The CSA (Opinions)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're afraid that I will ignore you because you're explaining something? Is hypocrisy another of those basic concepts of which you have no grasp?

However, since I'm prepared to be open-minded about this, where does it specifically say that individual states can secede? This does not mean a passage in the eye of the beholder, but an actual statement allowing armed secession from the USA.

First of all, if the Union had allowed it it would not have been armed rebellion. The Union occupied southern territory and so if the South was legit the Union attacked first, at least, that's the South's PoV.

Secondly, it has to specifically say that they can't or else they can. The 10th amendment says so.

Then why do you always use that reasoning? Your reasoning is always that you want something to mean a certain thing, despite all evidence to the contrary. Like your insistence on being wrong about the 10th. Now, if you wanted to deal with objective reality, then objectively speaking, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means. And the Court says that the Constitution does not allow secession. So objectively and logically you have no ground to stand on at all.

SCOTUS affirmed their own right to do so in 1807, and the Court is by definition not impartial since conservative or liberal leaning presidents pick them.

Also, the Supreme court had said no such thing when the South seceeded. And SCOTUS often says things that aren't there, like Roe VS Wade, which was NEVER spoken about in the Constitution. Neither was secession. Therefore, it is not the federal government's power to stop it.

You got one thing right, you can't win this debate. One of the core reasons of the CSA's creation was to enslave others and it didn't even try and seceed through congress or SCOTUS. They just threw a big hissy fit that resulted in 650,000 getting killed


Define noble cause. If a secession movement fits the UN guidelines for a legal secession movement I would agree with it. If the core of the movement was a result of numerous and sustained grievances activly or intentionaly created the the government and all lawful means of secession failed, then I would support the secession.

Domination, accept it. The CSA was a illegal state whose entire reason for existance was a percieved insult and unsubstantial fear that their society based on enslaving others might be infringed so they threw a big hissy fit that resulted in the deaths of up to 700,000 individuals.
Did the CSA have a full opportunity to have a court or governing body to hear their greivances? Yes.
Did they use either of those chanels? No.
Then inherently it was an illegal state.

You do realize this is opinion right? At least acknowledge that. And the UN has no real power over everyone.
 
SCOTUS affirmed their own right to do so in 1807, and the Court is by definition not impartial since conservative or liberal leaning presidents pick them.

Also, the Supreme court had said no such thing when the South seceeded. And SCOTUS often says things that aren't there, like Roe VS Wade, which was NEVER spoken about in the Constitution. Neither was secession. Therefore, it is not the federal government's power to stop it.

Again, that's just the fantasy you wish were true because you love the totalitarian governments that you would get with states rights. Those of us who deal with the laws of the land know you living in a fantasy.
 
The US Constitution doesn't specifically state that secessionist states can make war on the USA either and, let's face it, it doesn't need to.
 
Again, that's just the fantasy you wish were true because you love the totalitarian governments that you would get with states rights. Those of us who deal with the laws of the land know you living in a fantasy.

First of all, that is the definition of liberal nonsense, being one-minded and saying everyone who disagrees "Loves totalitarian government." I may think you are totally wrong but I'll still accept that you believe in liberty even if you are wrong about your way of obtaining it.

As for that being a fantasy, no it isn't, and the constitution implies with the 10th that if its not given to the federal government either the states can make it illegal or nobody can.

The US Constitution doesn't specifically state that secessionist states can make war on the USA either and, let's face it, it doesn't need to.

You realized they fired on Ft. Sumter right? In south Carolina. South Carolina seceded, the troops remaining in Ft. Sumter was basically the Union trying to occupy the confederates, and IMO they had a right to do it.
 
So is the Supreme Court of the United States the ultimate arbiter of the US Constitution or not? As a "strict constitutionalist", you should know that answer straight off the top of your head.
 
So... You're a regionalist?

And are you really referring to the fed as tyrannical? You know, if you prefer a more conservative life I suppose you could go live in the Vatican.
Actually the Vatican is to the left of Domination3000
The South warned the Union and told them to leave.

