Lincoln vs The Declaration and The Constitution

[Illuminatus Primus]

They fired when Federal forces would not remove themselves from Southern territory because the Federal forces did not recognize the independence of Southern states. It is preposterous to claim that Lincoln's actions were defensive. There was no way that the South was going to aggressively invade the North. The South was fighting a defensive war, not the North. If the U.S. had recognized the C.S.A., there never would have been a war.

Who the fuck cares? The war began when the C.S.A assaulted and siezed Federal property at Sumter. They started it. They were assholes who walked out of the nation because the lost a fucking election.

Fuck them. I'm glad they got their asses handed to them. I just wish they'd been less stubborn and not lost 600,000 that way.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Actually, Thomas Jefferson made the best case I've ever heard, in The Declaration of Indepedence, for secesion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[/code]

[Illuminatus Primus]

Personally I care more for the Life Liberty and Right to Pursuit of Happiness of those silly slaves.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Personally I care more for the Life Liberty and Right to Pursuit of Happiness of those silly slaves.

Too bad Lincoln didn't.

[SirNitram]

Personally I care more for the Life Liberty and Right to Pursuit of Happiness of those silly slaves.

Too bad Lincoln didn't.

Well, you've proven there's no hard word on whether one can seceed. Now you're getting raped by the fact hostilities started when the South ILLEGALLY SEIZED MILITARY HARDWARE from the North. And when confronted, you leap behind an appeal to popularity.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Well, you've proven there's no hard word on whether one can seceed.

Actually, I've provided pleanty of evidence to prove that secession is legal. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary.

Now you're getting raped by the fact hostilities started when the South ILLEGALLY SEIZED MILITARY HARDWARE from the North.

Both the fort and the ammunition were legally the South's upon secession. Before the Civil War the majority of Federal Income came from Tariffs, Tariffs that were paid mostly by the South; giving them the right to take their "fair share" when they left the Union. Ft. Sumpter also sits on the soil of the South, thus if the South attacked the fort they were in reality, only attacking their property and not the Federal Governments. The Federal Soldiers in Ft. Sumpter were there illegaly.

And when confronted, you leap behind an appeal to popularity.

I did that where?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Both the fort and the ammunition were legally the South's upon secession. Before the Civil War the majority of Federal Income came from Tariffs, Tariffs that were paid mostly by the South; giving them the right to take their "fair share" when they left the Union. Ft. Sumpter also sits on the soil of the South, thus if the South attacked the fort they were in reality, only attacking their property and not the Federal Governments. The Federal Soldiers in Ft. Sumpter were there illegaly.

Irrelevent.

The fort was always Federal property. When the State wished to secede, they had the legal right to their own property. The Fort was Federal property they never had ownership of.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I forgot to add that while most of the revenue was gathered from the South, most of it was spent in the North.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I forgot to add that while most of the revenue was gathered from the South, most of it was spent in the North.

Does not equate to ownership. I pay income taxes, but the Federal Government's property is still theirs. It may be for my services, but it is not my own property.

[SirNitram]

Well, you've proven there's no hard word on whether one can seceed.

Actually, I've provided pleanty of evidence to prove that secession is legal. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary.

Now you're getting raped by the fact hostilities started when the South ILLEGALLY SEIZED MILITARY HARDWARE from the North.

Both the fort and the ammunition were legally the South's upon secession. Before the Civil War the majority of Federal Income came from Tariffs, Tariffs that were paid mostly by the South; giving them the right to take their "fair share" when they left the Union. Ft. Sumpter also sits on the soil of the South, thus if the South attacked the fort they were in reality, only attacking their property and not the Federal Governments. The Federal Soldiers in Ft. Sumpter were there illegaly.

No, it was Federal property, paid for by the Federal government. No treaty signed it over, no agreements were made by the owner, the Federal Government. While the Southern government obviously agreed with your attempt at logic, it was still not true.

And when confronted, you leap behind an appeal to popularity.

I did that where?

Instead of replying to IP, you did your Declaration dance.

