Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Donald Trump and the Civil War

Michamp, the moment the south seceded, federal government lost all claims on the land including military fortifications.

This is entirely untrue, and even more, beyond ridiculous.

There is a constitutional provision through which any single state can petition for secession and be legally granted it through a constitutional process.

The southern states followed none of this.

It was entirely an act of sedition and treason and the union was well within its legal and constitutional rights to enforce its prerogative under the provisions of the Constitution.
 
This is entirely untrue, and even more, beyond ridiculous.

There is a constitutional provision through which any single state can petition for secession and be legally granted it through a constitutional process.

The southern states followed none of this.

It was entirely an act of sedition and treason and the union was well within its legal and constitutional rights to enforce its prerogative under the provisions of the Constitution.

The difference between a patriot and a traitor is often merely which side you sit on. In other words perception.

Did the Union have a caucus bellum against the Confederacy? The answer is unequivocally yes.

My point was the Confederacy had become a nation state peacefully. The aggressor into armed conflict was the Union whose refusal to giveup garrisons and sending additional troops into confederate was the reason the war began. Hence, the aggressor of the conflict is the union and the confederacy simply defending itself sovereignty.

The goal of any nation state is to perpetuate its own existence. A constitution and laws are merely a means to an end. Had the confederate states attempted to leave via any 'legal/constitutional' framework it wouldn't have worked.


What was the single most important export at that time? Was it perhaps cotton? Which was primarily grown in the south. Hence a massive source of foreign income.

Perhaps, and just perhaps, the southern states simply did not want the burden of financially supporting an institution which redistributed its wealth to poorer states via taxes paid to the federal government. In other words, the perception was the northern SOCIALISTS were taking their 'hard earned' money. We can even go further and describe the south as the purest form of capitalists fully exploiting its resources (remember humans are resources too) to maximum profit.

Reminds me of another major event in the history of the United States...


When the Union started the war, I don't believe their goal was to abolish slavery. I truly believe their goal was simply to preserve the 'nation-state' ie. the Union along with it the lucrative cotton industry. Abolition of slavery was a result and not the cause.


Had the confederacy persisted as a nation state to this date. I have no doubt its leaders would be seen in the same patriotic light you see your 'founding fathers.' Treasonous subjects to the Union (British Crown), greatest Patriots to the Confederacy (US).
 
Back
Top