The debate boils down to, was the CSA a sovereign country or rebels. Personally, I think the only argument that they were not a legitimate nation was that only the white males voted in the politicians that seceded. However, as the North had the same bigoted system they didn't really have a right to complain. So, the only way to defend the North's actions was to say they had a right to invade to free the slaves. I would agree, however, the Union had no intentions of doing so. Which is why, ideologically, I support the South. The north wasn't all that much less racist than the South (In the North they still could not vote, were treated as second-class citizens, and often were returned to their masters if they fled from the south.) The Southern state governments, who were elected by the same voting procedures the North used, voted to secede. Nothing in the constitution at that time explicitly forbid secession, and the 10th by default then allowed it. And again, if you want that right to be given to the people and not the states, the people, or such as it was in that time, elected the people who seceded.

Granted, I am glad the North won, now that I see how history unfolded, and LoE is partially right about how history might have unfolded (I'll give an alternate timeline in a sec and see what y'all think.)

Reasons why I am glad the North won:

1. It led to the abolition of slavery, and post 1863 I may well have supported the North on this principle alone, even though Lincoln did not do as much as he could have. Still, slavery would have lasted a long time in the CSA if the South won.

2. It kept the Union united for us today. Life today would be FAR different had the CSA won and most likely I would not be here to discuss it.

Now, a potential alternate timeline. I'm curious whether this is plausible.

1863- The CSA win at Gettysburg and Antietam. Lincoln flees Gettysburg.

1864, with the South in control of Maryland and South Pennsylvania, the South launches an attack on DC and eventually takes it as it is surrounded.]

1865- The CSA agrees to return Washington DC, Maryland, and the areas of Pennsylvania under occupation back to the USA and in Return the CSA is recognized officially as a legal, sovereign nation.

1900- No Spanish-American war happens as the CSA does not care what happens in Cuba while the United States is too far away and both sides are still rebuilding.

1915- As LoE said, the USA supports the Central Powers and the CSA supports the Triple Entente. However, most likely neither side would have cared enough to actually fight because neither nation is all that strong and there is no way the CSA would have been involved in a European war. The USA doesn't exactly like England very much but they continue the doctrine of isolation as Germany, who thinks they have a chance to win the United States to their cause, and the US is not helping England does not sink US vessels.

1920- Without US help it takes longer, but lets assume the Triple Entente would have won anyway, and lets assume a similar treaty to Versailles is signed. I am assuming this to show how Hitler might have been dealt with.

1932 (I think that's right) Hitler's fascists rise in Germany

1941- Japan sneak-attacks the United States, even though they are not helping England at all (Remember, they don't exactly like England.) The CSA, fearing they could be next, signs an alliance with the USA and they team up against Japan and Germany.

1945- As with real life, the Allies win.

Chances are that alliance would have reunified the countries anyway, or if not, travel and trade would likely be free and they would likely both have joined NATO to fight Russia.

So really, life would be slower and segregation and slavery both would have probably lasted another 20 years, and the many variables would likely mean that I would not exist, but otherwise, life today wouldn't have been too bad if the South had won.

I put a lot of effort into this post, so if you disagree, please take the time to debunk it and don't just pass it along because its not worth your time.
It doesn't make sense at 1915 because the CSA and USA would be at war, the USA with its industrial might would vastly overmatch the CSA crushing it within two years.

Japan would have no reason to attack the US, the USA in real life tried to economically strangle Japan
I don't care what you think on the issue. I care what it says in the US constitution:)

And I don't think you grasp how states' rights work. I'd explain it but you'd probably ignore me. However, I'll do it anyway.

The United States is not just a mix of provinces like England, China, or most other major nations. The United States have 50 states, each state have vastly different types of lifestyle, even ones sharing a border. For instance, South Carolina, in the deep south, is quite a bit different from North Carolina, in the not so deep South. And of course, a LOT of people retire to Florida from the North so as half the people don't even consider Florida southern;) Its not just the location on a map, it has to do with cultures.

No territory was forced to join the United States, each state agreed to do so on its own. They didn't have to agree, and logically speaking if the majority of people in a state feel the present government does not suit their needs they can form a new one. If the US tries to stop it, they are invading a sovereign country. Granted, that can be justified, for instance, just for fun, if NYC was so offended by the mosque near ground zero they decided to secede from the US so they can start killing Muslims in genocide, the US army would be well just to invade the new nation and free the Muslims. And, if the federal government actually cared about the slaves and wanted to free them, and didn't have slaves under its own borders, they would have had a right to invade the CSA to free slaves, but not to force them back into the country because they are power-hungry.
The US is, notice that is refers to a singular entity, not the United States are which would mean that it would be multiple entities.

