The American Civil War

[Forsakia]

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.

This would be a foreign government though. What basis are they possessing the land?

[Artanili Datium]

Union.

States rights are a joke.

[Tmutarakhan]

I don't know, Cuba got screwed out of that land in the first place, america imposed some really bullshit terms of Cuban independence, the bay area is part of that. That agreement was torn it (and rightly so) by Castro and his ilk

Cuba never owned that land. Spain did. We gave independence to Cuba, and if they don't like the way we did it, they can revert to Spain.

[Myrensis]

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.

That might be valid if we were talking about a peaceful division, but when you engage in open rebellion against the lawful government you kind of lose the right to argue about legal niceties. Which is another point, there was no disenfranchisement of the South,they had absolutely free and fair access to all the normal modes of political and legal redress through the government. The entire Civil War was essentially one massive, bloody tantrum over the fact that they lost and decided that treason and violence were preferable to seeking changes or redress through elections or the courts. For that alone they deserved to get their teeth kicked in, even if their driving motivation hadn't been preserving their right to hold other human beings in chattel slavery.

[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.

That might be valid if we were talking about a peaceful division, but when you engage in open rebellion against the lawful government you kind of lose the right to argue about legal niceties. Which is another point, there was no disenfranchisement of the South,they had absolutely free and fair access to all the normal modes of political and legal redress through the government. The entire Civil War was essentially one massive, bloody tantrum over the fact that they lost and decided that treason and violence were preferable to seeking changes or redress through elections or the courts. For that alone they deserved to get their teeth kicked in, even if their driving motivation hadn't been preserving their right to hold other human beings in chattel slavery.

Seccession is like voting, doing it for a bad reason doesn't invalidate the right to do it.

[Myrensis]

Seccession is like voting, doing it for a bad reason doesn't invalidate the right to do it.

As of Texas v. White there is no right to secession. And voting for bad reasons is one thing, voting for bad reasons then shooting at the candidate you don't like is another.

[Tmutarakhan]

That might be valid if we were talking about a peaceful division, but when you engage in open rebellion against the lawful government you kind of lose the right to argue about legal niceties. Which is another point, there was no disenfranchisement of the South,they had absolutely free and fair access to all the normal modes of political and legal redress through the government. The entire Civil War was essentially one massive, bloody tantrum over the fact that they lost and decided that treason and violence were preferable to seeking changes or redress through elections or the courts. For that alone they deserved to get their teeth kicked in, even if their driving motivation hadn't been preserving their right to hold other human beings in chattel slavery.

Seccession is like voting, doing it for a bad reason doesn't invalidate the right to do it.

What right? You're saying that every time you lose an election, you just have to declare "I'm not part of the country anymore so the laws don't apply to me"?

[Alternate Universe 912]

Seccession is like voting, doing it for a bad reason doesn't invalidate the right to do it.

What right? You're saying that every time you lose an election, you just have to declare "I'm not part of the country anymore so the laws don't apply to me"?

Actually no. You only get to do it once, unless they take you back.

[Tmutarakhan]

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?

Recognition by others is what counts as "legitimacy". If there is no peaceful arrangement with the country you want to break off from, force of arms is generally required to obtain that level of respect. It helps of course if your cause looks worthy to detached outsiders who might even assist you with the force-of-arms part.

[Forsakia]

Seccession is like voting, doing it for a bad reason doesn't invalidate the right to do it.

As of Texas v. White there is no right to secession. And voting for bad reasons is one thing, voting for bad reasons then shooting at the candidate you don't like is another.

Governments have rarely been fond of laying out the right of secession in law (or practice for that matter). One man's traitor is another's freedom fighter and all that.

Democracy is founded on the consent of the governed, if this consent is lacking (for whatever reason good or bad) then they can legitimately secede. The shooting is a separate issue.

Of course the civil war forms another example of governments being less than keen on allowing secession and the practical reality is often (though not always) that you need to defend your right with force of arms. But then that's true of many rights.

[The UK in Exile]

its actually founded on the rule of law. appropriately enough.

[Tmutarakhan]

Democracy is founded on the consent of the governed.

It requires that the losers, as well as the winners, be bound by the election results.

[Cheyanne Alliance]

I would have fired at Union soldiers for supporting that useless cock Lincoln and pissing all over the constitution. I would have fired on the confederates for being tyrannical savages and trying to justify enslaving human beings. Neither was worthy of loyalty. Both gov'ts should have been rounded up and shot. Then our grandparents should have done what was right morally and constitutionally. I do however support stronger state rights. Screw republicans for being typical bastards and taking state rights away, and dems for being typical bastards and supporting the republicans positions and making them even worse to this day.

[Zathganastan]

Democracy is founded on the consent of the governed, if this consent is lacking (for whatever reason good or bad) then they can legitimately secede. The shooting is a separate issue.

So people should have the right to secede every time they don't get their way, because that's a very affront to the idea's of democracy.Democracy requires everyone to work together and not just quiet every time someone doesn't get what they want.

[TaQud]

Union.

States rights are a joke.

Not really.

[Tmutarakhan]

Union.

States rights are a joke.

Not really.

Yes, really. Just not a very funny one.

