"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[jamil]

That's really stretching the 10th.



That's the same illogical argument being used to say abortion is a right afforded by the constitution.

I thought the penumbra for the right to privacy was found in the 14th. The 10th would tend to say abortion is a state issue because the constitution does not delegate that power to the federal government.

 

[JettaKnight]

I thought the penumbra for the right to privacy was found in the 14th. The 10th would tend to say abortion is a state issue because the constitution does not delegate that power to the federal government.

Yeah, let me expand:

Trying to extrapolate the 10th to say you can just secede is akin to extrapolating the 14th to say you can get an abortion.

 

[rob63]

A little off course, but kinna fits...

Treasure hunters accuse FBI of making off with tons of Civil War gold

The agency has adamantly denied it found anything. The treasure hunters say the FBI has consistently stonewalled.

www.al.com

FBI records on search for fabled gold raise more questions

The report, by a geophysicist who did microgravity testing, hinted at an underground object with a mass of up to 9 tons and a density consistent with gold.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Jefferson Davis, in his memoirs, specifically stated where the Confederate gold went. I'm not going to bother looking up the names involved, but as the Confederate government fled Richmond at the end of the war, he dispatched people with the gold on a ship for England. It was then used to repay various war debts incurred by the Confederate government. He lays out the details, I think he was proud that they repaid their debts to the best of their ability.

 

[MinuteManMike]

You people are psycho. NO ONE was tried for treason after the war. And no serious legal scholar contests that the right of succession was 100% assumed both at the ratification of the US Constitution by the states. Many of the states' ratification documents expressly reserved the right of succession at the time of their internal signing documents. And New England had threatened succession in the early 1800s and no one said "That's illegal!" Because everyone knew it wasn't.

The fact that Lincoln's murderous tyranny won doesn't change the facts. Might doesn't make right. That vile (REDACTED) levied war against states he claimed still belonged in the USA. That's literally the definition of treason in our Constitution.

I know you Union-fetishists need to believe otherwise, but it really does not speak well of either your honesty and/or your ability to dispassionately analyze the laws of our nation's creation.

 

[jamil]

You people are psycho.

Psycho? When did you start having these feelings that everyone who disagrees with you is psycho? With therapy, I'm sure trained professionals can hep you through this.

NO ONE was tried for treason after the war.

It's not like that wasn't discussed. The goal was to bring the South back into the Republic.

And no serious legal scholar true Scotsman contests that the right of succession was 100% assumed both at the ratification of the US Constitution by the states.

FIFY

The SCOTUS ruled that unilateral secession is unconstitutional in 1869. Many legal scholars today indeed contest that the right of secession. Of course it's fair to say that they may be biased. But, the confederate fetishists claim that this was a right is obviously a biased view as well.

The way I see it, the constitution was silent. Maybe the confederacy had the right to secede in the same way that the Federal government had a right to stop it. When conflicting, unsolvable conflicts like this happen, war is often the last option. That's what happened. The US won the right to stop it by winning the conflict. Had the confederacy prevailed, history would look at it differently.

Many of the states' ratification documents expressly reserved the right of succession at the time of their internal signing documents. And New England had threatened succession in the early 1800s and no one said "That's illegal!" Because everyone knew it wasn't.

The fact that Lincoln's murderous tyranny won doesn't change the facts. Might doesn't make right. That vile (REDACTED) levied war against states he claimed still belonged in the USA. That's literally the definition of treason in our Constitution.

I know you Union-fetishists need to believe otherwise, but it really does not speak well of either your honesty and/or your ability to dispassionately analyze the laws of our nation's creation.

Union fetishists? How can anyone take you seriously? How is one-sided devotion to a cause long lost; feigned delusional belief that the South's primary cause was merely states rights, and not the states' rights to make owning people legal, NOT a fetish?

All of the primaries of the period in the South admitted, publicly, that it WAS about their states' right to their peculiar institution. If not for slavery, the South would never have seceded. But you guys just act as if that's not a thing. You never rebut the words of your own heroes that contradict your beliefs about them. You just behave as if they were never written or spoken? Why is that? Fetish indeed.

 

[Leadeye]

To me the whole argument about the legality of secession is moot, you either have the military/economic power to back it up or in time you will be defeated. The beginning of the civil war was marked by bad choices, the war itself the result of really poor decisions on both sides. The end was marked by wise choices made by leaders on both sides to heal the country after the conclusion. Lincoln's decision not to treat southern leadership or soldiers as traitors and hang them, and the decisions by Lee, Joe Johnston, and other confederate military leaders, to disband the remaining armed forces and not continue a unorganized guerilla war.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Many of the states' ratification documents expressly reserved the right of succession at the time of their internal signing documents.

I feel like this should have come up in the conversation sooner. I admit I've actually never heard that, and that sounds to me like it really could change the argument here. Which states in particular had this, and what force of law was carried by their ratification documents? Did those documents spell out any process of secession, or things like what was to happen to federal properties inside their borders should they choose to secede?

The fact that Lincoln's murderous tyranny won doesn't change the facts. Might doesn't make right. That vile (REDACTED) levied war against states he claimed still belonged in the USA. That's literally the definition of treason in our Constitution.

So this contains something that I strongly agree with, and something I strongly disagree with.

Unlike some others in this thread who have (unless I'm reading them wrong) implied that since the North won it's a moot point to debate the legality of secession, I agree with you that the fact the North won doesn't change how we should define the war. We're debating the proper definition of the war here, and in my mind that is hinged upon whether or not the Confederate States of America was properly to be considered a separate country at the outset of the war, which in turn hinges upon the legality of secession.