You do realize that the US is almost as big as Europe right? hence there would be a bit of diversity. China was formed by the barrel of a gun hence it is a strongly federal system
 
First of all, that is the definition of liberal nonsense, being one-minded and saying everyone who disagrees "Loves totalitarian government." I may think you are totally wrong but I'll still accept that you believe in liberty even if you are wrong about your way of obtaining it.

As for that being a fantasy, no it isn't, and the constitution implies with the 10th that if its not given to the federal government either the states can make it illegal or nobody can.

If you knew anything about the United States history, you would know that the people who are for states rights have never been for liberty. The whole modern version of states rights exists only because the states wanted to take more liberty from the American people than the US Constitution allows for.
 
Dom said:
You do realize this is opinion right? At least acknowledge that. And the UN has no real power over everyone.
How is it an opinion? Its basic logic. Did they use open legitimate channels to seceed? Nope. THerefore its existance is illegal.

Dom said:
As for that being a fantasy, no it isn't, and the constitution implies with the 10th that if its not given to the federal government either the states can make it illegal or nobody can.
Or to the people. Last I checked no plebescites were held. At the barest minimum for me to even consider a secession potentialy legitimate is for a plebescite to be held, none were held.

Dom said:
You realized they fired on Ft. Sumter right? In south Carolina. South Carolina seceded, the troops remaining in Ft. Sumter was basically the Union trying to occupy the confederates, and IMO they had a right to do it.
Yep. Ft. Sumpter fired on the CSA after the CSA tried to sieze the fort. The commander at Ft. Sumpter was neither stupid or suicidal enough to try and take on an entire state with one garrison.
 
The South warned the Union and told them to leave.

...leave...their own territory? If you were a father, and your son ordered you out of your home, would you leave?

The debate boils down to, was the CSA a sovereign country or rebels. Personally, I think the only argument that they were not a legitimate nation was that only the white males voted in the politicians that seceded. However, as the North had the same bigoted system they didn't really have a right to complain. So, the only way to defend the North's actions was to say they had a right to invade to free the slaves. I would agree, however, the Union had no intentions of doing so. Which is why, ideologically, I support the South. The north wasn't all that much less racist than the South (In the North they still could not vote, were treated as second-class citizens, and often were returned to their masters if they fled from the south.) The Southern state governments, who were elected by the same voting procedures the North used, voted to secede. Nothing in the constitution at that time explicitly forbid secession, and the 10th by default then allowed it. And again, if you want that right to be given to the people and not the states, the people, or such as it was in that time, elected the people who seceded.

Paint it any color you like, the CSA was still just a bunch of traitorous rebels. Moreover, traitorous rebel losers.

Reasons why I am glad the North won:

1. It led to the abolition of slavery, and post 1863 I may well have supported the North on this principle alone, even though Lincoln did not do as much as he could have. Still, slavery would have lasted a long time in the CSA if the South won.

Undoubtedly.

2. It kept the Union united for us today. Life today would be FAR different had the CSA won and most likely I would not be here to discuss it.

Doubtful. Even if the CSA had won in the 1860s, the North would have retaken the CSA in 10 years or so.

Now, a potential alternate timeline. I'm curious whether this is plausible.

Doubtful. You simply are not going to be able to paint a picture in which the CSA retains their sovereignty. The US has the clear advantages in industry and population, and by the 1860s and 70s new markets had opened up for cotton in areas such as Egypt, effectively destroying much of the South's economy. As long as the North is able to maintain their blockade, the South is done. LoE proposed the idea of Britain propping up the South, but as Dachs has shown, this is equally unlikely.

1863- The CSA win at Gettysburg and Antietam. Lincoln flees Gettysburg.

ok

1864, with the South in control of Maryland and South Pennsylvania, the South launches an attack on DC and eventually takes it as it is surrounded.]

fair enough

1865- The CSA agrees to return Washington DC, Maryland, and the areas of Pennsylvania under occupation back to the USA and in Return the CSA is recognized officially as a legal, sovereign nation.

Buut the population and industry is still there. What's to stop Lincoln from picking up and moving the capital elsewhere. And regardless, by this time Grant is handily dealing with the CSA in the western front. Gettysburg was indeed a turning point, but I don't think its loss would have spelled the end for the North as you are suggesting here.