[Johonebesus]

umm failure to recognise is not an act of war, if it were, then the US would have been at war with half the world for its first decade, and the CSA would have been at war with every nation on earth for the entirety of their history.

large amounts of US government property were siezed immediately upon the seccession of the states, without a proper request given to washington to have the property handed over or removed from their new territory. stealing the property of a foreign government, is cause for war.

Irrelevent.

The fort was always Federal property. When the State wished to secede, they had the legal right to their own property. The Fort was Federal property they never had ownership of.

By itself, refusal of the U.S. to recognize would not necessarily be cause for war, until Northern forces were sent to enforce U.S. law and sovereignty. However, in conjunction with stationed military forces ready to attack, I think the two facts together do warrant military action. Would you want to be in a situation where someone claims to be your ruler and has military bases in your property ready to enforce its claim?


As to the legality, what happened when the U.S.S.R. broke up? It was generally accepted that Russia was the successor to the Soviet Union, yet military installations in the Ukraine became Ukrainian, not Russian. There were negotiations as to how equipment might be divided, but the land and buildings were unquestionably Ukrainian, or Latvian, or Armenian, etc. Fort Sumter belonged to North Carolina. I can agree that it would have been better if the issue could have been settled by negotiation, but since the U.S. would not recognize the independence of N. Carolina, negotiation was impossible. Considering that Lincoln had already stated that he would not recognize the independence of any state, and negotiation would have been impossible, and since U.S. bases in Southern territory would make it easier for the U.S. to attack the South, I do not think it was absolutely unreasonable to take Sumter and other installations by force.

There also seems to be a problem here. Let's try to put it succinctly. There are two separate issues. Issue 1: legality – did the states have the legal right to secede and did Lincoln have the legal right to fight secession by any means necessary? Issue 2: morality – were the Southern states morally right to secede and was Lincoln morally right to fight the secession? It is possible to hold the opinion that the states had the legal right to secede but were stupid or even immoral to do so, and that Lincoln acted illegally to preserve the Union but that the outcome of abolition was worth it. It is possible to defend the states' right to secede without defending their reasons to do so. Let me give an example. If you your friend told you he was about to give all his money and property to the Church and enter a monastery because of a vivid dream he had, you might believe that he was foolish to do so, but would you have the legal right to forcibly restrain him and prevent him from doing what he wanted? You might feel that it was the moral thing to do, maybe even that your moral duty to your friend outweighed your responsibility to the law, but would that make it any more legal? To argue that Lincoln's actions were good and just is not to argue that they were legal, and to claim that his actions were illegal is not to defend the wisdom or morality of the Southern leaders, or the institution of slavery.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

No, it was Federal property

The property of the Federal government, in the South, became the South's upon secession. Under your logic, the colonies still belonged to Britian after they seceeded (Declaration of Independece).

paid for by the Federal Government.

Which obtaned most of its revenue from the South, which recieved little to no benefit from the taxes it paid. This alone is more then enough to pay for the supplies and installations that the South took upon its secession.

Secondly, even if the Federal government paid for it (which is false, the government never pays for anything, the people do through taxation) it would still become the South's upon Secession.

Instead of replying to IP, you did your Declaration dance.

Mistake on your part. My "Declaration dance" was to further strengthed the case of secession, it was not meant as a response to IP.

[Alex Moon]

No, it was Federal property

The property of the Federal government, in the South, became the South's upon secession. Under your logic, the colonies still belonged to Britian after they seceeded (Declaration of Independece).

Actually, they did. Hence that little arguement we call the Revoluntionary War.

paid for by the Federal Government.

Which obtaned most of its revenue from the South, which recieved little to no benefit from the taxes it paid. This alone is more then enough to pay for the supplies and installations that the South took upon its secession.

Secondly, even if the Federal government paid for it (which is false, the government never pays for anything, the people do through taxation) it would still become the South's upon Secession.

Bullshit. The constitution clearly gives the Federal Government authority over military installations. No legal twists and turns can change that. The South gave up that land voluntarily when it was a part of the Union, and it must honor that contract.