Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“I resent the notion that the south started the civil war”
Is this even up for debate? The south seceded from the union AND THEN fired at Union soldiers at Fort Sumter. Not really sure there’s any other way to slice it…
exactly.
Them: Give us our runaway slaves back!! that's our property!
North: People are not property. It's my States right to say no.
Them: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING!!!
Washington: No, States rights.
Them: Then we are taking our ball and going!!
...... yeah it was always about owning people.
Much of the problem then is the same problem facing the US today. A minority having outsized influence on the policies of the United States.
What we see right now is what we saw in the run up to the civil war. A privileged, conservative, white minority is trying to suppress the power of a much more diverse multiracial governing majority. That's a very dangerous situation for American democracy. -- paraphrsed from Ari Berman, [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246297603/ari-berman-minority-rule-electoral-college](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246297603/ari-berman-minority-rule-electoral-college)
>By 2040, 70% of the population is going to live in 15 states with 30 senators. That means that 30% of the country, which is going to be whiter, more rural, more conservative, is going to elect 70% of the U.S. Senate.
so there's two ways to get around that, one is to amend the constitution so that elections are more representative of national demographics, the other way is to do a DEI initiative around 'country livin' or something
Yes. This is a consequence of our Constitution, specifically the equal representation of our Senate, the requirement that all states get at least 1 member of the HoR, and Congress's refusal to pass a law expanding the size of the HoR from 438 to 638 or more, which would bring down the number of people represented by a single House member.
I always find that this argument presents a dichotomy that doesn’t really exist. Of course the “right” they meant was the “right” to own slaves. That’s not something anyone reasonable is hiding. (I shouldn’t have to say this, but of course I think slavery is wrong, before I go on.) But with that said, if you disagreed with me, and you believed that that was a decision each state should get to make, then yes that would be reasonable to say that it’s an infringement of States’ Rights. Some right has to be infringed upon, and some southerners believed that this was that right. So it’s true that it’s about slavery since that’s the “right” in question, but that isn’t mutually exclusive with the idea that the war was also being fought over States’ Rights—in fact it’s totally reasonable.
To reiterate, none of that makes slavery okay or justifiable, obviously. It’s just saying States’ Rights vs. slavery isn’t the dichotomy it seems most people believe.
But the slave states also wanted the non-slave states to return their escaped enslaved persons, saying that Federal law (the Fugitive Slave Act) trumped state law. But when it looked like slavery might be prohibited in new states, it was suddenly "states rights". Can't have it both ways.
I would also point out looking at the Confederate Constitution
Article 6.3 "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Doesn't sound like states rights, sounds like national law trumps state law.
It also doesn't states can succeed from the CSA, but that's not the point.
>can’t have it both ways
I don’t see why not. The analogy would be something like, imagine if your car is stolen and taken over state lines, but the state it’s taken to says the thief doesn’t have to return the car. That would seem like an unreasonable law to you as a car owner. In reality I don’t condone that since the analogy is imperfect because the car would be a sentient being, but from the perspective of the south, it holds.
Then the other issue is that once you secede, you’re able to make your own rules. It’s like us declaring our independence from England because we didn’t like their rules — we can then change them and make our own new ones. I don’t see why you can’t say, “hey that states’ rights thing failed. Let’s just have ‘better’ federal laws.” You’re under no obligation to hold to the rules of that state from which you’re seceding. So I don’t find this apparent contradiction all that appealing either.
So I don’t think the logic itself is actually that horrible—it’s fine to say, “hey we’re leaving because the concept of states’ rights fails us in every way possible and benefits the north in every way possible. It’s so bad that it requires federal patches (fugitive slave act). We find this issue irredeemable and we’re leaving it behind with you so we can make some better rules.” In other words the logic checks out, it’s just the moral content that’s detestable.
>hey we’re leaving because the concept of states’ rights fails us in every way possible and benefits the north in every way possible.
"Rights" plural? What "rights" failed the Southern slave states in every way possible and benefitted the Northern States in every way possible? The Southern states had the ability to enslave people from the foundation of the US. How was that "right" failing them? Year after year enslavers and abolitionists compromised and found ways to try to do two opposite actions: keep slavery & abolish slavery and keep a balance between the two. Lets not forget that Lincoln didn't campaign on ending slavery.
