Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,409
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I'm a half-full guy too.

Not by my standards. Moping after a defeated and crushed rebellion in the support of the enslaving of fellow human beings is a glass way half empty to me.

And nations do not fight for union.

Better tell that to Germany, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Ireland, China, and some others. Betcha' good, ol', hard, greenbacks they're going to disagree with you.

That is a perversion of the idea. Unions are voluntary.

And the voluntary theft of a part of that Union is worse than perversion. It's treason.

Otherwise they are no better than a criminal enterprise.
One has to separate the criminal enterprise from the nation resisting their criminal actions.

It's been recorded in all the history books.

Unionblue

Edited; modern and personal references
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Except countries do not blockade their own ports. They close them (by Act of Congress in the US). The US, without a doubt, extended international recognition to the CSA by blockading its ports.
The British recognized the blockade as being within the bounds of international law. SCOTUS in the Prize Cases ruled that Lincoln had the authority to blockade the ports. The concept of Belligerency allows for war against rebels without recognizing them as a sovereign nation.
 

Irishtom29

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
1,628
Location
Sturgeon Lake Mn.
Indeed. And he acted by extending de facto international recognition to the CSA.
Evidently that had little meaning in the real world.

Lookie here; if the rebellion was a nation it was a ****ed feeble one. It never established independence and enjoyed peace, never enjoyed the recognition of established nations, never enjoyed unfettered trade, was unable to establish and protect its borders and was unable to establish a most important thing to nationhood; a social and political culture that could last even after the crushing of the rebellion. Had the rebellion been a true nation it still would be.

Edited; personal remarks and non-ACW references
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,652
Location
Denmark
The Southern people were in rebellion in the United States between 1861 to 1865.
The Southern States were never sovereign from the Union.
Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were United States Citizens in defiance to United States Law.
Jefferson Davis was not a President of a sovereign nation because the CSA did not exist.
Robert E. Lee was not a commissioned officer in a sovereign nation's army because the CSA did not exist.
Treason trials of both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee was not in the best interest of the United States after the civil war.
I would say they where de facto sovereign for about 4 years, but never de jure sovereign.

but so did other rebellions in others countries now and the past had, but that does not make them sovereign. What about being recognized as a nation by other nations. World opinion counts?
Nations don't recognize each other.
States do.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
So you assert. But evidently that had little meaning in the real world.

Lookie here; if the rebellion was a nation it was a ****ed feeble one. It never enjoyed peace, never enjoyed the recognition of established nations, never enjoyed unfettered trade and was unable to establish its borders and finally, what matters most, unable to establish a most important thing to nationhood; a social and political culture that could last even after the crushing of the rebellion.

Contrast my last point to true nations like Poland and Ireland.

A feeble nation that killed 350,000 of the enemy and took four years to defeat. That's some feeble nation.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,652
Location
Denmark
Sympathy or not, the constitution does not prohibit secession..
But it do prohibit unilateral secession by making it clear that it is congress that have the authority to change the makeup of the union.
That is not up to the states... or the president.

To add something the the union congress simply pass a bill. Allowing a state to leave should be doable by the same procedure.
But a state or territory can't just add it self to the Union and then it obviusly can't just remove it self, with out asking the rest of the union for permission.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
But it do prohibit unilateral secession by making it clear that it is congress that have the authority to change the makeup of the union.
That is not up to the states... or the president.

To add something the the union congress simply pass a bill. Allowing a state to leave should be doable by the same procedure.
But a state or territory can't just add it self to the Union and then it obviusly can't just remove it self, with out asking the rest of the union for permission.

It does no such thing. The states unilaterally and voluntarily acceded to the union, and in the absence of a constitutional provision, and consistent with the right to alter and abolish systems of government, each and every state held the right to political independence.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,409
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
No, as the Kentucky slave-master said (while whipping and raping his slaves with impunity) "might makes right".
See, there's that "glass half-empty" theory again! :wink:

Lincoln meant being on the right side, morally and historically, made up the might of the United States, and those who seceded to defend and extend slavery were in the "might makes right" catagory.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Quite feeble. Tiny Ireland and Holy Poland have suffered far worse disasters and deluges over hundreds of years, not a mere four years, yet never lost the flame of nationhood and today exist as independent states. Nothing feeble there.
I don't think the 350,000 union dead would agree that the CSA was feeble. Nor would their widows, mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers and children of the dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top