[Zathganastan]

I would have fired at Union soldiers for supporting that useless cock Lincoln and pissing all over the constitution. I would have fired on the confederates for being tyrannical savages and trying to justify enslaving human beings. Neither was worthy of loyalty. Both gov'ts should have been rounded up and shot. Then our grandparents should have done what was right morally and constitutionally. I do however support stronger state rights. Screw republicans for being typical bastards and taking state rights away, and dems for being typical bastards and supporting the republicans positions and making them even worse to this day.

How was Lincoln pissing over the constitution when every thing he did during his presidency was perfectly within his rights as the commander in chief.Also I don't think you understand how politic's of this era worked the Republican's were a small time political party that wanted to stop the spread of slavery, that's the so called states right the confederates kept going on about.while the democratic party of the time wanted to expand it with the two sides constantly coming into conflict.

[Republic of Tropical Partiers]

No he wasn't. His primary strategy was effectively the same as Zapp Brannagan, namely: "throw wave after wave of my own men until they hit their preset kill limit"

Now it worked brilliantly, but that's because that's effectively what one needs to do to embrace a numbers and material advantage, which the Union lacked in any of his predecessors.

Though, Grant was much more badass because he fought the whole war completely drunk,

nope. it always appears that way because casual interest stops and ends on the battlefield. Grant's movement and strategic efforts off the battlefield were first rate.
wether he was or had been a drunk, there was never a suggestion that he was drunk on the field.

so none of that is true.

Weren't most of the large strategic manveuvering and planning handled by Winfield Scott?

[The UK in Exile]

nope. it always appears that way because casual interest stops and ends on the battlefield. Grant's movement and strategic efforts off the battlefield were first rate.
wether he was or had been a drunk, there was never a suggestion that he was drunk on the field.

so none of that is true.

Weren't most of the large strategic manveuvering and planning handled by Winfield Scott?

no.

[Sovietta]

I would've supported the Union because the Confederates illegally seceded from the Union and kept slavery.

[Myrensis]

Democracy is founded on the consent of the governed, if this consent is lacking (for whatever reason good or bad) then they can legitimately secede. The shooting is a separate issue.

At what point do you draw the line? Is there a minimum number of people who need to be pissed about not getting their way in a democracy, or can any random individual decide that any time an election or law doesn't meet their approval they are now being governed without their consent and can just declare independence and use force to defend their sovereignty? Democracy is founded on the will of the majority, while maintaining protections for the rights of the minority, not "Any time I don't get what I want it's intolerable tyranny and they can take their democracy and stuff it!"

[Seangoli]

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.

That might be valid if we were talking about a peaceful division, but when you engage in open rebellion against the lawful government you kind of lose the right to argue about legal niceties. Which is another point, there was no disenfranchisement of the South,they had absolutely free and fair access to all the normal modes of political and legal redress through the government. The entire Civil War was essentially one massive, bloody tantrum over the fact that they lost and decided that treason and violence were preferable to seeking changes or redress through elections or the courts. For that alone they deserved to get their teeth kicked in, even if their driving motivation hadn't been preserving their right to hold other human beings in chattel slavery.

And the absolute silly thing is that the Republicans hadn't even done much of anything by the time that South Carolina started the whole idiotic affair. Lincoln was pretty apparent in his willingness to appease the South, and it was rather obvious they were all bark and no bite (The Republicans). The South seceded because they thought that there maybe, just maybe, would be some bad news coming their way because they couldn't muster the votes (Which is pretty fucking hilarious as their slaves, who had no rights or protections at all, still counted towards the populations and the degree of representation the South had). So they didn't even have actual grievances when they seceded. They just didn't feel like not be able to completely push everyone around anymore so that they could protect their repugnant and entitled lifestyle.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I would have fought with my countrymen & neighbors. If I lived in the south I would have fought for the south. If I lived in the north I would have fought for the north. Before the age of the automobile, how your neighbors viewed you & your statis in your community was actually was very important.

With that being said, as a Cherokee, my goal would have been to defeat the union. Even with the benifit of hindsight, I think Indian peoples were right to fight against the north for what Jackson did just 20 years or so earlier, the trail of tears gave us "just cause". It is oftened overlooked that the Cherokee under Stand Watie were the last to surrender to the union. Native americans should have fought against the union, if for no other reason, just to try & stop, or delay the union army from commiting acts of genocide after the war with their newly found millitary machine turned westward.

[Vantea]

I would have fought with my countrymen & neighbors. If I lived in the south I would have fought for the south. If I lived in the north I would have fought for the north. Before the age of the automobile, how your neighbors viewed you & your statis in your community was actually was very important.

With that being said, as a Cherokee, my goal would have been to defeat the union. Even with the benifit of hindsight, I think Indian peoples were right to fight against the north for what Jackson did just 20 years or so earlier, the trail of tears gave us "just cause". It is oftened overlooked that the Cherokee under Stand Watie were the last to surrender to the union. Native americans should have fought against the union, if for no other reason, just to try & stop, or delay the union army from commiting acts of genocide after the war with their newly found millitary machine turned westward.

Ironic, because Georgia was the state that did them in.

[New Mongolia]

Confederates.

It's just...

DAT FLAG, MAN...