1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Was Secession an act of war or rebellion

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by StrikingViking, Mar 3, 2018.

  1. StrikingViking

    StrikingViking Private

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Messages:
    226
    They chose secession. You'll have to prove that secession was an act of war or rebellion, rather than simply the sovereign domain of nation-states.

    It cannot be assumed that the Union was national; and Lincoln wasn't even correct in his claim of the following:

    The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.


    The Declaration of Independence, refers to the United Colonies, that were simply the 13 Colonies; meanwhile the Articles of Association simply formed a trade-group that was expressly loyal to Great Britain, so "the Union" of which he spoke was quite fictitious. On the contrary, the group formed by the Articles of Association, was not known as "The Union," but "The Continental Association--" or just "the Association."
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. contestedground

    contestedground First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    There are people who believe this. Sometimes they mistakenly state it as uncontested fact.

    Still waiting for the explanation that the Confederacy would have abolished slavery ... clearly all those Black Confederates were merely the first step.
     
  4. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Attacking Fort Sumter was an act of war.
     
  5. StrikingViking

    StrikingViking Private

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Messages:
    226
    If this is a mistake, then someone ought to be able to prove that the states united as a single nation-state, and not separate nation-states. It's interesting and ironic that your tag-phrase is "Too many people confuse opinion, argument, and fact. They often think the first is a sufficient substitute for the second and third. The hypocrisy of moderation on matters of principle was palpable."
    Hypocrisy, indeed. Lincoln had his own version of events that different from quite a piece from the way they actually happened, but this was no problem when the truth was silenced under censorship.

    Right along with all those express acts uniting the states as a single nation-state, that some claim exist-- since that's the only way that the states could have united as a single nation-state; meanwhile I never said a word about "black confederates".

    But I already explained why the CSA would end slavery: "it's the economy, sir."
    It worked just fine to end slavery on every other nation on Earth; but some seem to be claiming the CSA as an unexplained exception.
    Edited.
     
  6. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    For the purpose of this thread, you are the party with the separate nation-states assertion, it is your burden of proof to prove.
     
  7. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Evidence please, all I see is opinions.
     
    leftyhunter and WJC like this.
  8. WJC

    WJC Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2015
    Messages:
    8,282
    Can you provide evidence that other scholars support the assertion that Lincoln was wrong in claiming that the Union was formed by the Articles of Association in 1774?
     
  9. major bill

    major bill Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    Messages:
    12,879
    Many like to think that the firing on Fort Sumter was the start of the War. One could say the seizing of U.S. forts prior to the firing on Fort Sumter were acts of war. But as long as the US did not fight back one could say there was no war. So firing on Fort Sumter could well be seen as the start of the War.

    I am not sure secession in its self is an act of war. Unilateral secession is probably an act of rebellion.
     
  10. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    From the articles of association.

    We, his Majesty's most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina,
    .....
    The foregoing association being determined upon by the Congress, was ordered to be subscribed by the several members thereof; and thereupon, we have hereunto set our respective names accordingly.

    A union is an action or fact of joining or being joined, especially in a political context. The Articles of Association formed a union when the colonies joined together in a political context to achieve several objectives.
    Effects
    However, the true long-term success of the Association was in its effective direction of collective action among the colonies and expression of their common interests. This recognition of union by the Association, and its firm stance that the colonies and their people had rights that were being infringed by Britain, made it a direct precursor to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which by contrast repudiated the authority of the king once it was clear that no other solution would preserve the asserted rights of the colonies.​
     
  11. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Act of War
    An act of war is an action or event that justifies a state's declaration of war in just war theory or under international law. It may be described as a casus belli or foederis depending on whether the state itself or its allies are initially harmed.
    The attack on Fort Sumter appears to qualify as an act of war under the above definition. The other offenses do not rise to the level of the definition IMHO.
     
    JerseyBart, WJC and major bill like this.
  12. StrikingViking

    StrikingViking Private

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Messages:
    226
    Which begs the question that there was a war, which in turn begs the question that United States was a sovereign nation state and that the individual states were not.
    Lincoln invaded with the false claim that "the Union" was created in 1774 under the Articles of Association, which then claimed National sovereignty as a single nation state in 1776.
    However the only organization fitting this description would be the Continental Association, which had nothing to do with Collective Independence of the colonies as a single nation state, and everything to do with loyalists opposition to certain parliamentary actions through organized boycotts.
    On the contrary, the only unions referenced in the Declaration of Independence, are the United States and the United Colonies, which did not seek Collective Independence as a single nation state but on the contrary as free, Suffern, independent states with the "full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states may of right do."
    Of course, Lincoln's answer to the truth, was same answer of all dictators and terrorists: to suppress it under the claim of treason.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
    Rebforever, Viper21 and uaskme like this.
  13. StrikingViking

    StrikingViking Private

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Messages:
    226
    There you go again, with the fallacy of arguing from Authority.
    The question is, can you support your assertion that "Scholars" are on-point with the facts? If you are at all interested in facts, that is.
    If not, I will have to simply cite the Declaration of Independence, which makes no mention of the Continental Association of 1774, but only the United Colonies, and the United States, while expressly declaring and describing them as separately and individually sovereign nation-states.
    Not collectively as a single nation state, as Lincoln claims.
     
  14. StrikingViking

    StrikingViking Private

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Messages:
    226
    And which conveniently neglected to mention the Continental Association of 1774. Rather, the Declaration of Independence claims to represent the United States, and declares the United Colonies to be free, and independent states, with "the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states may of right do."
    So your argument is academic, not legal. Each state was named and made a separate nation state unto itself, and their unions were purely International.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
    Rebforever, Viper21 and uaskme like this.
  15. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    What happens throughout history when illegal rebellions fail.

    Consoldidated national seems to be Madison and Jefferson's intent.
     
  16. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    In short, you agree with Lincoln when the union started, but disagree on the composition of the union.
    Academically the union started when Lincoln said it did, only later did the union decided on the type of arrangement it would have. Unless you are asserting that the DOI gathered international recognition upon its issue, then international recognization was at a later time.
     
    WJC likes this.
  17. O' Be Joyful

    O' Be Joyful Sergeant Major

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,221
    Uhh...did those whom penned the DoI break some established "rule(s) of Nation-States" that existed in 1776? If so, I can see where this would be considered ground-breaking and of great importance to this discussion and chilling evidence of your premise.

    Just where is one to find these rules that I, and I am sure many of those that are viewing and judging for themselves the merits of your theories, have no knowledge of. References to these and other forms of evidence would be most helpful...That is if one is too take the ideas proposed here seriously and not view this as a "form of modern politics--like war--by other means."
     
  18. WJC

    WJC Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2015
    Messages:
    8,282
    Thanks for your response.
    No, I am simply asking if anyone else at least as well versed as you in our Constitution and the predecessor documents have reached the same conclusions that you espouse. Are we to treat your views as accepted by scholars or your unsupported opinions.
    Further, since you want us to listen to your assertions- assertions that fly in the face of generally accepted views- you must convince us that they are worthy of our attention.
     
  19. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    One of the dearest freedoms of this honorable blog is the freedom, not to respond.
     
    contestedground and WJC like this.
  20. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brev. Brig. Gen'l Forum Host Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,997
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    I agree
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. However, Laplace writes: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[1] Also, David Humewrote in 1748: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence", and "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."[2] and Marcello Truzzi says: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."[3]
     
  21. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,695
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Secession is not rebellion. Rebellion is rebellion, and it became a rebellion when the Southern states fired on Sumter.
     
    jgoodguy and leftyhunter like this.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)