USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)

[GhostWriter16]

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.

I could be wrong, but I think he's just trying to see South Carolina's side of this.

I honestly thought both sides were crap. But the Confederacy's crap was, at that time, Constitutionally protected crap.

I think its arguable that South Carolina's actions could have been considered an attack, but its just an excuse really. The Confederacy asked the Union to leave, the Union refused, so the CSA fired. It was a logical decision, otherwise the Union could have (And would have) easily invaded South Carolina.

As to whether secession was right, I don't think so, but I really don't care. The North didn't care about the slaves. The South did not care about the slaves. Nobody cared about them (I meant their well-being, not their economic usage.) It was about politics and economics related to slavery, as well as other issues, but not about slavery's morals.

I think I could support the North after the Emancipation Proclamation, and its one of the reasons I admire Lincoln so much even though I thought the North was crap. I would be OK with it if the North invaded to liberate the black slaves, but it wasn't, it was powermongering.

It is arguable that since the leaders who supported secession were only elected by white males, the secession was invalid, and I'd buy it today, but not back then since the Northern leaders, who went to war with the South, were elected by only white males as well.

So, while I don't really support the Confederacy, they were legally within their rights at that time. The North wanted power over the South, the South wanted power over the Slaves, and the slaves just wanted to be free and have a chance. The Slaves deserved to win, but they weren't fighting. If the slaves decided to overthrow the Confederacy, go for them! If the North wanted to go in and stop the South's oppression of the slaves, go for them! But they didn't, they wanted power over the South, and they didn't care much if it crushed the slaves more. They were only pro abolition as much as modern moderate Republicans are pro-life, maybe in theory, but they didn't and don't care much.

So, in short, as deplorable as the South was, they had constitutional rights to do what they did. So they had the HIGHER moral ground. I am willing to accept the possiblity that the Emancipation Proclemation turned that situation around, but until then, the South was more right. But neither side was very good. I would not have fought for either side unless drafted.

 

[Ajidica]

So, in short, as deplorable as the South was, they had constitutional rights to do what they did.

And the north had the Constitutional right to beat the south into the ground like the traitors they were.

So they had the HIGHER moral ground.

So if I seceed to establish a racist, genocidal, fascist dictatorship, do I have the higher moral ground?

 

[GhostWriter16]

And the north had the Constitutional right to beat the south into the ground like the traitors they were.

Congress didn't declare war, and there was no security issue... (I know there wasn't technically one with Iraq either, so I guess that wasn't technically legal either.)

Also, the North invaded the South for power so they had no right.

So if I seceed to establish a racist, genocidal, fascist dictatorship, do I have the higher moral ground?

If the United States was already a racist, genocidal, fascist dictatorship (But still technically had a constitution that allowed secession) then yes.

That's like comparing Hitler and Kim Jong IL though. Hitler is worse sure, but that's comparing two genocidal maniacs, so nobody REALLY has any kind of "Moral high ground."

I guess that's arguably true for the Civil War as well. But the CSA was better.

 

[Dachs]

How does one declare war on an entity that is not a sovereign state (like the CSA)?

 

[CaptainF]

Long story short, freedom hating terrorists lost. Go america!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Long story short, freedom hating terrorists lost won. Go america!

Suspension of Habeus Corpus in Maryland tends to agree

@Dachs- Is America a sovereign state? We had no more "Legitimacy as a state" then the CSA did. We seceded from England and the CSA seceded from us. We declared ourselves a state, they declared themselves a state.

Whether you think America was more morally justified or not (I'd say yes, the CSA's actions were much more debatable), you have to say either both WERE countries or neither were (Or still are) countries.

 

[Dachs]

Suspension of Habeus Corpus in Maryland tends to agree

@Dachs- Is America a sovereign state? We had no more "Legitimacy as a state" then the CSA did. We seceded from England and the CSA seceded from us. We declared ourselves a state, they declared themselves a state.

Whether you think America was more morally justified or not (I'd say yes, the CSA's actions were much more debatable), you have to say either both WERE countries or neither were (Or still are) countries.

I do not consider the United States of America to have been a sovereign state until 1783.

Have a nice evening.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I do not consider the United States of America to have been a sovereign state until 1783.

Have a nice evening.

Well, I consider it to have been on July 4, 1776. But that aside, what if the CSA won? Would you not consider them traitors?

 

[Dachs]

Nope, I'd still have considered them traitors, rather like the Founders, but unlike the Founders, the traitor states would still have lacked the armor of USA #1, as it were.