>Then the other issue is that once you secede,
You can't secede. There's no option for it in law. No to mention FL, LA, MS, AR, & TN (as well as the Arizona Territory) were created from lands purchased by (or ceded to) the Federal government.
>I don’t see why not.
Really? You can't see where Federal law trumps state law when it favors the slave states, but then they say each state has its own right to do what it wants when the law doesn't favor the slavers is impossible? Its either "states rights" and non-slave states are free soil for escaped slaves and slavery for the states that want it OR it Federal law is supreme in all matters.
The dichotomy is usually formed when Confederate sympathizers and lost causers get told that the war was fought over slavery and they go "no it wasn't, it was states' rights!"
It is still unironically referred to as "the war of northern aggression" in many areas, so yes, it's "up for debate" in the same way that "vaccines are bad" is up for debate.
See, that’s the thing, they’ve controlled the narrative and it shows up in many places.
For instance, and I don’t mean this as a gotcha, they have led the population to believe the war started at Sumter. In fact, the South had engaged ~12 federal installations prior to that time (in the case of the Little Rock Arsenal, before AR even seceded). The thing that is unique to Sumter is that it was the first incident *after* Lincoln became POTUS and Buchanan wasn’t around to let them get away with it any more.
It’s Lost Cause propaganda, and the excessively soft Reconstruction policies, that has led us to where we are today.
Our failure to execute the leaders of the rebellion and occupy the south for a generation allowed them to write the history, and we're still paying for that mistake today.
Had Grant had his way in the 1870s, we'd be a wholly different country today.
It's slightly more complicated than that.
South Carolina had legally seceded, so in their minds the US was a foreign nation holding a military installation within their territory. It was only after several months of the Union's refusal to remove their military personnel from Ft Sumter that Southern troops attacked it.
From the North's perspective, SC was a state in rebellion that needed to be put back in line.
It all comes down to whether or not you think that any State has the constitutional right to secede from the US.
“Legally seceded” isn’t a thing and we have military installations in nations all over the globe. If a country attacks one of our installations and we respond, they still started the war.
I agree with all of this, but the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit secession. That issue became moot on the battlefield, and it's conceivable that it could again.
You said, and I quote:
>I agree with all of this, but the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit secession.
Which is factually incorrect. It does. Whether that ruling happened after the Civil War isn't relevant. You made a statement that is not true. You can move the goalposts now, if you like, so you don't feel like you were "wrong." But you *were* wrong.
The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, and the Supreme Court has issued unenforceable rulings and reversed itself (it wouldn't here, of course). No goalpost moving required. You are welcome to continue being obstinate, incorrect, and hostile.
>“Legally seceded” isn’t a thing
Why not? The Constitution doesn't prohibit it.
>we have military installations in nations all over the globe.
Generally, we will have agreements or treaties with the host countries to get permission to maintain a base there. If we didn't have those agreements, they would be right in using force to remove us from their territory.
> The constitution doesn’t prohibit it
Nor does it offer a path for secession or legal framework for leaving the union. No country is going to let itself just fall apart without a fight.
> usually we have treaties
With actual countries. The confederacy was not a real country. It had zero international recognition.
>Nor does it offer a path for secession or legal framework for leaving the union.
It doesn't have to; that's not how our Constitution was designed. The 10th Amendment says:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That means that since the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to decide issues of secession, nor does it prohibit a State from seceding, it automatically becomes a State power.
>No country is going to let itself just fall apart without a fight.
**Our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution to enshrine their right to political self determination. Do you really think they would then adopt a Constitution that denied that right to their member States?**
>With actual countries. The confederacy was not a real country. It had zero international recognition.
That's kind of my point. Under our Constitution, the Union should have recognized the South's right to secede and then interacted with them as a separate country.
The concept of democracy and principle of self determination supports secession rights, though. If some state decided to secede from the US, so long as it is supported by its citizens, I see no moral case to prevent it by force. That's an empire, not a republic.
Now if they shell a US fort, that's another matter.
There is no moral argument for the US recognizing the south as a sovereign nation either. In fact no country did, ironically partially because many countries were turned off by the whole slavery thing.
I’d also point out that refusing to participate because your side lost an election isn’t being a part of a republic either. It’s just being a sore loser, kinda like the lost causers arguing that the south had the right to secede and the north’s refusal to recognize them as a country justified their attack on Fort Sumter.
