Stay out then!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

[Barzan]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

[Hamilay]

The only obligation immigrants have is to obey the law and possibly get a job, the same obligations native born citizens have. Culture is irrelevant.

[RightLeaningChristians]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

Cherokee.

Great-Grandpa Mothers Fathers Side.

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

Cherokee.

Great-Grandpa Mothers Fathers Side.

Western or Eastern ?

[Callisdrun]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

[RightLeaningChristians]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

Cherokee.

Great-Grandpa Mothers Fathers Side.

Western or Eastern ?

Western

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

Cherokee.

Great-Grandpa Mothers Fathers Side.

Western or Eastern ?

Western

Cool same here, though my relative is a little more distant.

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

I've wondered this as well. Its possible the North was looking for a casus belli. I guess some of them must have been sympathetic to the north, I wonder what the orders were for all the other forts that got taken without a shot fired.

[RightLeaningChristians]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

Cherokee.

Great-Grandpa Mothers Fathers Side.

Western or Eastern ?

Western

Cool same here, though my relative is a little more distant.

Awesome. Makes me wonder how the family worked that out back "in them days".

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

I've wondered this as well. Its possible the North was looking for a casus belli. I guess some of them must have been sympathetic to the north, I wonder what the orders were for all the other forts that got taken without a shot fired.

Well remember the officer core was very southern at the time (and still is today). So my guess even if the General was a Yankee he looked at his officers and realized he'd get shot in the back if he tried to hold the fort.

My guess is Sumter was the only fort with a largely northern officer core that was close enough to Dc to get orders from Lincoln.

[Callisdrun]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

It's "Secession" not "Succession."

And no, it doesn't instantly cease to be Federal Property, despite the political change. Did Guantanamo Bay cease being a USN base when Cuba's government changed? Nope. Did Britain's lease on Hong Kong end in either 1911 or 1949? Nope. Fort Sumter resisted because they had no orders to surrender. It was actually commanded by a Southerner, even, IIRC.

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

Native, eh? What tribe are you from again?

Cherokee.

Great-Grandpa Mothers Fathers Side.

Western or Eastern ?

Western

Cool same here, though my relative is a little more distant.

Awesome. Makes me wonder how the family worked that out back "in them days".

Cherokee nation allows all with direct ancestors on the dawes rolls to claim Cherokee citizenship.
Found that out checking my Dad's family out.
Id actually be closer to 1/4 Cherokee, but Texas Cherokees and Associate Bands (TCAB) got screwed out of their blood Quantum in the 1970's.

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

It's "Secession" not "Succession."

And no, it doesn't instantly cease to be Federal Property, despite the political change. Did Guantanamo Bay cease being a USN base when Cuba's government changed? Nope. Did Britain's lease on Hong Kong end in either 1911 or 1949? Nope. Fort Sumter resisted because they had no orders to surrender. It was actually commanded by a Southerner, even, IIRC.

Id have to recognize the US legal right own a base in Cuba first. I do not.
Also Hong Kong was the product of wars to force the Chinese to buy drugs and other unequal treaties I don't recognize the UK's right to have been there at all. Let alone until jsut before the end of the 20th century.

[Callisdrun]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

It's "Secession" not "Succession."

And no, it doesn't instantly cease to be Federal Property, despite the political change. Did Guantanamo Bay cease being a USN base when Cuba's government changed? Nope. Did Britain's lease on Hong Kong end in either 1911 or 1949? Nope. Fort Sumter resisted because they had no orders to surrender. It was actually commanded by a Southerner, even, IIRC.

Id have to recognize the US legal right own a base in Cuba first. I do not.
Also Hong Kong was the product of wars to force the Chinese to buy drugs and other unequal treaties I don't recognize the UK's right to have been there at all. Let alone until jsut before the end of the 20th century.

Cuba did not take the USN base when their government changed. Nor did China take Hong Kong when theirs changed (twice, or even more depending on what you consider a change in government). While it's doubtful that Cuba could realistically hope to take Guantanamo Bay by force, the Chinese certainly could have taken Hong Kong either in '45 or at pretty much any time since 1949. Despite the "lease" being coerced, they honored its terms anyway. The US has bases in many parts of the world. Just because South Carolina seceded doesn't mean the property of the US government ceases to be such.

Also, Fort Sumter, to my recollection was not "in more direct contact with Lincoln," they were quite isolated and the Confederates wouldn't let any USN ships approach the island. They resisted because that's what soldiers are supposed to do.

[Greed and Death]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

It's "Secession" not "Succession."

And no, it doesn't instantly cease to be Federal Property, despite the political change. Did Guantanamo Bay cease being a USN base when Cuba's government changed? Nope. Did Britain's lease on Hong Kong end in either 1911 or 1949? Nope. Fort Sumter resisted because they had no orders to surrender. It was actually commanded by a Southerner, even, IIRC.

Id have to recognize the US legal right own a base in Cuba first. I do not.
Also Hong Kong was the product of wars to force the Chinese to buy drugs and other unequal treaties I don't recognize the UK's right to have been there at all. Let alone until jsut before the end of the 20th century.

