• 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?

Questerr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is that the same Northern government that violated Native American treaties in order to displace the tribes? That fierce defender of contract law?
 
armycowboy said:
All military reservations are considered federal land, not a part of the state that they are in.
Click to expand...
Lincoln surely could not have expected to keep the exact same arrangement once the state seceded. His act of stalling was an act of provocation.
 
Ouroboros said:
Is that the same Northern government that violated Native American treaties in order to displace the tribes? That fierce defender of contract law?
Click to expand...

The same Northern government that defeated the Confederates when they launched a war of aggression against the US, yes.
 
Ouroboros said:
Lincoln surely could not have expected to keep the exact same arrangement once the state seceded. His act of stalling was an act of provocation.
Click to expand...
You realize that American military installations in foreign countries are considered American soil, and an attack on one would be considered an attack on America, right?
 
I love this thread.
 
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...


Bloody Lincoln
who made war on civilians.
 
NoahUSA said:
Well then another question just to see where everyone's bias is, what are your views of General Lee, because wat you think of him says a lot about a person.
Click to expand...
The fact that he was offered command of all Federal forces prior to resigning his commission and siding with Virginia says a lot about him.
 
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
As well he should be


Regardless....if you fire on US troops I dont care what happens to you....as long as it is bad
 
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that is a good thing.
 
jonny5 said:
Not exactly, for the military it was not a resounding defeat. For for years they fought outnumbered, underfunded, and using untrained soldiers. The union was simply larger, richer, and had even better generals.
Click to expand...
The North had better generals? Do you have any idea how many generals Lincoln went through before finding one competent enough to command the Army of the Potomac? The South enjoyed a very large advantage in trained officers at the outset of the war. A disproportionate of the US officer corps were of Southern origin as 7 of the country's 8 war colleges were located in the South. The armies of the North and the South were pretty equal in size in the first year of the war. The South however believed it's soldiers to be superior in fighting spirit to those of the North and they had the initial advantage in morale as these Southern boys were fighting to preserve their way of life. The North fighting to maintain a union. The greatest advantage the South had was that it was fighting a defensive war in it's own territory. With their familiarity with the landscape they could pick when and where to harass Northern invaders. The North had a taller order in terms of political and military objectives. To win it would have to invade, conquer, and occupy the South. It needed to completely destroy the South's capacity and will to resist. A pretty formidable challenge in any war. The South could possibly win by simply being able to hang on long enough for the North to eventually tire of the cost and the effort.
 
jonny5 said:
It isnt that simple and never has been. Slavery was normal at the time, in the US of A as well, which wrote it into the constitution. Lincoln didnt even free the slaves in the north with his proclamation. He cared more about politics than slaves.

Lincoln: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."​


He didnt see the south as enemies.
Click to expand...
Slavery was not normal at the time. It was a highly divisive issue if not the most divisive issue of all. Lincoln cared more about preserving the Union than anything else. Afterall it was his sworn duty as President to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States of America.
 
Atomic Kid said:
The Armed Forces of the United States takes orders only from it's Commander in Chief. The US President.
Click to expand...

Ouroboros said:
Then we agree that Lincoln was responsible for the Sumter troops not leaving.
Click to expand...
LOL! Calling that a sophomoric argument would actually confer upon it far more dignity than that answer deserves.
 
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
"ethics of the Constitutional violation"??? What violation? You're spouting nothing but pure gibberish.
 
Atomic Kid said:
As treason is defined in the Constitution that is essentially what they were.
Click to expand...

Ouroboros said:
Nope, current views of what the Constitution says are still just current views.
Click to expand...
Current views??? What the heck is that? It says it what it says.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Here's suggestion for you. Why don't you try actually reading the Constitution?
 
Ouroboros said:
And the Supreme Court law of latter times still says nothing about the interpretation of secession prior to the Civil War.
Click to expand...
Actually it did, albeit in a rather unusual manner. Judge Anthony Scalia, who claimed to to interpret the law as the Founders had originally wrote it, had this to say about the subject of secession. It came in a reply to a letter by a screenwriter working on political farce that had Maine seceding from the US to join Canada sent to each of the Supreme Court Justices in 2006 on a lark;

"I’m a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.

My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.

At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I’m sure you’ll find the story very entertaining."

Judge Scalia decided to actually reply to it and this is what he said;

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom