Which of course it was, and remains lawful. All of the states that enacted laws or acts of secession did so within the laws applicable at the time.This makes the assumption that the secession was lawful in the first place.
Negotiations to pay for any federal property was underway from the initial secession by South Carolina until Lincoln finally refused to enter said negotiations. Firing on federal troops occured well after numerous acts of war by the Union, in response to those acts.Or that the appropriation of federal property (and firing on federal troops) within the seceding states was lawful.
The Union commited the first acts of war, I thought anyone familiar with the history had that well in hand.[EDIT: Probably some others as well.] Nearly any statement that "the southern states fought against [x], period" where [x] is less than about 500 words is probably going to fall a little short of reality. Any claim that the Civil War was solely about slavery is incorrect...as is any claim that slavery played no role. And referring to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" (who fired first?)
The Union invaded the Confederacy and committed the first acts of war by historical fact. As an illustration, if Mexico placed hundreds of troops within Texas, without firing a shot mine you, is that an act of war, or benign hegemony?probably betrays a bias regarding the issue that will not be overcome through polite (or impolite) discourse.
Lincoln's murder of over one million people
Thanks for the typical Panglossian response.War of Northern Agression
Lincoln was A murderer
The next civil war
No wonder gun owners get a bad rep.
WilddontblameguyslikerudyandthesoccermommieswhowillvoteforhimAlaska TM
No comment necessary.This has been an amazing work of sophistry. I'm more then a little surprised at how many are participating.
Please rewrite this so that it makes sense.A leading poll and the argument that 'opting out' of something can be validated or forbidden by what your not participating in turns logic on it's head.
Although the initial part of this post doesn't make sense, I'll address the latter part of it. The US government only holds title to that land and property covered in the Constitution. The US government does not hold title to every square mile or acre of America and never has. For those that might argue that the Louisiana Purchase gave the US government title to land, that's incorrect. Under Constitutional law, the US government signed a treaty with France to abrogate any claim they had on the land cover by the treaty. The US government held no title to the land.It's not illegal to not participate because there has been no law written by what your not participating in against it? There can be no law written for entities not under that law can there? If a group (State or individual) decides that by their own will to take territory from the United States and claim it as their new country have they not become themselves a defacto occupier of US territory? Just stating that it is no longer US territory doesn't make that true. It remains US territory and unless that entity can repel the forces of the United States regaining that territory that doesn't change.
This post makes no sense, please rephrase. Based on the part that's readable, the US government is restricted by the Constitution. If an entity, a state, is a part of that agreement, it may exercise any power not forbidden it under the agreement. In that sense, the Constitution is a treaty between the states and the general government, as many of the founders stated. As a suggestion, read your Jefferson.Also, to lay claim to the citizens rights or legal protections of the Country you are seceding from is duplicitous. You don't want to be part of that country and claim sovereignty yet expect that the country who's territory your now occupying now must treat you as a citizen. It isn't illegal to retake your territory or murder to kill military adversaries.
The territory within the Confederacy did not belong to the federal government for the reasons stated. Again, the federal government holds title to a very limited area of America, even Lincold didn't claim the US government held title to all the land.]Why would a self proclaimed nation expect that the country who's territory they now occupy NOT expect that countries armed forces to come and reclaim it.
That idea has no legal basis.Simply proclaiming you don't want to participate any more doesn't mean you have any claim on the US territory your on. And when that country shows up to take it back, that's not unprovoked aggression, it's an inevitable consequence.
Not only was there a question, it in fact wasn't US territory then or now, contrary to your understanding. You need to learn the definition of what the US government owns and what it does not own.Was there any question that this was US territory before some decided that suddenly it wasn't?
No, that's not true under any known legal theory or fact.Regardless of the sophistry it remains that taking US territory via proclaiming yourself sovereign is still the taking of US territory and an act of rebellion.
Slavery was a States' right protected by the US Constitution, and yankees turned against the US Constitution, which simply isn't the moral high ground that they pretend it to be. And of course yankees freed the slaves from the safety of their lily white States, which also isn't the moral high ground that they pretend it to be.
The above appears to be one long non sequitur. If you don't know or understand the law or the Constitution, just stop posting I'd recommend.Did the Confederacy lay title on the territory it was claiming was no longer US territory? NOPE Just claimed it as their territory. The country they claimed it FROM just took it back.
And using the assertion you made about the Constitution being a treaty, well if that is taken as the premise then the treaty was broken and the consequences for breaking a treaty are forfeiture of it's protection and terms.
US territory is different then US property. Is Kansas within US territory? Of course but that doesn't mean that Kansas is the PROPERTY of the US.
If a foreign power invades Oregon have then not invaded the US? Of course they have but that isn't because Oregon is the PROPERTY of the US, it is because it is within US territory that the foriegn power invaded.
Title makes property not territory. Much more is required to take US territory than simply claiming it your territory.
As far as using the terms 'legal' and 'rights' for the Confederacy, I thought they were claiming sovereignty, why would they have any claim to another nations rights or protections of law if they are sovereign?
In fact if you combine Tx and La they would make a real nice country
Possibly, although a last resort it's a resort that should be taken when necessary. It's like self defense shooting--when the thing worse than doing so is not doing so.Again, bringing us back to the original question, should secession be one of the answers to the leviathan state that we have today?
Agreed. the question then becomes related to the other thread. As Jefferson said, secession shouldn't be for light and transient reasons, and I think if secession were begun by a state of group of states, it would be for serious reasons.Possibly, although a last resort it's a resort that should be taken when necessary. It's like self defense shooting--when the thing worse than doing so is not doing so.
Agreed. the question then becomes related to the other thread. As Jefferson said, secession shouldn't be for light and transient reasons, and I think if secession were begun by a state of group of states, it would be for serious reasons.
Still, could those of us outside such a region legitimately question their reasons for secession? Aren't they entitled to self government for their own perceived self benefit?