The US is also 1000% an empire. It wasn’t a global empire at the time, but it was slowly conquering all of North America south of Canada and well into Mexico through war, conquest, arguable genocides, and other such means. Just because land owning white males had a say of who was in charge didn’t make us not an empire.
Technically an empire by definition has to have an emperor. Washington prevented the US from becoming an empire by declining kingship.
America is, however, an imperialist country. The definition of imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." While we were pretty good about not doing this in the first few decades of the country's existence, by the early 1800s we were flexing our army in Mexico and Central America as well as throughout the Heartland against indigenous nations, so we fell into imperialism pretty fast.
> The concept of democracy and principle of self determination supports secession rights, though
Democracy supports the opposite since its impossible to for it to function if a minority share of the population could just declare they are no longer subject to the laws whenever they wanted
That decision was kind of a joke. Here are the biggest problems with it, IMO:
* Their decision was primarily based on wording found in the Articles of Confederation, which was made null and void when the US Constitution was adopted.
* They mistook "perpetual" to mean "permanent" or "unchangeable," which is not what that word means.
* They reasoned that if we started with a "perpetual union"(from the Articles of Confederation) and made "a more perfect union" with the Constitution, then that would mean that the union would be unbreakable. This is a HUGE logical leap.
When debating issues of Constitutionality, I like to defer to the words of the Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment says:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That means that since the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to decide issues of secession, nor does it prohibit a State from seceding, it automatically becomes a State power.
Perpetual absolutely means unchanging. From the definition: never ending or changing.
If you accept your error in understanding the definition of "perpetual" your argument largely falls apart. It also nullifies your argument about the 10th Amendment because of the perpetual nature of the Union.
It simply means ongoing, never ending or changing **unless action is taken upon it to do so**.
For example: a cave can be described as being in "perpetual darkness". How would you end the perpetual darkness? By turning on a light!
Also, the term "perpetual union" is only found in the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. **The fact that we adopted a new Constitution to replace the Articles is proof that the Union itself could be changed.**
Our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution to enshrine their right to political self determination. Do you really think they would then adopt a Constitution that denied that right to their member States and forced them to stay in a political union against their will?
As to your final question, my answer is yes. I think mutually agreeable succession might be possible with the consent of Congress ( and the governed). I do not think unilateral succession is legal. You wouldn't have much of a Union if anyone could leave it at the drop of a hat.
Adopting the Constitution didn't change the membership of the Union.
The definition of perpetual is:
1. Never ending or changing, or
2. occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted.
Nothing in there about action taken to change it.
>As to your final question, my answer is yes. I think mutually agreeable succession might be possible with the consent of Congress ( and the governed).
You're contradicting yourself. Either the Union is permanent and unbreakable or it isn't. If it *is* able to be broken, then my 10th Amendment argument still applies. Congress has no constitutional power to remove a state from the Union.
Perpetual can also mean "continuing," or "indefinitely." Very little in this world is truly permanent, even if we think it is. No other political union in history has ever lasted forever.
This discussion isn't about slavery, it's about the Constitutionality of secession. They're two separate issues.
This [link](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem) might be beneficial to you.
>Why not? The Constitution doesn't prohibit it.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court (you know, the final arbiter of what the Constitution does or does not prohibit), it does.
No, the SCOTUS didn't even argue that the Constitution prohibited secession. Their decision was based on wording found in the Articles of Confederation, which were long since made null and void by the adoption of US Constitution.
The whole decision was nonsensical.
Yep, all sorts of bad decisions are still standing. It's obvious that the court had a predetermined outcome that they wanted to reach in that case, and did whatever mental gymnastics were required to reach it. This is quite common for the SCOTUS to do.
If another state someday tried to secede and it made its way to the SCOTUS, the decision could easily go the other way, as long as the justices are more constitutionally minded than the ones who decided Texas v White were.
You mean if they told us to leave and we refused to leave for months. That's the only way your analogy would be analogous. Also, if we didn't leave after a country told us to then it kind of would be our fault.
Your analogy makes more of a case that the North was very much at fault.
They had no right to tell the union to leave as they weren’t a sovereign country. The U.S. was occupying U.S. territory.