Cuba did not take the USN base when their government changed. Nor did China take Hong Kong when theirs changed (twice, or even more depending on what you consider a change in government). While it's doubtful that Cuba could realistically hope to take Guantanamo Bay by force, the Chinese certainly could have taken Hong Kong either in '45 or at pretty much any time since 1949. Despite the "lease" being coerced, they honored its terms anyway. The US has bases in many parts of the world. Just because South Carolina seceded doesn't mean the property of the US government ceases to be such.

Also, Fort Sumter, to my recollection was not "in more direct contact with Lincoln," they were quite isolated and the Confederates wouldn't let any USN ships approach the island. They resisted because that's what soldiers are supposed to do.

As for his ability to receiver or not receive orders he was a protege of then, general and chief of the union army Winfield Scott prior to his seizing of Sumter as he was not there prior to secession but was assigned to Fort Moultrie.

Since when does the US and (19th century UK) acting like imperialist jackasses create a legal precedent ?

[Maurepas]

This is one of the reasons I left religion...what a waste,

[Mad hatters in jeans]

This is one of the reasons I left religion...what a waste,

what religion?

[Maurepas]

This is one of the reasons I left religion...what a waste,

what religion?

I left Southern Baptist...same ballpark,

[Mad hatters in jeans]

This is one of the reasons I left religion...what a waste,

what religion?

I left Southern Baptist...same ballpark,

there's 16.5 million southern baptist members!?
dear god that's an army, no wonder we get swamped with religious debate day in day out here. and almost (i know the exceptions, you probably know them too ) everywhere else on the web.
did not see that one Maurepas, uh uh.

[Maurepas]

This is one of the reasons I left religion...what a waste,

what religion?

I left Southern Baptist...same ballpark,

there's 16.5 million southern baptist members!?
dear god that's an army, no wonder we get swamped with religious debate day in day out here. and almost (i know the exceptions, you probably know them too ) everywhere else on the web.
did not see that one Maurepas, uh uh.

Tell me about it, and they make Catholics look like Saints,

[Svenen (Ancient)]

I think the real problem is the lack of an explicit, official culture and religion, written down in law. How about I make one up?

[Blouman Empire]

Some people from some countries when moving to another simply just refuse to assmilate (even to the point where they refuse to learn the native language) and will remain within their tiny circle for years.

[Callisdrun]

I don't have any problem with people moving to the United States even if they disagree with our culture- lord knows we've got a whole bunch of native born folk in the deep South that disagree with mainstream culture. Of course, my problem with those backward native born Americans is my same problem with this man- its wrong to force your children to have a culture they dont' want to have.

and...of course...it's wrong to kill people for being to liberalized.

Id like to point out that group your complaining about did try to leave the country, and your people fought a war to stop them.

The war started when they fired on Federal Property. From that point on, questions of secession's legality were irrelevant.

Not really, if succession was legal, than technically that was no longer federal property but occupied Southern property.
I often wonder as most of the other bases of federal troops surrendered/ outright joined the south... why did that base resist so?

It's "Secession" not "Succession."

And no, it doesn't instantly cease to be Federal Property, despite the political change. Did Guantanamo Bay cease being a USN base when Cuba's government changed? Nope. Did Britain's lease on Hong Kong end in either 1911 or 1949? Nope. Fort Sumter resisted because they had no orders to surrender. It was actually commanded by a Southerner, even, IIRC.

Id have to recognize the US legal right own a base in Cuba first. I do not.
Also Hong Kong was the product of wars to force the Chinese to buy drugs and other unequal treaties I don't recognize the UK's right to have been there at all. Let alone until jsut before the end of the 20th century.

Cuba did not take the USN base when their government changed. Nor did China take Hong Kong when theirs changed (twice, or even more depending on what you consider a change in government). While it's doubtful that Cuba could realistically hope to take Guantanamo Bay by force, the Chinese certainly could have taken Hong Kong either in '45 or at pretty much any time since 1949. Despite the "lease" being coerced, they honored its terms anyway. The US has bases in many parts of the world. Just because South Carolina seceded doesn't mean the property of the US government ceases to be such.

Also, Fort Sumter, to my recollection was not "in more direct contact with Lincoln," they were quite isolated and the Confederates wouldn't let any USN ships approach the island. They resisted because that's what soldiers are supposed to do.

As for his ability to receiver or not receive orders he was a protege of then, general and chief of the union army Winfield Scott prior to his seizing of Sumter as he was not there prior to secession but was assigned to Fort Moultrie.

Since when does the US and (19th century UK) acting like imperialist jackasses create a legal precedent ?

It's no different from what any other nation at the time would do, or what most would do even now. Federal property is just that, it's not the state's jurisdiction, it's the property of the United States government. Fort Sumter wasn't owned publicly by the government of the state of South Carolina or privately by any citizens of that state. Hence, it did not suddenly somehow transfer ownership by magic when that state government seceded. Therefore, due to being a United States military installation, firing on it was an act of war on the part of South Carolina. At that point, I consider the whole argument over secession's legality to be moot. South Carolina (and by extension, the Confederacy) committed an act of war against the United States of America, and the latter was from that moment quite justified in crushing them. In my opinion.

I'm not sure that either of us will change the other's mind, but we can keep arguing through TG, since we're kinda jacking this thread.