• 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?

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.

"Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

View attachment 67370259

WRONG.

South Carolina gave ceded to the federal government full rights to Ft Sumter well before secession.
 
Vegas I can imagine someone like you gambling:

Bookie: Sir, you lost 41-3.
Vegas: No I didn't. It was a tie, 0-0.

Bookie: Uhh, sir that was the score before the game started

Vegas: Exactly I bet the pre game.

Bookie: You take something that hasn't a kernel of truth to it, and then exaggerate it beyond all recognition.
No I dont. Confederates renounced their citizenship joined a new country and then attacked their previous country


That is the very definition of a traitor to America
 
I already know fascists need to cling to the confederacy, they fought to preserve their preferred racial hierarchy. Preserving hierarchies is kinda the point of fascism. Why oh why does a poor southerner need to cling to it?
 
The Constitution is the contract that theoretically binds all states into perpetual union. If you can find a place where those signing conditions are stated in detail, I'd accept that as evidence.


Start with The Bill of Rights! :worship:
#10 as above


California did a better job of indigent medical care until
federally superseded in 1964.
Likewise education & CORE curriculum

Is the 10th Amendment to be ignored?
We could have had State Based ObamaCare
with 50 designs. Consider #10 ! :worship:



#10 Bill Of Rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Such as education, y'think
Health, Welfare, Urban etc. . .


Moi
Californian







Canada-3.png
 
No I dont. Confederates renounced their citizenship joined a new country and then attacked their previous country


That is the very definition of a traitor to America

After which they were pardoned for the most part and returned to the fold.
 
Lincoln wasn't president when South Carolina seceded. And their unilateral secession meant the surrendered any claim to Fort Sumter.
The Southerners knew Lincoln's sympathies before he came in, and even the one grievance people tend to agree that his election was a big factor in secession.
 
Well he sure didnt attack first. That was the south
Look up the story of how Lincoln treated Maryland to make sure that that state, which shared three borders with District of Columbia, would get no chance to secede. That history ought to convince anyone that whatever his other virtues, Lincoln could be thoroughly uncompromising in his determination to preserve the Union.
 

"97
Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
98
It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
99
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
100
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.
101
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
We've already been over the uselessness of Texas v. White, and in any case I stated my criteria in post 965.
 
The Armed Forces of the United States takes orders only from it's Commander in Chief. The US President.
Then we agree that Lincoln was responsible for the Sumter troops not leaving.
 
There were no "separate countries" involved here. Only one. That's why it's called "The Civil War". Which is a war between citizens of the same country.
That's something the Northern victory turned into a fait accompli, but like I said earlier, I'm discussing the ethics of the Constitutional violation.
 
The Southerners knew Lincoln's sympathies before he came in, and even the one grievance people tend to agree that his election was a big factor in secession.

And when they seceded, they gave up any claim they had to Fort Sumter.

So when they fired on it, they were engaging in an act of aggression.
 
Article Two. Section 1. Clause 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Already answered in the negative several times already and have cited established Supreme Court law denying that any state has the right to unilaterally secede from the Union. But you keep asking it nonetheless expecting a different answer.:rolleyes:
Then Lincoln broke his oath when he breached the Constitution.

And the Supreme Court law of latter times still says nothing about the interpretation of secession prior to the Civil War.
 
And when they seceded, they gave up any claim they had to Fort Sumter.

So when they fired on it, they were engaging in an act of aggression.
Fort Sumter was on Southern land and the North no longer had claim to it.
 
Fort Sumter was on Southern land and the North no longer had claim to it.

No, it stopped being solely Southern land when the state of South Carolina gave up that land to the communal ownership of the United States pursuant to the rules found in the Constitution South Carolina voluntarily entered into.

When they unilaterally seceded, without negotiation on the ownership of communally owned property, they gave up any claim they had to it.
 
No, it stopped being solely Southern land when the state of South Carolina gave up that land to the communal ownership of the United States pursuant to the rules found in the Constitution South Carolina voluntarily entered into.

When they unilaterally seceded, without negotiation on the ownership of communally owned property, they gave up any claim they had to it.
I'm sure a Northern lawyer would have made that argument, and a Southern lawyer would have made the opposite argument, that the State had nullified the arrangement. So what? Just because you agree with the first does not invalidate the second POV.
 
I'm sure a Northern lawyer would have made that argument, and a Southern lawyer would have made the opposite argument, that the State had nullified the arrangement. So what? Just because you agree with the first does not invalidate the second POV.

The Southern lawyer would have had nothing to base their argument on. The Northern lawyer would have had the Constitution and the entire body of contract law.
 
Back
Top Bottom