• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

j brown's body

A hail fellow well met
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
29,567
Reaction score
21,270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
the sad thing about all of this is we as a nation, for all the good we have done nationally (abolishing slavery primarily) and globally, we are still cursed with racism and our need for white supremacy......a large portion of Caucasian people in the US and around the world simply believe that people of color are inferior......millions to the degree that it is ordained from God......

here we are 150 years after the Civil War still discussing the CW.......millions still arguing that it was about 'northern aggression/attrition' and 'states rights' and imo every dam one of those millions knows in their heart that it is about racism and white supremacy.......some of them (KKK, American Nazis, Oath Keepers etc etc) will actually say it up front that they believe people of color are inferior.....but sadly those millions of white Americans who tolerate and turn a deaf ear to the actions of WS's are silently condoning and approving them......

The arguments against the voting rights bill today are identical to the arguments against the federal government fighting the KKK when they were viciously murdering black voters and their white allies in the south during Reconstruction.
 

j brown's body

A hail fellow well met
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
29,567
Reaction score
21,270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Except, Democrats haven't done anything for the black communities except harvest votes by promising things they never delivered

They are currently attempting to protect their voting rights.
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,776
Reaction score
6,709
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Its their property. Clearly land within their borders. No different than if there was a foreign countries base somewhere on land. And they first tried to get it back peacefully. It wasnt until the US sent troops to reinforce it that SC attacked.
South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States on December 17, 1836. The unarmed merchant ships sent to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions had on board 200 Federal troops and ammunition. Not enough really to fully man the fort and certainly nowhere an amount to be able to pose any threat of a seaborne landing assault being launched from the fort. Lincoln's orders directed the merchant ships to land only the provisions and not any of the troops and ammunition if they are not fired upon and permitted to peacefully resupply the fort. Lincoln also told South Carolina's Governor that he would inform him well in advance of any future intentions to resupply the fort.
 
Last edited:

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
24,132
Reaction score
3,944
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States on December 17, 1836. The unarmed merchant ships sent to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions had on board 200 Federal troops and ammunition. Not enough really to fully man the fort and certainly nowhere an amount to be able to pose any threat of a seaborne landing assault being launched from the fort. Lincoln's orders directed the merchant ships to land only the provisions and not any of the troops and ammunition if they are not fired upon and permitted to peacefully resupply the fort. Lincoln also told South Carolina's Governor that he would inform him well in advance of any future intentions to resupply the fort.

It doesnt matter if they ceded it when they were part of the US. When they left the US, it became a political issue. Clearly an island in the middle of a river in a country is that countries, not some foreign country. Its entirely impractical for the US to have a military base in the middle of SC. They attempted to settle it peacefully and the union chose to instead go to war.

In the end, nothing happened, no one got hurt, and the union left.

If Puerto Rico became independent, would we still own Camp Santiago?
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
96,688
Reaction score
15,076
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It doesnt matter if they ceded it when they were part of the US. When they left the US, it became a political issue. Clearly an island in the middle of a river in a country is that countries, not some foreign country. Its entirely impractical for the US to have a military base in the middle of SC. They attempted to settle it peacefully and the union chose to instead go to war.

In the end, nothing happened, no one got hurt, and the union left.

If Puerto Rico became independent, would we still own Camp Santiago?
You mean like having a military base in Cuba? Lol
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,776
Reaction score
6,709
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If the governor of a different nation tells your nation to get out, you get out.
The Confederacy was never a "nation". No other government in the world ever recognized it as being such.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
They had no right to commandeer federal forts either, nor attack federal forts. Why do you cling to defending the confederacy? Do you think that is the best the southern states are capable of? Clinging to a dead white supremacist regime?

Since you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Confederacy was never a "nation". No other government in the world ever recognized it as being such.

No one will ever know what might have happened had Lincoln abided by the Constitution and honored secession. Personally I think that after a few years an independent Confederacy would have foundered economically,
forcing them to compromise on Union
membership much as the independent state of Texas had. Modern Libs assume that a nation devoted to slave labor would have set some sort of inalterable precedent, which is why they virtue signal by showing utter abhorrence to the idea. But what if the nation had been permitted to exist long enough to fail? Could a few more years of legalized slavery have led to a compromise that MIGHT have obviated the South’s Black Codes?

Not that I expect an answer beyond “I reject slavery, so I’m virtuous.”
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,776
Reaction score
6,709
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Since you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
No one will ever know what might have happened had Lincoln abided by the Constitution and honored secession.
The Constitution also does not permit unilateral secession either. So if that wasn't in there how exactly was Lincoln to abide by and honor something in the Constitution that does not exist. Except in you fervent mind?
membership much as the independent state of Texas had. Modern Libs assume that a nation devoted to slave labor would have set some sort of inalterable precedent, which is why they virtue signal by showing utter abhorrence to the idea. But what if the nation had been permitted to exist long enough to fail?
To be honest, I have no ****ing idea what it is you're trying to say here. Care to translate?
Could a few more years of legalized slavery have led to a compromise that MIGHT have obviated the South’s Black Codes?

Not that I expect an answer beyond “I reject slavery, so I’m virtuous.”
Lincoln was open to permitting slavery to continue to exist in those states where it had previously existed. He said as much in his inaugural address; “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
 

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Since you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
 

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,464
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

That's more of a stretch than the old cartoon Gumby can do
 

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And stretch........................... it a mile
For the Good not for the Bad.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,464
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
For the Good not for the Bad.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't even think Lincoln used that one during the Civil war(LOL)
 

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't even think Lincoln used that one during the Civil war(LOL)
Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a market friendly manner when not expressly for the common defense. The higher the multiplier return on investment the better.
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
96,688
Reaction score
15,076
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
Secession must be agreed to by both parties. And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country
 

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,464
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Secession must be agreed to by both parties. And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country
And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country

Perhaps there would not have been any Hostility if they allowed for secession?
 
Top Bottom