amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
If you are referring to Fort Sumter, the union armies were illegally (under South Carolina law) occupying part of their territory, just as if England had not forfeited its bases in the 13 colonies.
USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Should this be in the history forums? 
Perfection
The Great Head.
So what? So what if they were violating South Carolina law?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Should this be in the history forums?
No they should just go the library and read up on the topic.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
With the way things worked out, it seems that the south should be glad they were liberated.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Should this be in the history forums?
As I understand it it's not so much a discussion of the historical aspect of the Confederation's attempted split from the Union but as it effects modern political theory.
Shadylookin
master debater
The constitution says nothing about leaving the union. It does however say we can go to war, and places no moral restrictions on when it is acceptable or to what extremes. The south tried to leave the union and the north exercised it's right to pillage and plunder
lutzj
The Last Thing You See
I agree; reduce federal spending across the board.
sophie
Break My Heart
Come on, don't tell me we're doing another one of these threads! And people wonder why posters are getting turned off to OT...
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
I'm tired of all these other crappy southern states bringing Georgia down. You can all go to hell with your secession.
You can apologize for the murdering traitors all you want. Doesn't change the fact that nothing the South did before starting a war can be construed as trying to avoid a war.
Well, could someone clarify if South Carolina actually passed any laws to void land transfers to the former government? Was Fort Sumter legally purchased?
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Look just declare indepedence and sceed from the Union.
Not sure how, since uncompensated takings are a violation of both the US and traitor constitutions.
Quackers
The Frog
Onto washington !!!
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
At the time, Charleston was the South's busiest port city. To permit the Union to man a fort in the harbor was an untenable option. The Union forces were asked to withdraw and refused. This refusal constitutes a hostile action against the South due to the fact that there are only two possible uses for this fortress; to defend the harbor or, in the hands of a hostile force, to blockade it. The Union signaled its hostile intentions by refusing to hand over the fort.
You have started from the assumption that the traitors' position is the correct one; the rest of the post is just onanism to satisfy your own ego from there.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
I have made no assumptions. Whether or not the South in the right, it has zero bearing on whether or not the Union's decision to hold the fort was a hostile act. Rather, you are the one assuming that I intended to imply wrong along with the use of the word 'hostile'. Just because the Union committed a hostile act does not mean that they were not justified in doing so. I only attempted to point out that the first overtly hostile act, in this incident, was committed by the Union. The remainder of your post is just too asinine to bother discussing further.
Okay, so if that's the game you're playing, taking over arsenals, forcing the surrender of a quarter of the United States' men under arms, and occupying fortifications throughout the southeastern states aren't overtly hostile acts, but federal troops occupying federal property is? You got a weird way of looking at the world, libertarian.