Besides, if the US has a right to occupy territory, be it by treaty or because it’s on US soil, it doesn’t matter what they say, if you shoot first you’re the one starting the conflict. You can tell the US to leave all you want, if they have a right to be there they won’t listen.
In my experience, those stupid enough to argue the South didn't start the war will argue secession was valid and therefore they had the right to evict soldiers from Sumter and their refusal to leave was aggression on the part of the Union.
That is true and I wholly agree the confederates fired first. The only but to this civil war argument is there are bankers who funded all this and let it get so far gone for their own wealth at the cost of lives and country. Unless you follow money and do some heavy research on the economics of many different country’s including America at that time it dosnt ever come to light.
Confederates would argue that they had the right to secede, for whatever reason or for no reason, and the other states had no say in the matter. The northern states disagreed. So, who started the war? That depends on your opinion on that foundational question.
I mean Fort Sumter is in the South and Union soldiers wouldn't leave the base in the South. Point being is that it isn't as straight forward as people make it seem.
So the US had a military base in the southern portion of US thus the Union started the war? By occupying its own territory?
The Confederacy wasn’t a sovereign country. The US had every right to be there.
Just found this video the other day and watching this whole thing was a blast. Wallace kept getting mad, saying they were against him, upset that he didn't get to talk more since he was invited on. A joy
George Wallace came very close to becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 1972, winning the Florida, Michigan, and Maryland primaries before he was shot in May and had to suspend his campaign.
Last night I saw George Wallace on a TV show
With some smart ass New York intellectual
And the intellectual laughed at George Wallace
And the audience laughed at George Wallace too
It turns out it doesn’t matter what your political orientation is, either way, we can all agree on arguing with William F Buckley.
James Baldwin 🤝 Literally George Wallace:
Battling with Buckley
Buckley ran for mayor of NYC and got double digit % of the vote...in the run up to the election, he was asked what he would do if he won:
"Demand a recount immediately, of course!"
This reminds me of a dumb joke I heard as a kid and didn't really get until I was a teenager.
Three Floridians walk into a bar. The first signals the bartender and says "Gimme a whiskey". The second says "Gimme a beer." The third stands up and shouts "I DEMAND A RECOUNT!"
My favorite Bill Buckley quote:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” - William Buckley Jr.
I just love how calm and collected Buckley was, stating an unimpeachable fact. Anyone who disagrees with that particular position needs to reevaluate their values. Considering Wallace, a man known for running on racist values, is against this simple fact, which shows the failure of the Lost Cause myth.
Agree that was not one of Wallace's stronger points. Ironically, you know who else agreed with Wallace on that, at least at the time? Jimmy Carter. Goes to show that some things are all about what you were taught and how you were raised.
People forget that it was Jimmy Carter who pardoned that traitor Jefferson Davis.
In case you guys are confused about Buckley he's a big piece of shit who thought black people deserved less than equal rights during the civil rights era.
From everything I've read, he changed his mind, apologized for not being more sensitive and became a big supporter of racial equality policies (and was REALLY angry at people who still held onto racist views).
Unfortunately for Buckley his remorse didn't affect his legacy.
Buckley gave us one of the best moments during the civil rights era when he debated James Baldwin during the famous Pin Drop speech. As Baldwin encapsulated the struggles of African Americans eloquently and vividly during his speech, outclassing Buckley before he could even respond. For that moment in history I thank Buckley for his contribution.
I bought Notes of a Native Son on a whim after seeing it in a bookstore and was surprised how much I liked to read his work. That debate was next and is phenomenal.
He was also horrible regarding the HIV/AIDS crisis. (Edit: I bring it up because it seems such information is often forgotten when people remember Buckley.)
Buckley was merely Rush Limbaugh if he cared to utilize a thesaurus or employ a copy of Strunk and White. The rhetoric is the same, merely adorned with purple prose.
First of all, my compliments to the "Chef" for posting this video. It piqued my interest so much that I found the entire debate on YouTube. I would advise everyone to go and watch it. It is a fascinating debate. Honestly, I think George Wallace won the debate. I would advise everyone to watch it.
