not sure how that lovely map proves it.

That there was no island there for all those pretty stories the posters above were inventing to happen on.

[Rogue 9]

While you are correct in that Fort Sumter was built upon New England granite, I am not sure how that lovely map proves it.

That there was no island there for all those pretty stories the posters above were inventing to happen on.

However, once the island was built, there was some dispute as to its ownership. That's why the South Carolina legislature did this:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

So no, not all of it was made up. Just the bit about the island belonging to Indians.

[Gandalf]

Fair enough on Sumter as it was an artificial island. I was under the impression that it included some of the actual land on shore as well.

It however remains an issue for the rest of the CSA land. Apparently the US is really touchy about people stealing the stuff they stole from others.

[Rogue 9]

Fair enough on Sumter as it was an artificial island. I was under the impression that it included some of the actual land on shore as well.

It however remains an issue for the rest of the CSA land. Apparently the US is really touchy about people stealing the stuff they stole from others.

If you want to get really picky, we stole the eastern seaboard from the British Empire. But such an argument is self-defeating for the Confederates, because the very last thing they planned to do was give the land back to the natives. If you take the position that land belongs to whoever got there first (and therefore didn't take it from anyone else) the Slave Power wasn't in any better a position than the United States.

[Simon_Jester]

Fair enough on Sumter as it was an artificial island. I was under the impression that it included some of the actual land on shore as well.

It however remains an issue for the rest of the CSA land. Apparently the US is really touchy about people stealing the stuff they stole from others.

The problem is not 'theft of land.' The core of the problem is that the rebelling states had a wide variety of obligations under the Constitution, which they were ignoring and violating left and right.

The federal position wasn't "hey, don't take our land!" It was "obey the law!"

[Beowulf]

Fair enough on Sumter as it was an artificial island. I was under the impression that it included some of the actual land on shore as well.

It however remains an issue for the rest of the CSA land. Apparently the US is really touchy about people stealing the stuff they stole from others.

Harbor defense of Charleston was also handled by Fort Moultrie, on one of the non-artificial islands in the area, as well as a couple more smaller forts. Union troops had abandoned those for Fort Sumter before fighting began.

[Raw Shark]

So no, not all of it was made up. Just the bit about the island belonging to Indians.

My fault for not looking that part up. I'm so used to thinking that we stole every square foot of this country that I sometimes forget we built a few of them. That's the document I was thinking of before - I was going to look for it after work, thanks.

[Gandalf]

The problem is not 'theft of land.' The core of the problem is that the rebelling states had a wide variety of obligations under the Constitution, which they were ignoring and violating left and right.

The federal position wasn't "hey, don't take our land!" It was "obey the law!"

I think England said something similar nearly a century earlier.

With debates relating to the US civil war, I struggle to see why the Union case holds up in light of the Independence War. What is the key difference between the two which legitimises one but not the other?

[Maraxus]

I think England said something similar nearly a century earlier.

With debates relating to the US civil war, I struggle to see why the Union case holds up in light of the Independence War. What is the key difference between the two which legitimises one but not the other?

The South had representation and direct influence over policy making. The colonists didn't.

[Ahriman238]

I think England said something similar nearly a century earlier.

With debates relating to the US civil war, I struggle to see why the Union case holds up in light of the Independence War. What is the key difference between the two which legitimises one but not the other?

The South had representation and direct influence over policy making. The colonists didn't.

^ this.

The Revolution happened because a distant government allowed the colonists no representation, no say in their fates or what became of their tax money and generally refused to treat them as real Englishmen. By contrast, the Southern viewpoint dominated the legislature for decades, marginalized the abolitionists for about as long, even obtaining a special gag order to prevent discussion of the topic in Congress, won favorable compromises to keep the expanding frontier from marginalizing their vote, and still lived in terror of government interference in their God-given right to treat blacks as untermenschen. Not even the most diehard Confederate apologist can argue that they were being oppressed or marginalized, or lacked a say in government, not without lying through their teeth anyway. Not when the South used their power to block effective debate by slavery's opponents.

They could say, rightfully that when the Confederacy declared their secession, Lincoln began to mobilize troops to end the rebellion. I feel that this is both legal and a wise precaution even if Lincoln had no interest in suppressing the revolt (and wouldn't that be a fantasy land) but had to deal with the sudden creation of a hostile state where previously no border had existed. And ultimately it was the South who fired the first shot, however tense things had become.

[Gandalf]

Fascinating. Does that logic of a lack of representation legitimising insurrection apply to Native Americans, African Americans, and anyone else not in the White Guy Voting Club?

[Ahriman238]

I say yes. There are most likely Americans who'd disagree with me.

[Rogue 9]

Fascinating. Does that logic of a lack of representation legitimising insurrection apply to Native Americans, African Americans, and anyone else not in the White Guy Voting Club?

Of course, and there were in fact slave rebellions and Indian wars. The native tribes were treated with as foreign powers (albeit ones the United States routinely decided to run roughshod over, much like Mexico) rather than a faction of U.S. citizens, so for them rebellion was never actually a question; and slaves, in areas where slaves were actually held, were seen as livestock rather than people, though this wasn't the case for everyone (reference John Brown). It was possible for Southern thinkers of the time to believe themselves justified while believing Nat Turner wasn't because they were men fit to exercise their liberty while the slaves were, in their eyes, only fit to be chattel.

However, none of that entitled the Slave Power to run off with nearly two million square kilometers of territory and millions of dollars worth of U.S. property, because whatever one may think of the legitimacy of slave rebellion and native reconquest, their leaders were neither slaves nor natives, but rather fully vested members of the White Guy Voting Club who were pissed off because a single election, the results of which they were bound to respect, hadn't gone their way and who, it cannot be stressed enough, intended precisely the opposite of restoring the natives and liberating the slaves, rather having the stated goal of expanding slavery (and their territory) to the west and south. You can make this case for Nat Turner and arguably John Brown. You can't make it for the Slave Power.

[Block]

Fascinating. Does that logic of a lack of representation legitimising insurrection apply to Native Americans, African Americans, and anyone else not in the White Guy Voting Club?

Are you implying that they don't have representation now, or in the past?