- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The very first sentence of the Constitution is "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union." not "We the States, in order to form an agreeable arrangement." The implication being that the people were one nation, and what they were forming was a "more perfect union" to bring them together.
Basically, you don't give a **** about the Constitution. You see it as nothing more than a temporary and convenient arrangement to meet the needs of 13 colonies in the 1780s with major colonial powers breathing down their neck. If that was the case, it would have been discarded once the geopolitical situation changed.
What would you say if a militia in Montana suddenly opened fire on a border crossing and declared themselves part of Canada?
Get the quote right.
The Confederate states were in the Union before they established the Confederacy. They were states that established a confederation. That is the point.
Well, that is not really at all similar to what happened with secession and eventually the war. So mostly, I'd say you're making a completely invalid comparison.
the secession was peaceful... and occurred 4 months prior to Fort Sumter.(except for the 4 border states who seceded as a result of the battle of fort sumte)The South made the first violent act of the Civil War with Fort Sumter. It didn't secede peacefully. Whether or not their actions were 'understandable' is irrelevant to whether or not their actions were violent. They were. They initiated the war and I have no idea why you're trying to pretend they didn't.
You said:
You're wrong. They didn't.
Think on this. What would have happened if the Confederates had just walked away? The Union and the Confederacy considered that territory its territory. One group chose to start violence.
Fine. It's "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." It just backs up my position more, that there were a "people of the United States," not the people of 13 seperate countries.
I was going to respond point by point and then I saw this and realized your posts weren't worthy of it.I still think they're crazy. But I also think those of you screaming "treason!" are hacks.
No one has argued that waving a Confederate flag is treasonous.It's not treasonous to refer to history.
If something as simple as (waving) the Confederate flag is treasonous, then everyone who's burned the actual flag is way deeper in ****.
What would you say if a militia in Montana suddenly opened fire on a border crossing and declared themselves part of Canada?
What's not similar about it, outside of joining Canada? It's a group of people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in concert with one another.
And the context does nothing to make that statement correct.Good job cherry picking. Now, why don't you include the rest of what I said after "The south seceeded peacefully." Context is everything.
I haven't made a claim that they should have walked away. I pointed out the facts that both the Union and the Confederacy considered Fort Sumter their territory. Neither one was objectively correct. Who 'owned' it was a matter of perspective. They both thought they owned it. One of them chose to be violent. These are just simple facts. I have no arguments about "should" and whatnot.Why should they walk away? Fort Sumpter was obviously in South Carolina, a state that had seceeded from the Union. Before the secession that fort was considered it be in and a part of the state of South Carolina. It was for all intents and purposes South Carolina's fort.
It's not the same thing at all and it's a bit annoying and insulting that you're pretending it is. This wasn't an international situation - that's why it was called a "civil war". It was a war between citizens of the same country. It is treason for citizens of a country to wage war upon its country.
The UN comparison is so inaccurate on so many levels.
I was going to respond point by point and then I saw this and realized your posts weren't worthy of it.
First, calling it "treason" is not a "leap". Many people during the Civil War considered it treason. Certain definitions of treason consider it treason. If you want to argue that it isn't treason, go ahead, but I'll defend my arguments as well. However, chalking a valid argument up to hackery is nonsensical.
Second, there is nothing wrong with treason in and of itself and the majority, if not all, of us have not made such an argument. Moreover, most arguments, particularly mine in the OP do not rest upon a value of judgment of treason, but upon a question of its existence. We all know how our country was founded, so please spare us lessons that we've already learned.
And the context does nothing to make that statement correct.
I haven't made a claim that they should have walked away. I pointed out the facts that both the Union and the Confederacy considered Fort Sumter their territory. Neither one was objectively correct. Who 'owned' it was a matter of perspective. They both thought they owned it. One of them chose to be violent. These are just simple facts. I have no arguments about "should" and whatnot.
The people arguing the civil war was about states rights is just idiotic. The only right they cared about was keeping slaves. I'm sure if the north took away their right to inbreed they would be mad, but not enough to secede.
Learn history. Slavery may have been a major part of the civil war but it was not the ONLY reason.
It was referred to as the Civil War during the conflict by Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Two of the other most popular names were the War of Rebellion and War for Southern Independence. Neither assume the existence of southern independence, but only the fight for it.All wars often get thier name after the war has ended. Just because it is called a Civil War does not mean that is truely exactly what happened.
Not really. I imagine that application was merely a confirmation of loyalty. Do you have a primary source which details the reasons for requiring them to apply?If it truely was a civil war then why is it you suppose that the states had to apply for admittance into the Union after the war? Does that not indicate that the southern states were considered to be no longer a part of the union? IE thier secession was basically accepted?
I read it in context. It's still wrong. Within the context of your post, the statement is still wrong.Agreed. Because the statement by itself is wrong. The rest of what was said shows why it is also correct. Context explains everything.
The south seceeded peacefully. They made no attempt to cause violence to the Union until the Battle of Fort Sumpter. Which was stationed in a southern state. The only reason that it remained a Union controlled fort at the time was due to the simple fact that it was occupied by those that considered themselvse to be still a part of the Union. The general that percepitated that fight had no intention of invading Union soil. He just wanted to make sure that the Union did not have troops inside what was considered Southern state territory. Which is purely understandable from an objective standpoint especially when you consider that the fort was indeed clearly in South Carolina's territory.
It doesn't matter to me whether it was valid. That's a subjective question. To the Confederacy, it was valid. To the North, it wasn't. That's solely a matter of perspective as I said. My point is only that the South was the first aggressor and it was not peaceful in its secession.True you did not make that claim. And what you say here is basically correct. What you have got to ask yourself is was the violence that was initiated by the Southern General valid? There are times when violence is necessary. For example...to protect ones property. In order to answer this you must ask yourself who's claim to the fort was more valid? The Union? Or the South? If you accept that the secession was legal then the fort obviously belonged to South Carolina. Which means that the fort belonged to them. If you do not accept the secession then the fort belongs to the Union.
See my other post.Which again begs the question. If the South's seccession was not accepted then why did they have to apply for admittance into the Union after the war ended?
As with any war, there are multiple reasons...some more important than others...as powers try to justify their actions. Had the United States not outlawed slavery, we never would have had a Civil War. The South was united behind their prejudice. I say that because, in the scheme of things, only the wealthy (for the most part) owned slaves. And, of course, their sons probably didn't fight in the war. Some things never change.
Any anthropologist or historian will tell you to do the same thing that apdst and I have said. In order to understand the social and economic practices and what led to what of a historical time period you have to put yourself in that societies shoes. We can still consider the practice dispciable today and yet still understand the thinking that allowed slavery to be in the history books. In essence...understanding does not equal agreeing with.
I will ask you the same question that I have already proposed in this thread to others. Would you consider withdrawing from the UN an act of treason if the UN attempted to enact something that would be of extreme detriment to the US?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?