The American Civil War

[Laerod]

Did you not read the link I posted? South Carolina, not the Federal Government, gave the area Ft. Sumter was built on to the Federal Government. The Government of South Carolina gave the United States that property.

No, why? A foreign power might consider their position untenable and abandon something they have a legal right to or the new government of the independent area might let an agreement run out. Neither of those applies here though. A country is still the successor to its predecessors' agreements; commitments don't just vanish because there's new management.

The Federal government at the time was made up of a collective that included South Carolina. When South Carolina becomes independent it's not new management, it's old management dividing. In essence a little bit of the federal government gets broken off and the new government is the successor to that (as it's the successor of all levels of government in South Carolina) not just the state government.

South Carolina is bound to South Carolina agreements. Prove me wrong by citing the relevant laws.

[Forsakia]

When governments think someone's occupying land illegally they usually move them off it, but with Guantanamo they can't.

Rightly so, because it would in violation of the terms of our lease, which is still valid.

The terms of the lease made at the point of the guns of the American troops that were in situ. The justification was effectively still 'we have a bigger army than you'.

[Laerod]

Rightly so, because it would in violation of the terms of our lease, which is still valid.

The terms of the lease made at the point of the guns of the American troops that were in situ. The justification was effectively still 'we have a bigger army than you'.

The 1934 Treaty was signed at gunpoint? Source it or it's bullshit.

[Forsakia]

The Federal government at the time was made up of a collective that included South Carolina. When South Carolina becomes independent it's not new management, it's old management dividing. In essence a little bit of the federal government gets broken off and the new government is the successor to that (as it's the successor of all levels of government in South Carolina) not just the state government.

South Carolina is bound to South Carolina agreements. Prove me wrong by citing the relevant laws.

The relevant laws don't exist because the USA doesn't legally recognise the right of seccession. That doesn't mean seccession is necessarily illegitimate.

[Fedeledland]

I would fight for the CSA, I would fight for anyone but Lincoln, I would fight for the Indians slaughtering innocent white people if it meant Lincoln wouldnt have won. Lincoln was one of the worst people in history and I would fight against him and his spitting on the constitution.

Anyways, I do like a lot of the South's struggle but Slavery...

So what would end up in most Mexican territory.

[Laerod]

South Carolina is bound to South Carolina agreements. Prove me wrong by citing the relevant laws.

The relevant laws don't exist because the USA doesn't legally recognise the right of seccession. That doesn't mean seccession is necessarily illegitimate.

No, man. Find me the relevant American or international law that allows you to break legally binding agreements. If it doesn't exist it means that you're not allowed to.

[PapaJacky]

The relevant laws don't exist because the USA doesn't legally recognise the right of seccession. That doesn't mean seccession is necessarily illegitimate.

No, man. Find me the relevant American or international law that allows you to break legally binding agreements. If it doesn't exist it means that you're not allowed to.

You have it the other way around. It's allowed if it's unopposed.

[Forsakia]

The terms of the lease made at the point of the guns of the American troops that were in situ. The justification was effectively still 'we have a bigger army than you'.

The 1934 Treaty was signed at gunpoint? Source it or it's bullshit.

I'm trying to catch up on Guantanamo via google since you dropped it in to the thread, was referring to the 1903 treaty. The 1934 treaty was apparently pushed through by the US simply helping a pro-US candidate gain power.

[Laerod]

No, man. Find me the relevant American or international law that allows you to break legally binding agreements. If it doesn't exist it means that you're not allowed to.

You have it the other way around. It's allowed if it's unopposed.

Not sure if sarcastic...

[Wamitoria]

South Carolina is bound to South Carolina agreements. Prove me wrong by citing the relevant laws.

The relevant laws don't exist because the USA doesn't legally recognise the right of seccession. That doesn't mean seccession is necessarily illegitimate.

No, it does.

[Forsakia]

The relevant laws don't exist because the USA doesn't legally recognise the right of seccession. That doesn't mean seccession is necessarily illegitimate.

No, man. Find me the relevant American or international law that allows you to break legally binding agreements. If it doesn't exist it means that you're not allowed to.

If you want to treat it like a private landowner then it'd some form of eminent domain type law that'd come into play.

[Forsakia]

The relevant laws don't exist because the USA doesn't legally recognise the right of seccession. That doesn't mean seccession is necessarily illegitimate.

No, it does.

It does recognise it or it does make it illegitimate?

[Wamitoria]

No, it does.

It does recognise it or it does make it illegitimate?

It makes it illegitimate. If you claim the right to secede, your opponent objects, and they kick your ass, you really have no claim to any "right" to secede.

[Laerod]

No, man. Find me the relevant American or international law that allows you to break legally binding agreements. If it doesn't exist it means that you're not allowed to.

