Did the southern states have the a Constitutional right to secede in 1861?

[Technocratic]

Yes, one academic in one interview makes a failed argument. You must be so proud to have sought out the gem you were seeking among all the others that disagree.

Any fool can find at least one other fool to mirror his foolishness.

Your home must be a funhouse. Most academics support my view. The fringe neoconfederate crazies support you.

 

[The_Patriot]

I have no facts.

You don't say...

 

[Technocratic]

The fort effectively blockaded the harbor. A blockade is an act of war.

The South illegally seceded, causing a Fort that belonged there to "blockade" their illegally stolen land. To rectify this issue, the criminal revolutionaties demanded the surrender, and then tried to steal, federal land.

If the rebels hadn't aggressively rebelled, there would be no need to use aggression against FOrt Sumer out of fear of having "federal territory" in their illegal country.

 

[jallman]

As I thought, like any NeoConfederate apologist propagandist, you take facts and contort them to mean the opposite of what they really mean. You'd dishonestly construe the existence of federal troops in a federal fort, being resupplied quite legally, against demands that they give control to rebel forces, as an "invasion" of the South.

That's retard logic. You might as well claim a rape victim is the aggressor if she doesn't willingly give up her body to the abuser. Nope. Back in reality land, South Carolnia was the initial aggressor, as it not only demanded the surrender of the Fort, as throughout the South other forts had been demanded similarly, it threatened to starve the garrison until it surrendered, which resulted in the North being forced to resupply in order to avoid the loss of the Fort to a siege.

Next.

USS Harriet Lane, a 750-ton side-wheel gunboat, was built at New York City in 1857 as the U.S. Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane. In addition to carrying out her Revenue Service duties, she served with the Navy during the Paraguay expedition of 1858-59. Returning to Navy control in late March 1861, as the secession crisis deepened, Harriet Lane took part in the attempt to relieve Fort Sumter when that vital position in Charleston harbor, South Carolina, was beseiged by Confederate forces. While so engaged, on 12 April 1861, she fired the first U.S. Navy shot of the Civil War. [/quote

Inane Neoconfederate bullsh*t refuted. Refer to the above.




More bizarre NeoConfederate logic, wherein sending U.S. troops to guard federal government institutions against alarms of rebellion, when states all over are threatening it, is obviously an "aggressive invasion." LoL.

Next.




Necessary to defend Federal authorty against secessionist rebels. Not aggression. Defensive.



You have plenty of claims, but none of them justifies your argument.

The only way anyone would accept this drivel as fact would be at the expense of the brain cells destroyed by a decade of meth addiction. It's a shallow and meaningless rant with no acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues or decades of legal doctrine and political posturing that led to the final outcome of war.

Here's a clue: the slavery issue has been resolved. Your agenda to vilify the south is not necessary nor is it relevant as you aren't saving the slaves by doing so. Intellectual honest won't hurt your dead cause. Try it...you might actually like being honest....

 

[Technocratic]

You don't say...

I accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

 

[Goobieman]

You have plenty of claims, but none of them justifies your argument.

Speaking of which - still waiting for -your- response.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...nal-right-secede-1861-a-3.html#post1059021577

 

[The_Patriot]

The South illegally seceded, causing a Fort that belonged there to "blockade" their illegally stolen land. To rectify this issue, the criminal revolutionaties demanded the surrender, and then tried to steal, federal land.

If the rebels hadn't aggressively rebelled, there would be no need to use aggression against FOrt Sumer out of fear of having "federal territory" in their illegal country.

Prove that the south had illegally seceded with the Constitution. Come on I dare you.

 

[Technocratic]

The only way anyone would accept this drivel as fact would be at the expense of the brain cells destroyed by a decade of meth addiction. It's a shallow and meaningless rant with no acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues or decades of legal doctrine and political posturing that led to the final outcome of war.

Here's a clue: the slavery issue has been resolved. Your agenda to vilify the south is not necessary nor is it relevant as you aren't saving the slaves by doing so. Intellectual honest won't hurt your dead cause. Try it...you might actually like being honest....

Argumentum Ad HOminem. I accept your concession. Your argument is irrational and unsupported by the data. The weight of historical evidence is on my side. YOu can choose to ignore it at your peril. Unfortunately, I am the only honest one in this discussion.

You're also engaging in classic projection.

 

[Technocratic]

Prove that the south had illegally seceded with the Constitution. Come on I dare you.

Already did. Refer to earlier posts. Rebellion is illegal. Unilaterial secession entails rebellion. It's also directly contradicted by the concept of national soveregnty. Federal authority within its powers trumps state authority. To carry it out its authority, it can do whatever is necessary and proper. Secession is invalidated.

DOn't be the typical Southern idiot and defend your lost cause.

 

[The_Patriot]

I give you my concession. Thank you for educating me on real American history.

You're most welcome.

 

[The_Patriot]

Already did. Refer to earlier posts. If you can't be bothered to read, I won't repeat it.

I already destroyed your argument, so you have nothing but ad homs left.

 

[jallman]

The fort effectively blockaded the harbor. A blockade is an act of war.

Basically, they tried an end run around the territorial rights of South Carolina by laying seige to its harbor, claiming rights over land within its territory. That was clearly an act of aggression.

 

[Goobieman]

The South illegally seceded...

You cannot show that secession is illegal, as illustrated quite well in our prior conversation.
Still waiting for a response to that, BTW.