Now the part I strongly disagree with is your characterization of Lincoln. How on earth do you justify painting him as a murderous tyrant? Even if the Confederate States had the legal right to secede and are to be considered a separate country from the moment they did so, I would still argue that he was justified in the actions he took in the war that they started with the North.

 

[BigRed]

How on earth do you justify painting him as a murderous tyrant?

Suggested reading:

Amazon product ASIN 0761526463

 

[BigRed]

, I would still argue that he was justified in the actions he took in the war that they started with the North

The seceding States did not start the war; lincoln did.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Suggested reading:

Amazon product ASIN 0761526463

Okay, let me be blunt. If you need more than 300 pages to describe why someone is a murderous tyrant, they are not a murderous tyrants.

Deed so horrific as to make one a murderous tyrant are easily described and pointed out.

Lincoln did not execute any political enemies. He did not implement any policies designed to bring about the death of civilians. He did not pursue forced labor (unlike the South, I must point out) nor extermination camps. After the war he did not seek punitive measures against the South, but made genuine efforts at reconciliation.

Let's assume for a moment that your claim that he was to blame for starting the war is accurate. Even then, starting a morally questionable war does not make one a murderous tyrant.

Look, can you just explain to me one thing; how does a war supposedly started by a murderous tyrant have as its main result the liberation of millions of enslaved innocents? Are you saying that he did that, too, just to spite the South and pursue some sort of political revenge or personal vendetta against them? If that's the case, why did none of his other policies he proposed after the war seek to harm the South?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The seceding States did not start the war; lincoln did.

They attacked federal property, did they not?

 

[BigRed]

Okay, let me be blunt. If you need more than 300 pages to describe why someone is a murderous tyrant, they are not a murderous tyrants.

Deed so horrific as to make one a murderous tyrant are easily described and pointed out.

Lincoln did not execute any political enemies. He did not implement any policies designed to bring about the death of civilians. He did not pursue forced labor (unlike the South, I must point out) nor extermination camps. After the war he did not seek punitive measures against the South, but made genuine efforts at reconciliation.

Let's assume for a moment that your claim that he was to blame for starting the war is accurate. Even then, starting a morally questionable war does not make one a murderous tyrant.

Look, can you just explain to me one thing; how does a war supposedly started by a murderous tyrant have as its main result the liberation of millions of enslaved innocents? Are you saying that he did that, too, just to spite the South and pursue some sort of political revenge or personal vendetta against them? If that's the case, why did none of his other policies he proposed after the war seek to harm the South?

Read the book.

 

[BigRed]

They attacked federal property, did they not?

Why do you think that fort was being resupplied?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Read the book.

I don't see how telling someone they have to read a 300 page book before you can give them a single example of why you called someone a murderous tyrant makes sense.

 

[jamil]

I feel like this should have come up in the conversation sooner. I admit I've actually never heard that, and that sounds to me like it really could change the argument here. Which states in particular had this, and what force of law was carried by their ratification documents? Did those documents spell out any process of secession, or things like what was to happen to federal properties inside their borders should they choose to secede?


So this contains something that I strongly agree with, and something I strongly disagree with.

Unlike some others in this thread who have (unless I'm reading them wrong) implied that since the North won it's a moot point to debate the legality of secession, I agree with you that the fact the North won doesn't change how we should define the war. We're debating the proper definition of the war here, and in my mind that is hinged upon whether or not the Confederate States of America was properly to be considered a separate country at the outset of the war, which in turn hinges upon the legality of secession.

Now the part I strongly disagree with is your characterization of Lincoln. How on earth do you justify painting him as a murderous tyrant? Even if the Confederate States had the legal right to secede and are to be considered a separate country from the moment they did so, I would still argue that he was justified in the actions he took in the war that they started with the North.

I wouldn't say it in terms of "might makes right". With the Revolutionary war, they were conspiring to form an insurgency against the Crown. That's treason. Had they lost, they'd have been hanged, and any talk of what rights they might have had to rebel would have been moot. The rule of law from the Crown's perspective would have carried the day. So that wouldn't have been a "we're right because we won." It would have been the law under the Crown is the law in that jurisdiction.

So with the confederacy, maybe they believe they had a natural right to leave. If they won the war, they'd have been their own country and the issue would be moot. Not because might makes right, but because they have jurisdiction over their own country.

As it turns out, the US prevailed, and the jurisdiction is the whole country. So that's not, we're right because of might. It's just the outcome set whose laws prevailed and that made the discussion moot.

It was the US Supreme Court that ruled that the secession was illegal. Twice. Texas v White 1868, and again in Williams v Buffy 1877. Reading both decisions make the case why it was illegal. But I suspect that these new confederates would rather consult what their side says about the rulings than read the rulings themselves.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why do you think that fort was being resupplied?

I dunno, maybe because they thought they were going to be attacked?

But to humor you; suppose it was being resupplied in order to prepare for an attack on the South. So Lincoln would have started the war if the South hadn't started it first.

Even if we accept that as a given; does it change the fact that the South did start the war?

 

[jamil]

Why do you think that fort was being resupplied?

It's federal land. They can do with it what they please. Given the actions of the south, why wouldn't they resupply?

 

[BigRed]

I don't see how telling someone they have to read a 300 page book before you can give them a single example of why you called someone a murderous tyrant makes sense.

He launched a war that killed over 600,000 people in order to usurp a union by consent and replace it with a union by force.

Do the homework reading and we can discuss.

 

[jamil]

The seceding States did not start the war; lincoln did.

I think attempting to form a different government illegally is an act of war.

 

[BigRed]

BigRed notes to self:

If a thug breaks into my home and is preparing to attack me, I must wait until the thug attacks me before I defend myself....otherwise I "started it".