1900- No Spanish-American war happens as the CSA does not care what happens in Cuba while the United States is too far away and both sides are still rebuilding.

I don't see the likelihood of the North needing too much time to rebuild. And as I said previously, what's to stop the North from just taking out the south ten years down the line?

1915- As LoE said, the USA supports the Central Powers and the CSA supports the Triple Entente. However, most likely neither side would have cared enough to actually fight because neither nation is all that strong and there is no way the CSA would have been involved in a European war. The USA doesn't exactly like England very much but they continue the doctrine of isolation as Germany, who thinks they have a chance to win the United States to their cause, and the US is not helping England does not sink US vessels.

Why would they take those sides, specifically? And who's not to say, assuming everything else in WWI occurs according to OTL, that Germany manages to push through in 1918 with Russia out of the war, without gobs of US troops pouring into France?

1920- Without US help it takes longer, but lets assume the Triple Entente would have won anyway, and lets assume a similar treaty to Versailles is signed. I am assuming this to show how Hitler might have been dealt with.

Why? Once again, the problem with this situation is you assume everything happens just the same as OTL.

1932 (I think that's right) Hitler's fascists rise in Germany

And the same year even! Now you aren't even trying...

1941- Japan sneak-attacks the United States, even though they are not helping England at all (Remember, they don't exactly like England.) The CSA, fearing they could be next, signs an alliance with the USA and they team up against Japan and Germany.

See above

1945- As with real life, the Allies win.

Again, see above.

Chances are that alliance would have reunified the countries anyway, or if not, travel and trade would likely be free and they would likely both have joined NATO to fight Russia.

Or, more realistically, the North would have redeclared in the 1870s, and in all likelihood, would have won.

So really, life would be slower and segregation and slavery both would have probably lasted another 20 years, and the many variables would likely mean that I would not exist, but otherwise, life today wouldn't have been too bad if the South had won.

More because you are shaping the outcomes to fit the parameters you want to see happen, and less because of it being a legitimately likely outcome.

I put a lot of effort into this post, so if you disagree, please take the time to debunk it and don't just pass it along because its not worth your time.

If my posts don't come up to snuff, refer to the discussion between LoE and Dachs a couple pages earlier for specifically why a Confederacy survives ACW Alt-Hist really isn't feasible.
 
Owen said:
Or, more realistically, the North would have redeclared in the 1870s, and in all likelihood, would have won.
The north would have undoubtedly won in a second war. The cotton markets had all shifted to Egypt and colonies. The rest of Europe was at best ambivilent toward the CSA and in reality would have been hostile. Europe was at the tail end of the Dual Revolution and they were all in support of equality of all. Russia and Austria possible exceptions but even at this time Austria was in no condition to assist any realisiticaly and Russia was pro-Union. (They even sent ships to help the Union. They didn't want their peasants to get any idea secession could suceed.)
In addition, the best ally the CSA could have gotten, Britian, had already abolished slavery and in many ways would have wanted the CSA to go away so as not to pose any potential challenge to their cotton production in Egypt.
So yeah, the North still would have their industrial and manpower base intact and still have that same advantage over the CSA that let them win the war in the OTL, with an additional ten years to continue improving while the CSA didn't want to industrialize as that would weaken the institution of slavery.
In the Civil War v2 the north would have even greater industrial and manpower base especialy considering the northern territories would have become states and they would likely have European assistance given the political climate. Again, the North would have the naval power to blockade the CSA. If the Battle of the Ironclads was before the split, the north would have been busy building ironclads, something they could do far better than the CSA given their industrial power.
So once again the south loses. Face it, the CSA was doomed from the start. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was sheer luck and having excellent commanders while the north had mediocre ones, later they would also have Grant and a few others.
 
domination3000 said:
1915- as loe said, the usa supports the central powers and the csa supports the triple entente. However, most likely neither side would have cared enough to actually fight because neither nation is all that strong and there is no way the csa would have been involved in a european war. The usa doesn't exactly like england very much but they continue the doctrine of isolation as germany, who thinks they have a chance to win the united states to their cause, and the us is not helping england does not sink us vessels.

what the hell turtledove, what the hell.
 