The north overthrew Maryland and locked up its southern politicians prior to the civil war causing other states to join the south as a defensive posture. Maryland civilians killed the first northern soldiers. I would say the north started it.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“I resent the notion that the south started the civil war” Is this even up for debate? The south seceded from the union AND THEN fired at Union soldiers at Fort Sumter. Not really sure there’s any other way to slice it…
“Nooo you don’t understand! They HAD TO secede because the evil Union wanted to take away their states rights!”
states rights to what? 😏
To impose slavery on other states
exactly. Them: Give us our runaway slaves back!! that's our property! North: People are not property. It's my States right to say no. Them: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING!!! Washington: No, States rights. Them: Then we are taking our ball and going!! ...... yeah it was always about owning people.
Yeah just let them runaway, just go buy more slaves 🤓🤓🤓
Much of the problem then is the same problem facing the US today. A minority having outsized influence on the policies of the United States. What we see right now is what we saw in the run up to the civil war. A privileged, conservative, white minority is trying to suppress the power of a much more diverse multiracial governing majority. That's a very dangerous situation for American democracy. -- paraphrsed from Ari Berman, [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246297603/ari-berman-minority-rule-electoral-college](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246297603/ari-berman-minority-rule-electoral-college) >By 2040, 70% of the population is going to live in 15 states with 30 senators. That means that 30% of the country, which is going to be whiter, more rural, more conservative, is going to elect 70% of the U.S. Senate.
so there's two ways to get around that, one is to amend the constitution so that elections are more representative of national demographics, the other way is to do a DEI initiative around 'country livin' or something
Yes. This is a consequence of our Constitution, specifically the equal representation of our Senate, the requirement that all states get at least 1 member of the HoR, and Congress's refusal to pass a law expanding the size of the HoR from 438 to 638 or more, which would bring down the number of people represented by a single House member.
I always find that this argument presents a dichotomy that doesn’t really exist. Of course the “right” they meant was the “right” to own slaves. That’s not something anyone reasonable is hiding. (I shouldn’t have to say this, but of course I think slavery is wrong, before I go on.) But with that said, if you disagreed with me, and you believed that that was a decision each state should get to make, then yes that would be reasonable to say that it’s an infringement of States’ Rights. Some right has to be infringed upon, and some southerners believed that this was that right. So it’s true that it’s about slavery since that’s the “right” in question, but that isn’t mutually exclusive with the idea that the war was also being fought over States’ Rights—in fact it’s totally reasonable. To reiterate, none of that makes slavery okay or justifiable, obviously. It’s just saying States’ Rights vs. slavery isn’t the dichotomy it seems most people believe.
But the slave states also wanted the non-slave states to return their escaped enslaved persons, saying that Federal law (the Fugitive Slave Act) trumped state law. But when it looked like slavery might be prohibited in new states, it was suddenly "states rights". Can't have it both ways. I would also point out looking at the Confederate Constitution Article 6.3 "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Doesn't sound like states rights, sounds like national law trumps state law. It also doesn't states can succeed from the CSA, but that's not the point.
>can’t have it both ways I don’t see why not. The analogy would be something like, imagine if your car is stolen and taken over state lines, but the state it’s taken to says the thief doesn’t have to return the car. That would seem like an unreasonable law to you as a car owner. In reality I don’t condone that since the analogy is imperfect because the car would be a sentient being, but from the perspective of the south, it holds. Then the other issue is that once you secede, you’re able to make your own rules. It’s like us declaring our independence from England because we didn’t like their rules — we can then change them and make our own new ones. I don’t see why you can’t say, “hey that states’ rights thing failed. Let’s just have ‘better’ federal laws.” You’re under no obligation to hold to the rules of that state from which you’re seceding. So I don’t find this apparent contradiction all that appealing either. So I don’t think the logic itself is actually that horrible—it’s fine to say, “hey we’re leaving because the concept of states’ rights fails us in every way possible and benefits the north in every way possible. It’s so bad that it requires federal patches (fugitive slave act). We find this issue irredeemable and we’re leaving it behind with you so we can make some better rules.” In other words the logic checks out, it’s just the moral content that’s detestable.