This is getting off of the original topic (as usual). Get back to the ACW and why the traitor states sucked.

 

[Masada]

Question: Was Vichy France a treasonous entity?

 

[.Shane.]

lol, another one of these fine threads.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Well, I consider it to have been on July 4, 1776. But that aside, what if the CSA won? Would you not consider them traitors?

What if they had won?

Well they didn't...

The cold hard fact is that the Union won and as such that marks the CSA as traitors.

Hell, I'm from bleeding Texas and I don't care for this Confederate load; we can argue over who was in the right and who was in the wrong but at the end of the day the Union will still have been the victors and most everyone will consider the CSA traitors.

Were they traitors? I don't know, and perhaps I'm just a little daft in Civil War history as of late, but the entire cause of their succession seems a bit petty and ultimately despicable.

 

[innonimatu]

Not sure how, since uncompensated takings are a violation of both the US and traitor constitutions.

I know that you don't consider the CSA to have been a sovereign state, but because you mention its constitution above it seems to me that your argument addresses the issue as if they were one. In that case, the argument is wrong.
If the territory of a base is part of a sovereign nation but happens to be owned by another nation, the sovereign nation can still apply any laws it cares about to regulate its use by the owner. Namely, "you won't station an army there".

It seems to me that (assuming the CSA was a sovereign state) it would be perfectly legal and reasonable to demand the evacuation of those bases by all foreign military personnel. That had nothing to do with the legal issue of ownership of the land.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, I consider it to have been on July 4, 1776. But that aside, what if the CSA won? Would you not consider them traitors?

Freedom Fighters !

 

[Dachs]

I know that you don't consider the CSA to have been a sovereign state, but because you mention its constitution above it seems to me that your argument addresses the issue as if they were one. In that case, the argument is wrong.
If the territory of a base is part of a sovereign nation but happens to be owned by another nation, the sovereign nation can still apply any laws it cares about to regulate its use by the owner. Namely, "you won't station an army there".

It seems to me that (assuming the CSA was a sovereign state) it would be perfectly legal and reasonable to demand the evacuation of those bases by all foreign military personnel. That had nothing to do with the legal issue of ownership of the land.

I don't particularly care for the pretensions of the traitor states to have had a government; it was rather preemptive junk about the sort of things that apologists would have brought up.

As for the other stuff, well, that might matter if all the traitor states were demanding was the evacuation of the territory, but they weren't.

 

[Masada]

What if they had won?

Chattelslavery4lyfe.

The cold hard fact is that the Union won and as such that marks the CSA as traitors.

No, losing an election and retreating home to ferment a civil war before Lincoln had even reached office is rather, well, treasonable. If the Aryan nation had done the same for Obama I think we might have had a perfectly good analogue for how bad it really was.

Were they traitors? I don't know, and perhaps I'm just a little daft in Civil War history as of late, but the entire cause of their succession seems a bit petty and ultimately despicable.

This however is how it should be seen.

 

[JohnRM]

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.

To start, I willfully abandoned the label of libertarian publicly, quite a while ago, already. Beyond that, I qualified my remark with use of the phrase, "in this incident", which marks the beginning of the war. Even so, the legislatures representing the people of those lands decided against the presence of a foreign power within their own lands. There is no wrong in that.

If you'd like me to address the matter of the South's secession, I can do that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

[Masada]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Chattelslavery4lyfe!

 

[Dachs]

To start, I willfully abandoned the label of libertarian publicly, quite a while ago, already. Beyond that, I qualified my remark with use of the phrase, "in this incident", which marks the beginning of the war. Even so, the legislatures representing the people of those lands decided against the presence of a foreign power within their own lands. There is no wrong in that.

So you're arbitrarily ignoring all of the crap the traitor states pulled before the Fort Sumter incident just so you can pin the blame on the Federals. Good for you. I fail to see how the federal government was a "foreign power" in its own territory.

If you'd like me to address the matter of the South's secession, I can do that.

[Rantings of some Virginia slaver]

Has no standing in American law.

 

[Cutlass]

What if they had won?

Well they didn't...

The cold hard fact is that the Union won and as such that marks the CSA as traitors.

Hell, I'm from bleeding Texas and I don't care for this Confederate load; we can argue over who was in the right and who was in the wrong but at the end of the day the Union will still have been the victors and most everyone will consider the CSA traitors.

Were they traitors? I don't know, and perhaps I'm just a little daft in Civil War history as of late, but the entire cause of their succession seems a bit petty and ultimately despicable.

That's because it was.