• 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?

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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?

To be honest, I have no ****ing idea what it is you're trying to say here. Care to translate?

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.”

Lincoln reacted to secession as if the Constitution forbade it, making a fallacious comparison with contract law.

Clearly the South didn’t believe the new President’s protests. How do you account for that?

My answer remains, “because the South had been suffering political attacks for over 50 years” btw.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

Had Lincoln believed that the Confederacy was a separate country, he would have withdrawn forces rather than temporizing.
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
96,688
Reaction score
15,076
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Had Lincoln believed that the Confederacy was a separate country, he would have withdrawn forces rather than temporizing.
If the south has not fired 3000 rounds at US soldiers we may have never had a war
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,776
Reaction score
6,709
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Lincoln reacted to secession as if the Constitution forbade it, making a fallacious comparison with contract law.
The Constitution is essentially a contract. A social contract with the American people. You do know that Lincoln was lawyer before entering into politics, don't you? And by all accounts a damn good one too. So I think he knew a lot more about contact law than you. And after having demonstrated herein a complete ignorance of even the most basic tenets of contract law I would refrain from commenting on it any further if I were you.
Clearly the South didn’t believe the new President’s protests. How do you account for that?
Hubris and stupidity.
My answer remains, “because the South had been suffering political attacks for over 50 years” btw.
??? Yeah okay then, just what the heck was the question?
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,776
Reaction score
6,709
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It doesnt matter if they ceded it when they were part of the US. When they left the US, it became a political issue.
In the eyes of the federal government they had never left the US.
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.
The fort was of limited military value and expensive to maintain. That's why South Carolina ceded it.

They attempted to settle it peacefully and the union chose to instead go to war.
No the South chose to go to war. Lincoln made his position to hold and occupy federal property very clear.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices."

As to who would hold the responsibility for going to war Lincoln was equally as clear.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”
In the end, nothing happened, no one got hurt, and the union left.
During the actual battle, no. But in the cannon salutes to the end of the battle one soldier on each side died as result of cannon misfires
If Puerto Rico became independent, would we still own Camp Santiago?
The federal government leased this camp from Puerto Rico in 1940. In 1967, the U.S. Government licensed the camp to the Puerto Rico National Guard. So the terms of that license would be what I suppose would dictate whether the federal government or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico owns it. But it would appear that Puerto Rico may have a rightful claim to it. But I don't know for sure.
 

reflechissez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
13,853
Reaction score
8,520
Location
Wakanda
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.”
If you had been nicer to the south and let them keep their slaves a little longer, maybe they wouldn't have brutalized black people for so long after the civil war. I don't think the slaves would have been particularly pleased with your "argument."
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If the south has not fired 3000 rounds at US soldiers we may have never had a war
Sooner or later, Lincoln would have taken direct action, given his absolute determination to keep the Union together. Total tolerance on his part does not fit what we know of his actions during the conflict.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Constitution is essentially a contract. A social contract with the American people. You do know that Lincoln was lawyer before entering into politics, don't you? And by all accounts a damn good one too. So I think he knew a lot more about contact law than you. And after having demonstrated herein a complete ignorance of even the most basic tenets of contract law I would refrain from commenting on it any further if I were you.

Hubris and stupidity.

??? Yeah okay then, just what the heck was the question?
And as I've pointed out previously, a contract that does not spell out the rights and responsibilities of the signatories is a contract that leaves itself open to interpretation.

Nope, the South didn't believe the North because the North lied like so many rugs.

Not my responsibility to keep you on track.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In the eyes of the federal government they had never left the US.

The fort was of limited military value and expensive to maintain. That's why South Carolina ceded it.


No the South chose to go to war. Lincoln made his position to hold and occupy federal property very clear.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices."

As to who would hold the responsibility for going to war Lincoln was equally as clear.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

During the actual battle, no. But in the cannon salutes to the end of the battle one soldier on each side died as result of cannon misfires

The federal government leased this camp from Puerto Rico in 1940. In 1967, the U.S. Government licensed the camp to the Puerto Rico National Guard. So the terms of that license would be what I suppose would dictate whether the federal government or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico owns it. But it would appear that Puerto Rico may have a rightful claim to it. But I don't know for sure.

What's all that bushwah about "no oath sworn in heaven?" All that mattered was, did the South have the right to secede or not. Typical politician, avoiding the key question.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
1,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If you had been nicer to the south and let them keep their slaves a little longer, maybe they wouldn't have brutalized black people for so long after the civil war. I don't think the slaves would have been particularly pleased with your "argument."
Obviously slaves would have continued to escape the South during a hypothetical Confederacy, and this time the North would have no obligation to return them. That in itself would have contributed substantially to an economic downturn for the cotton-dependent South.
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
96,688
Reaction score
15,076
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sooner or later, Lincoln would have taken direct action, given his absolute determination to keep the Union together. Total tolerance on his part does not fit what we know of his actions during the conflict.
ThAts a guess. What we KNOW is the south fired first
 
Top Bottom