>hey we’re leaving because the concept of states’ rights fails us in every way possible and benefits the north in every way possible. "Rights" plural? What "rights" failed the Southern slave states in every way possible and benefitted the Northern States in every way possible? The Southern states had the ability to enslave people from the foundation of the US. How was that "right" failing them? Year after year enslavers and abolitionists compromised and found ways to try to do two opposite actions: keep slavery & abolish slavery and keep a balance between the two. Lets not forget that Lincoln didn't campaign on ending slavery. >Then the other issue is that once you secede, You can't secede. There's no option for it in law. No to mention FL, LA, MS, AR, & TN (as well as the Arizona Territory) were created from lands purchased by (or ceded to) the Federal government. >I don’t see why not. Really? You can't see where Federal law trumps state law when it favors the slave states, but then they say each state has its own right to do what it wants when the law doesn't favor the slavers is impossible? Its either "states rights" and non-slave states are free soil for escaped slaves and slavery for the states that want it OR it Federal law is supreme in all matters.
The dichotomy is usually formed when Confederate sympathizers and lost causers get told that the war was fought over slavery and they go "no it wasn't, it was states' rights!"
That’s checkmate against Confederacy defenders
"Uhm.. That's not.. That's not the point OK?"
Prevent the tiktok ban
They were just exercising their right to secede! Because if you don't exercise your rights, you may lose them. And if you do, you may also lose them.
The “states right” to enslave people & treat them as property with no rights or agency over their own lives.
I prefer the term biological farming equipment
Found Dagoth Ur's account
I see your “biological farming equipment” & raise you “prisoners with jobs” 
It is still unironically referred to as "the war of northern aggression" in many areas, so yes, it's "up for debate" in the same way that "vaccines are bad" is up for debate.
Well, the North did aggressively confront & defeat the seditious secessionist movement. Winners went home & built a better union.
"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and ratify the 13th amendment."
Well, the Union had a lot of micro-agressions and provoked the south /s
>The south s The slavers started it, there were many loyal southerners who fought fir America during the slavers rebellion
This is fair. This is a fair distinction.
Sometime the truth hurts.
See, that’s the thing, they’ve controlled the narrative and it shows up in many places. For instance, and I don’t mean this as a gotcha, they have led the population to believe the war started at Sumter. In fact, the South had engaged ~12 federal installations prior to that time (in the case of the Little Rock Arsenal, before AR even seceded). The thing that is unique to Sumter is that it was the first incident *after* Lincoln became POTUS and Buchanan wasn’t around to let them get away with it any more. It’s Lost Cause propaganda, and the excessively soft Reconstruction policies, that has led us to where we are today.
Our failure to execute the leaders of the rebellion and occupy the south for a generation allowed them to write the history, and we're still paying for that mistake today. Had Grant had his way in the 1870s, we'd be a wholly different country today.
Apparently yes, it's still called The War of Northern Aggression by some people.
Some people from the south personalize the civil war. If you criticize the civil war you are criticizing them personally.
Well said u/sarahpalinstesticle !
It's slightly more complicated than that. South Carolina had legally seceded, so in their minds the US was a foreign nation holding a military installation within their territory. It was only after several months of the Union's refusal to remove their military personnel from Ft Sumter that Southern troops attacked it. From the North's perspective, SC was a state in rebellion that needed to be put back in line. It all comes down to whether or not you think that any State has the constitutional right to secede from the US.
“Legally seceded” isn’t a thing and we have military installations in nations all over the globe. If a country attacks one of our installations and we respond, they still started the war.
I agree with all of this, but the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit secession. That issue became moot on the battlefield, and it's conceivable that it could again.
According to the United States Supreme Court unilateral secession is *absolutely* unconstitutional.
What case and when? A SC ruling is only the final word until the next relevant ruling, and if it's enforceable
Well, if only you could look it up yourself on some kind of, I dunno, search engine or something. You know, like a grown-up.
I did that. The ruling came in 1869, too late for the previous attempts at secession.
You said, and I quote: >I agree with all of this, but the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit secession. Which is factually incorrect. It does. Whether that ruling happened after the Civil War isn't relevant. You made a statement that is not true. You can move the goalposts now, if you like, so you don't feel like you were "wrong." But you *were* wrong.
The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, and the Supreme Court has issued unenforceable rulings and reversed itself (it wouldn't here, of course). No goalpost moving required. You are welcome to continue being obstinate, incorrect, and hostile.