 

[jallman]

Argumentum Ad HOminem. I accept your concession. Your argument is irrational and unsupported by the data. The weight of historical evidence is on my side. YOu can choose to ignore it at your peril.

Ohhhhh....oooga boooga booooga!!!! Accept my words or you will suffer the consequences!!! I win the internets!!!

Excuse me while I get my laughter under control and pick myself up off the floor.

Nothing you stated was even close to accurate. There was nothing to argue because you can't argue against an agenda devoid of all fact. :shrug:

 

[Technocratic]

Excuse me while I get my laughter under control and pick myself up off the floor.

Nothing you stated was even close to accurate. There was nothing to argue because you can't argue against an agenda devoid of all fact. :shrug:

I accept your concession. Your argument is weak and without serious merit. It was simplistic, inaccurate, and naive. I already refuted your so called examples.

As I said, you choose ignorance at your own peril. I cannot help you, as you don't want to learn. You clearly desire the delusional comfort of Southern Mythology.

 

[jallman]

I accept your concession. Only I have the data to support my argument. I already refuted your examples.

I'm not conceding jack **** to you, sport. I am laughing at how off base you are.

Gotta clue for you...strutting and preening like a bantum **** doesn't actually win the argument for you. You actually have to make a decent argument for that to happen.

 

[The_Patriot]

I accept your concession. Only I have the data to support my argument. I already refuted your examples.

As I said, you choose ignorance at your peril. That peril is living in constant delusion.

Funny, but I'm reading your posts and you've presented nothing from historical documentation to back up your position. I do see a lot of ad homs and insults coming from you though.

 

[Technocratic]

I already destroyed your argument, so you have nothing but ad homs left.

False. Your "counter argument" was weak. The data you presented show just the opposite of what you conclude. Try again.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Namecalling and attacks need to cease.

 

[Technocratic]

Funny, but I'm reading your posts and you've presented nothing from historical documentation to back up your position. I do see a lot of ad homs and insults coming from you though.

You are making the positive claim of a War of Northern Aggression. You've provided examples you believe illustrate this. I have no burden of proof. I needed only to deconstruct your evidence, which is inadequate and actually shows the opposite conclusion from yours. For example, you would have us believe that a Federal Fort being resupplied in defiance of a Carolinian demand for its surrender is "aggression" against the South.

That's self-evidently absurd and you should be embarrassed to advocate such academic nonsense.

 

[The_Patriot]

False. Your "counter argument" was weak. The data you presented show just the opposite of what you conclude. Try again.

Yes, because we all know that facts are weak. Unfortunately, you haven't produced anything but hot air.

 

[jallman]

False. Your "counter argument" was weak. The data you presented show just the opposite of what you conclude. Try again.

Actually, it didn't. It backed up our side of the disagreement totally.

The problem I see with your argument is that you took modern standards of governance and applied them to the US of the 1800's that was still hashing out issues such as the advancing role of the Fed, the resolution of slavery, and the protectionist dynamic tariff's instigated. There was still a great deal of issue surrounding how the federation would interact and what roles the states played in each others' welfare.

Legal precedent that would brand whole swaths of the country as treasonous did not exist at the time and so cannot be applied at the time. That's where your analysis falls short and becomes lazy and shallow.

 

[The_Patriot]

You are making the positive claim of a War of Northern Aggression. You've provided exampes you believe illustrate this. I have no burden of proof. I needed only to deconstruct your evidence, which is inadequate and actually shows the opposite conclusion from yours. For example, you would have us believe that a Federal Fort being resupplied in defiance ofa demand for its surrender is "aggression" against the South.

That's self-evidently absurd.

Actually, I entered the conversation and replied to your original post with facts by the founding fathers. You failed to counter this. You also failed to counter any documentation I provided to destroy your argument. Ergo, you lose since you started the argument and failed to produce up any documentation to counter my counter-argument. The responsibility lies with you to back up your statements.

 

[Technocratic]

I'm not conceding jack **** to you, sport.

Oh, but you are. You just don't realize it.

Creationists never concede either. SO therefore, I don't ask. I take.

Gotta clue for you...strutting and preening like a bantum **** doesn't actually win the argument for you. You actually have to make a decent argument for that to happen.

It's not my fault you can't think clearly on this, and therefore, don't understand.

 

[jallman]

You are making the positive claim of a War of Northern Aggression. You've provided examples you believe illustrate this. I have no burden of proof. I needed only to deconstruct your evidence, which is inadequate and actually shows the opposite conclusion from yours. For example, you would have us believe that a Federal Fort being resupplied in defiance of a Carolinian demand for its surrender is "aggression" against the South.

That's self-evidently absurd and you should be embarrassed to advocate such academic nonsense.

Except that the fort fell well within the territorial waters of South Carolina and the secession of the state was no longer the central issue. In fact, Davis and Lincoln were doing their uptmost not to incite the border states to violence and work on peaceful solutions. By the point things were when the war broke out, the continued entrenchment of Union troops within South Carolina/ Confederate territory after being asked to vacate was a clear sign of aggression by the north and cue that the Union was, in fact, going to use force against the Confederacy to prevent them from exercising their right to sovereignty, which until now had not really been tested and resolved.

It was tantamount to trespassing. It was the first act of aggression, even if it was a somewhat passive siege of the Charleston harbor.