If you want to treat it like a private landowner then it'd some form of eminent domain type law that'd come into play.

Oh wow. Why would you even think eminent domain would be remotely applicable?

[Laerod]

No, it does.

It does recognise it or it does make it illegitimate?

It's recognized. Texas v. White retroactively established the circumstances under which secession is legal: 1) with permission from the rest of the Union, and 2) if you win your war of independence.

[Wamitoria]

If you want to treat it like a private landowner then it'd some form of eminent domain type law that'd come into play.

Oh wow. Why would you even think eminent domain would be remotely applicable?

Because foreign territory is obviously like land for a projected highway. Especially if they don't recognize your right to exist.

[Forsakia]

It does recognise it or it does make it illegitimate?

It makes it illegitimate. If you claim the right to secede, your opponent objects, and they kick your ass, you really have no claim to any "right" to secede.

Purely might is right then? Even if the majority of the local population wanted to secede it's only force of arms that makes their right legitimate?

I think that a newly independent government essentially is the successor to the former government at all levels and the federal government isn't just like a private landholder.

If you insist on treating them as one, then it's fairly common for governments around the world, including the US to have laws that allow them to take possession of land without the owner's consent.

[Laerod]

It makes it illegitimate. If you claim the right to secede, your opponent objects, and they kick your ass, you really have no claim to any "right" to secede.

Purely might is right then? Even if the majority of the local population wanted to secede it's only force of arms that makes their right legitimate?

I think that a newly independent government essentially is the successor to the former government at all levels and the federal government isn't just like a private landholder.

If you insist on treating them as one, then it's fairly common for governments around the world, including the US to have laws that allow them to take possession of land without the owner's consent.

Strawman argument.

[Genivaria]

It makes it illegitimate. If you claim the right to secede, your opponent objects, and they kick your ass, you really have no claim to any "right" to secede.

Purely might is right then? Even if the majority of the local population wanted to secede it's only force of arms that makes their right legitimate?

That much has been obvious since the dawn of humanity.

[Wamitoria]

Purely might is right then? Even if the majority of the local population wanted to secede it's only force of arms that makes their right legitimate?

Pretty much.

Everything else is sentimental bullshit that we tell ourselves so that we don't feel like sociopaths.

[Forsakia]

Purely might is right then? Even if the majority of the local population wanted to secede it's only force of arms that makes their right legitimate?

I think that a newly independent government essentially is the successor to the former government at all levels and the federal government isn't just like a private landholder.

If you insist on treating them as one, then it's fairly common for governments around the world, including the US to have laws that allow them to take possession of land without the owner's consent.

Strawman argument.

Eh?

[Laerod]

Strawman argument.

Eh?

I'll elaborate. Neither I nor Wamitoria made the claim that the Federal government or a foreign power are remotely like a civilian landowner in a legal sense. The Federal government owning Ft. Sumter and Guantanamo Bay does not in anyway imply that they may be treated like an individual that has bought property. As such, neither of us have insisted on treating them like a private landholder.

Therefore, your argument was a strawman you pieced together yourself and pretended we had made.

[Forsakia]

Eh?

I'll elaborate. Neither I nor Wamitoria made the claim that the Federal government or a foreign power are remotely like a civilian landowner in a legal sense. The Federal government owning Ft. Sumter and Guantanamo Bay does not in anyway imply that they may be treated like an individual that has bought property. As such, neither of us have insisted on treating them like a private landholder.

Therefore, your argument was a strawman you pieced together yourself and pretended we had made.

Ok, I'm mistaken. Would you like to elaborate what category you would place them in?

[Laerod]

I'll elaborate. Neither I nor Wamitoria made the claim that the Federal government or a foreign power are remotely like a civilian landowner in a legal sense. The Federal government owning Ft. Sumter and Guantanamo Bay does not in anyway imply that they may be treated like an individual that has bought property. As such, neither of us have insisted on treating them like a private landholder.

Therefore, your argument was a strawman you pieced together yourself and pretended we had made.

Ok, I'm mistaken. Would you like to elaborate what category you would place them in?

Governments are by definition public institutions. It's kinda obvious that they're not private individuals so treating them as such is idiotic.

[The UK in Exile]

The Union had the advantage of materiel, men, and transport, but a good general could have easily changed the war in the Confederacy's side.

Those advantages are pretty massive. The only reason the South did as well as it did in the War is because Lee and a lot of other good Officers from the South defected to fight for the Confederacy. I'm not sure what imaginary Super General could have turned the tide where they failed.

I've heard it said the south had better generals, I've always wondered who they meant, once you eliminate Lee and Jackson on the Confederate side and Sherman plus Grant on the Union side it seems a pretty similar level of quality.