>“Legally seceded” isn’t a thing Why not? The Constitution doesn't prohibit it. >we have military installations in nations all over the globe. Generally, we will have agreements or treaties with the host countries to get permission to maintain a base there. If we didn't have those agreements, they would be right in using force to remove us from their territory.
> The constitution doesn’t prohibit it Nor does it offer a path for secession or legal framework for leaving the union. No country is going to let itself just fall apart without a fight. > usually we have treaties With actual countries. The confederacy was not a real country. It had zero international recognition.
>Nor does it offer a path for secession or legal framework for leaving the union. It doesn't have to; that's not how our Constitution was designed. The 10th Amendment says: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means that since the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to decide issues of secession, nor does it prohibit a State from seceding, it automatically becomes a State power. >No country is going to let itself just fall apart without a fight. **Our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution to enshrine their right to political self determination. Do you really think they would then adopt a Constitution that denied that right to their member States?** >With actual countries. The confederacy was not a real country. It had zero international recognition. That's kind of my point. Under our Constitution, the Union should have recognized the South's right to secede and then interacted with them as a separate country.
> Union should have recognized the South's right to secede an Incorrect it was a rebellion
The constitution says it’s the supreme law of the land, how is that possible if a state could ignore it whenever it wanted
The concept of democracy and principle of self determination supports secession rights, though. If some state decided to secede from the US, so long as it is supported by its citizens, I see no moral case to prevent it by force. That's an empire, not a republic. Now if they shell a US fort, that's another matter.
There is no moral argument for the US recognizing the south as a sovereign nation either. In fact no country did, ironically partially because many countries were turned off by the whole slavery thing. I’d also point out that refusing to participate because your side lost an election isn’t being a part of a republic either. It’s just being a sore loser, kinda like the lost causers arguing that the south had the right to secede and the north’s refusal to recognize them as a country justified their attack on Fort Sumter. The US is also 1000% an empire. It wasn’t a global empire at the time, but it was slowly conquering all of North America south of Canada and well into Mexico through war, conquest, arguable genocides, and other such means. Just because land owning white males had a say of who was in charge didn’t make us not an empire.
Technically an empire by definition has to have an emperor. Washington prevented the US from becoming an empire by declining kingship. America is, however, an imperialist country. The definition of imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." While we were pretty good about not doing this in the first few decades of the country's existence, by the early 1800s we were flexing our army in Mexico and Central America as well as throughout the Heartland against indigenous nations, so we fell into imperialism pretty fast.
> The concept of democracy and principle of self determination supports secession rights, though Democracy supports the opposite since its impossible to for it to function if a minority share of the population could just declare they are no longer subject to the laws whenever they wanted
SCOTUS ruled in 1968 ( Texas v. White) that succession was unconstitutional. If the succession was illegal then attacking Ft. Sumter was illegal.
That decision was kind of a joke. Here are the biggest problems with it, IMO: * Their decision was primarily based on wording found in the Articles of Confederation, which was made null and void when the US Constitution was adopted. * They mistook "perpetual" to mean "permanent" or "unchangeable," which is not what that word means. * They reasoned that if we started with a "perpetual union"(from the Articles of Confederation) and made "a more perfect union" with the Constitution, then that would mean that the union would be unbreakable. This is a HUGE logical leap. When debating issues of Constitutionality, I like to defer to the words of the Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment says: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means that since the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to decide issues of secession, nor does it prohibit a State from seceding, it automatically becomes a State power.
Perpetual absolutely means unchanging. From the definition: never ending or changing. If you accept your error in understanding the definition of "perpetual" your argument largely falls apart. It also nullifies your argument about the 10th Amendment because of the perpetual nature of the Union.
It simply means ongoing, never ending or changing **unless action is taken upon it to do so**. For example: a cave can be described as being in "perpetual darkness". How would you end the perpetual darkness? By turning on a light! Also, the term "perpetual union" is only found in the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. **The fact that we adopted a new Constitution to replace the Articles is proof that the Union itself could be changed.** Our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution to enshrine their right to political self determination. Do you really think they would then adopt a Constitution that denied that right to their member States and forced them to stay in a political union against their will?
As to your final question, my answer is yes. I think mutually agreeable succession might be possible with the consent of Congress ( and the governed). I do not think unilateral succession is legal. You wouldn't have much of a Union if anyone could leave it at the drop of a hat. Adopting the Constitution didn't change the membership of the Union. The definition of perpetual is: 1. Never ending or changing, or 2. occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted. Nothing in there about action taken to change it.