In my opinion and basicaly everybody else, only the secession was illegal. At the time there was no laws against war. That was only tried (and failed miserably) with the Kellog-Briand Pact in the twenties.
While the war was wrong, (like almost all wars are) it wasn't illegal.
 
Gah, as Owen said the lack of American troops on the Western Front is really big in terms of the grander sense. The war would not have ended in 1918 thats for sure.

WWII, I don't see the Americans getting in the Pacific front the way that they in OTL. Leading to a fall of China, and perhaps an invasion of the USSR by Japan. The war would not have ended in 1945, with a new American front(north versus south) as well as a stronger Japan. If this is totally bull, feel free to debunk me.

*waits for Dachs and the others*
 
So is the Supreme Court of the United States the ultimate arbiter of the US Constitution or not? As a "strict constitutionalist", you should know that answer straight off the top of your head.

Sort of. The states can decide not to enforce it, AKA Missouri. And, SCOTUS affirming its own right to interpret the constitution is circular logic.

Actually the Vatican is to the left of Domination3000

It doesn't make sense at 1915 because the CSA and USA would be at war, the USA with its industrial might would vastly overmatch the CSA crushing it within two years.

Japan would have no reason to attack the US, the USA in real life tried to economically strangle Japan

The US is, notice that is refers to a singular entity, not the United States are which would mean that it would be multiple entities.

You do realize that the US is almost as big as Europe right? hence there would be a bit of diversity. China was formed by the barrel of a gun hence it is a strongly federal system

Why would the US attack the CSA once they were recognized? At that point the world would dogpile the CSA and people would protest the war as the CSA would be recognized.

So the secession was legal but the war wasn't?

We are debating whether secession was legal.

@Owen Glyndwr- Why would the US attack the CSA? And, the Northern citizens would protest such a war if the CSA was recognized, and the border states might secede (Which Maryland might have done IRL if Lincoln didn't illegally suspend Habeus Corpus.)

As for the exact years, I know it would be give or take but any other year would be made up.

As for WWI, neither state would have had reason to get involved.
 
Gah, as Owen said the lack of American troops on the Western Front is really big in terms of the grander sense. The war would not have ended in 1918 thats for sure.

WWII, I don't see the Americans getting in the Pacific front the way that they in OTL. Leading to a fall of China, and perhaps an invasion of the USSR by Japan. The war would not have ended in 1945, with a new American front(north versus south) as well as a stronger Japan. If this is totally bull, feel free to debunk me.

*waits for Dachs and the others*

Odds are the US did not substantially change the outcome of WWI.
 
*waits for Dachs and the others*

You're going to be waiting awhile then.

Odds are the US did not substantially change the outcome of WWI.

I dunno. After the offensive in 1918 was halted in its tracks, both sides were weakened heavily. It seems to me that a.) the offensive was launched primarily because the Germans wanted to end the war before the Americans arrived, and b.) it was the realization that the offensive had failed, and now the Germans faced the prospect of fighting the British, French, and boatloads of fresh US troops who were landing in France daily, that convinced them to surrender.
 
Dom said:
And, SCOTUS affirming its own right to interpret the constitution is circular logic.
What else was SCOTUS supposed to do with its time? Congress and the President approved their decision. Enough said.
Dom said:
We are debating whether secession was legal.
Which, as it already has been decided upon, it wasn't legal. They went through no legal channels, (SCOTUS or Congress) and they didn't even hold a friggen plebescite. It was a bunch of delegates motivated by irrational fear of a possibility who went to war with the Union. If that isn't treason I don't know what is.

EDIT: With regards to WWI, I think Owen is right. Germany could have reached a peace agreement in their favor with the troops from the Russian Front if the US hadn't gotten involved.
 
You're going to be waiting awhile then.



I dunno. After the offensive in 1918 was halted in its tracks, both sides were weakened heavily. It seems to me that a.) the offensive was launched primarily because the Germans wanted to end the war before the Americans arrived, and b.) it was the realization that the offensive had failed, and now the Germans faced the prospect of fighting the British, French, and boatloads of fresh US troops who were landing in France daily, that convinced them to surrender.

I suppose that argument can be made. But I've also seen the argument that it was so close to the end when US troops were there in big enough numbers to matter that the issue was really decided by that point. The Marines stopped the German breakout at Belau Wood, but was that critical? The German economy was on the verge of exhaustion either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom