Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Source for them being more democratic than the United States?

The states in the south were a confederation and their central government could only make diplomacy, tax VERY little, and make war. The states could leave it at any time and make Ther own laws.

The United States was the opposite.

Which provision of the Confederate Constitution allowed for the secession of states?

[Dyakovo]

Fort Sumter was not a case of the Union stationing troops in a sovereign nation.
Fort Sumter was a US Army base, and as such, neither South Carolina nor the CSA had any claim to it.

It was a foreign military base with out right to be there the moment SC succeeded. Add in the arms build up going on there even prior to the secession and you have a recipe for the Mess Lincoln caused by appointing that idiot to head the garrison there, His orders were to monitor the situation and not cause undue tension in the region.

He caused a war between the Union and C.S.A by not forfeiting the fort the moment it was requested to do so.

It had every right to be there it was there prior to the existence of the CSA.

[Genivaria]

Fort Sumter was not a case of the Union stationing troops in a sovereign nation.
Fort Sumter was a US Army base, and as such, neither South Carolina nor the CSA had any claim to it.

It was a foreign military base with out right to be there the moment SC succeeded. Add in the arms build up going on there even prior to the secession and you have a recipe for the Mess Lincoln caused by appointing that idiot to head the garrison there, His orders were to monitor the situation and not cause undue tension in the region.

He caused a war between the Union and C.S.A by not forfeiting the fort the moment it was requested to do so.

So if someone walks up to your house with a gun and demands that you and your family leave and that the house and all your property are now his, and you refuse, and he shoots you, it's your fault?

[Dyakovo]

It was a foreign military base with out right to be there the moment SC succeeded. Add in the arms build up going on there even prior to the secession and you have a recipe for the Mess Lincoln caused by appointing that idiot to head the garrison there, His orders were to monitor the situation and not cause undue tension in the region.

He caused a war between the Union and C.S.A by not forfeiting the fort the moment it was requested to do so.

So if someone walks up to your house with a gun and demands that you and your family leave and that the house and all your property are now his, and you refuse, and he shoots you, it's your fault?

Only if the guy making the demand supports slavery.
*nods*

[Farnhamia]

Do not waste your time with Dyakovo, all he does is use snark and thinly veiled insults.

wait its a he? and here I thought something else... blatant troll is blatant..

*** Warned for troll-naming ***

Hiding it in tiny letters is neither effective nor cute. If someone is a troll, report them.

[Mormak]

It was a foreign military base with out right to be there the moment SC succeeded. Add in the arms build up going on there even prior to the secession and you have a recipe for the Mess Lincoln caused by appointing that idiot to head the garrison there, His orders were to monitor the situation and not cause undue tension in the region.

He caused a war between the Union and C.S.A by not forfeiting the fort the moment it was requested to do so.

So if someone walks up to your house with a gun and demands that you and your family leave and that the house and all your property are now his, and you refuse, and he shoots you, it's your fault?

That analogue doesn't work on the National Level, in your example the house would now belong to him due to the territory it being built upon no longer being of his ownership.

[Dyakovo]

So if someone walks up to your house with a gun and demands that you and your family leave and that the house and all your property are now his, and you refuse, and he shoots you, it's your fault?

That analogue doesn't work on the National Level, in your example the house would now belong to him due to the territory it being built upon no longer being of his ownership.

So when, according to you, did the US government cede Fort Sumter (or the land it was on) to either South Carolina or the CSA?

[Tekania]

So if someone walks up to your house with a gun and demands that you and your family leave and that the house and all your property are now his, and you refuse, and he shoots you, it's your fault?

That analogue doesn't work on the National Level, in your example the house would now belong to him due to the territory it being built upon no longer being of his ownership.

The problem with that is that as a matter of Federal law at the time as well as by matter of International Law of the period, the CSA never existed, and there was no right of secession recognized by law. As such claiming the property was "now his" does not stand scrutiny.

[Vulpae]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGNWI0E ... Tw5ynRtzIY
12 years a slave was interesting.

[Mormak]

That analogue doesn't work on the National Level, in your example the house would now belong to him due to the territory it being built upon no longer being of his ownership.

The problem with that is that as a matter of Federal law at the time as well as by matter of International Law of the period, the CSA never existed, and there was no right of secession recognized by law. As such claiming the property was "now his" does not stand scrutiny.

Not by any lack of trying via the C.S.A given that in the constitution that was presented to the Senate it allowed "aggrieved" states position to leave the "union" so if you view the C.S.A as a legitimate confederation of Nations, Its own Constitution would permit the legalization of its secession. So the matter of Federalist law comes into question in so far as its legitimacy.

So i'd argue that it does indeed stand under scrutiny because under the law of the day, it was legal in so far as one of the parties was concerned.

[Dyakovo]

The problem with that is that as a matter of Federal law at the time as well as by matter of International Law of the period, the CSA never existed, and there was no right of secession recognized by law. As such claiming the property was "now his" does not stand scrutiny.

Not by any lack of trying via the C.S.A given that in the constitution that was presented to the Senate it allowed "aggrieved" states position to leave the "union" so if you view the C.S.A as a legitimate confederation of Nations, Its own Constitution would permit the legalization of its secession. So the matter of Federalist law comes into question in so far as its legitimacy.

So i'd argue that it does indeed stand under scrutiny because under the law of the day, it was legal in so far as one of the parties was concerned.

[citation needed]

[Mormak]

Not by any lack of trying via the C.S.A given that in the constitution that was presented to the Senate it allowed "aggrieved" states position to leave the "union" so if you view the C.S.A as a legitimate confederation of Nations, Its own Constitution would permit the legalization of its secession. So the matter of Federalist law comes into question in so far as its legitimacy.

So i'd argue that it does indeed stand under scrutiny because under the law of the day, it was legal in so far as one of the parties was concerned.

[citation needed]

Amusing but fine.

The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
-ARTICLE VI

The moment that was ratified as a constitution, The C.S.A become reality, it became a confederation in truth and And the Provisional outline as mentioned here became defunct, you had no more grieving territories of the Federal Government then you had Emu's In Australia.

Namely i am speaking of the Ordinance of Secession, So as you can PLAINLY see, from the C.S.A Perspective?

It was not only legitimate, it was LEGAL to their law.

[Dyakovo]

[citation needed]

Amusing but fine.

The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
-ARTICLE VI

The moment that was ratified as a constitution, The C.S.A become reality, it became a confederation in truth and And the Provisional outline as mentioned here became defunct, you had no more grieving territories of the Federal Government then you had Emu's In Australia.

Namely i am speaking of the Ordinance of Secession, So as you can PLAINLY see, from the C.S.A Perspective?

It was not only legitimate, it was LEGAL to their law.

That, in no way, makes the CSA a recognized nation, nor does it grant them the right to secede from the US.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Amusing but fine.

The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
-ARTICLE VI

The moment that was ratified as a constitution, The C.S.A become reality, it became a confederation in truth and And the Provisional outline as mentioned here became defunct, you had no more grieving territories of the Federal Government then you had Emu's In Australia.

Namely i am speaking of the Ordinance of Secession, So as you can PLAINLY see, from the C.S.A Perspective?

It was not only legitimate, it was LEGAL to their law.

That, in no way, makes the CSA a recognized nation, nor does it grant them the right to secede from the US.

Don't you understand? They had the right because they said so! I believe that was the definitive opinion given in Parent v. Recalcitrant Child.

[Tekania]

[citation needed]

Amusing but fine.

The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
-ARTICLE VI

The moment that was ratified as a constitution, The C.S.A become reality, it became a confederation in truth and And the Provisional outline as mentioned here became defunct, you had no more grieving territories of the Federal Government then you had Emu's In Australia.

Namely i am speaking of the Ordinance of Secession, So as you can PLAINLY see, from the C.S.A Perspective?

It was not only legitimate, it was LEGAL to their law.

Their law was not legally valid at neither the international nor federal levels. As such, what may have been valid in their law is immaterial.

[Mormak]

Amusing but fine.

The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
-ARTICLE VI

The moment that was ratified as a constitution, The C.S.A become reality, it became a confederation in truth and And the Provisional outline as mentioned here became defunct, you had no more grieving territories of the Federal Government then you had Emu's In Australia.

Namely i am speaking of the Ordinance of Secession, So as you can PLAINLY see, from the C.S.A Perspective?

It was not only legitimate, it was LEGAL to their law.

Their law was not legally valid at neither the international nor federal levels. As such, what may have been valid in their law is immaterial.

The question was if the C.S.A allowed legal secession.

It did.

The view of the International community or Federal government is irrelevant.

[Tekania]

Their law was not legally valid at neither the international nor federal levels. As such, what may have been valid in their law is immaterial.

The question was if the C.S.A allowed legal secession.

It did.

The view of the International community or Federal government is irrelevant.

As the states lacked the right of secession from the USA in the first place, the CSA constitution itself was invalid. Appealing to it does not give you anything.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Their law was not legally valid at neither the international nor federal levels. As such, what may have been valid in their law is immaterial.

The question was if the C.S.A allowed legal secession.

It did.

The view of the International community or Federal government is irrelevant.

Except that it wasn't, as they discovered to their dismay.

[Vulpae]

The problem with that is that as a matter of Federal law at the time as well as by matter of International Law of the period, the CSA never existed, and there was no right of secession recognized by law. As such claiming the property was "now his" does not stand scrutiny.

Not by any lack of trying via the C.S.A given that in the constitution that was presented to the Senate it allowed "aggrieved" states position to leave the "union" so if you view the C.S.A as a legitimate confederation of Nations, Its own Constitution would permit the legalization of its secession. So the matter of Federalist law comes into question in so far as its legitimacy.

So i'd argue that it does indeed stand under scrutiny because under the law of the day, it was legal in so far as one of the parties was concerned.

West Virginia promptly invoked that clause, and was attacked by confederate forces.
Well the CSA was all the hypocrical things in America embodied, which makes it all the easier to pummel mercilessly.

[Mormak]

The question was if the C.S.A allowed legal secession.

It did.

The view of the International community or Federal government is irrelevant.

Except that it wasn't, as they discovered to their dismay.

They legally seceded according to their own constitution.

The Aftermath of that is also Irrelevant.

Again the question posed was it "legal" and it was.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except that it wasn't, as they discovered to their dismay.

They legally seceded according to their own constitution.

The Aftermath of that is also Irrelevant.

Again the question posed was it "legal" and it was.

Their Constitution was not a legal document to begin with.

[Mormak]

Not by any lack of trying via the C.S.A given that in the constitution that was presented to the Senate it allowed "aggrieved" states position to leave the "union" so if you view the C.S.A as a legitimate confederation of Nations, Its own Constitution would permit the legalization of its secession. So the matter of Federalist law comes into question in so far as its legitimacy.

So i'd argue that it does indeed stand under scrutiny because under the law of the day, it was legal in so far as one of the parties was concerned.

West Virginia promptly invoked that clause, and was attacked by confederate forces.
Well the CSA was all the hypocrical things in America embodied, which makes it all the easier to pummel mercilessly.

The Feddies really have no moral high ground when it comes to Hypocrisy. Also leaving out that at the time of the "attack" there was no West Virginia, Just Virginia which was voting to Join the Confederacy.People disagreed and it became a military issue and Confederate military discentralization made their efforts to remove the Union Invaders of Virginia a moot issue.

But i'd also point out this, The Union Military forces whom directed the Territory to not secede at the point of a rifle were little better then the Confederates that wanted them to secede at the point of a rifle.

[Mormak]

They legally seceded according to their own constitution.

The Aftermath of that is also Irrelevant.

Again the question posed was it "legal" and it was.

Their Constitution was not a legal document to begin with.

Depends on how you view it i guess, International conventions of the day weren't established to deal with the separation of compact via Majority vote and the Federalist view on it is hardly unbiased. So view it with legality or no, its ultimately perspective.

[Dyakovo]

Except that it wasn't, as they discovered to their dismay.

They legally seceded according to their own constitution.

The Aftermath of that is also Irrelevant.

Again the question posed was it "legal" and it was.

So, if I write up something stating that I own your house, then write up another "legal" document that states that everything I've written previously is legally valid, I then own your house?

[Mormak]

They legally seceded according to their own constitution.

The Aftermath of that is also Irrelevant.

Again the question posed was it "legal" and it was.

So, if I write up something stating that I own your house, then write up another "legal" document that states that everything I've written previously is legally valid, I then own your house?

There are laws regarding this issue already!

Eminent domain is a popular concept in the world.