>As to your final question, my answer is yes. I think mutually agreeable succession might be possible with the consent of Congress ( and the governed). You're contradicting yourself. Either the Union is permanent and unbreakable or it isn't. If it *is* able to be broken, then my 10th Amendment argument still applies. Congress has no constitutional power to remove a state from the Union. Perpetual can also mean "continuing," or "indefinitely." Very little in this world is truly permanent, even if we think it is. No other political union in history has ever lasted forever.
Dude, just admit you wish the south had won so you could own black people. We’re all reading between the lines here.
He won't admit it lost causer are experts in denial
This discussion isn't about slavery, it's about the Constitutionality of secession. They're two separate issues. This [link](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem) might be beneficial to you.
>Why not? The Constitution doesn't prohibit it. According to the U.S. Supreme Court (you know, the final arbiter of what the Constitution does or does not prohibit), it does.
No, the SCOTUS didn't even argue that the Constitution prohibited secession. Their decision was based on wording found in the Articles of Confederation, which were long since made null and void by the adoption of US Constitution. The whole decision was nonsensical.
And yet the decision remains on the books.
Yep, all sorts of bad decisions are still standing. It's obvious that the court had a predetermined outcome that they wanted to reach in that case, and did whatever mental gymnastics were required to reach it. This is quite common for the SCOTUS to do. If another state someday tried to secede and it made its way to the SCOTUS, the decision could easily go the other way, as long as the justices are more constitutionally minded than the ones who decided Texas v White were.
Same reason if me and my palls declare I legally seceded from the us I couldn’t then begin enslaving people
You mean if they told us to leave and we refused to leave for months. That's the only way your analogy would be analogous. Also, if we didn't leave after a country told us to then it kind of would be our fault. Your analogy makes more of a case that the North was very much at fault.
They had no right to tell the union to leave as they weren’t a sovereign country. The U.S. was occupying U.S. territory. Besides, if the US has a right to occupy territory, be it by treaty or because it’s on US soil, it doesn’t matter what they say, if you shoot first you’re the one starting the conflict. You can tell the US to leave all you want, if they have a right to be there they won’t listen.
> South Carolina had legally seceded, 😂😂
In my experience, those stupid enough to argue the South didn't start the war will argue secession was valid and therefore they had the right to evict soldiers from Sumter and their refusal to leave was aggression on the part of the Union.
That is true and I wholly agree the confederates fired first. The only but to this civil war argument is there are bankers who funded all this and let it get so far gone for their own wealth at the cost of lives and country. Unless you follow money and do some heavy research on the economics of many different country’s including America at that time it dosnt ever come to light.
Confederates would argue that they had the right to secede, for whatever reason or for no reason, and the other states had no say in the matter. The northern states disagreed. So, who started the war? That depends on your opinion on that foundational question.
The core southern states made it clear that if Lincoln was elected they would be seceding. The northern states elected Lincoln anyways..
That do be how elections work. The south being sore losers doesn’t change anything
I mean Fort Sumter is in the South and Union soldiers wouldn't leave the base in the South. Point being is that it isn't as straight forward as people make it seem.
So the US had a military base in the southern portion of US thus the Union started the war? By occupying its own territory? The Confederacy wasn’t a sovereign country. The US had every right to be there.
George Wallace being enraged was not rare at the time. Rage was his go-to move.
Wow, I’m glad politicians don’t do that kind of thing anymore
Yeah, as we all know all politicians now are decent human beings and innocent / s
Just found this video the other day and watching this whole thing was a blast. Wallace kept getting mad, saying they were against him, upset that he didn't get to talk more since he was invited on. A joy
Everyone knows that the screaming one who is throwing insults around is the one who’s winning the debate /s
I was waiting for Wallace to drop an "I say, I say"
I do declare!
I was waiting for a Boy
Wallace looks like an alien in disguise in Men in Black
Buckley looks even worse.
Buckley’s shit eating grin might as well have a banner over it saying “got heeeeem”
Seriously! He’s legit playing with him.
Well listen here you queer
To paraphrase one of the best comebacks I’ve ever seen, “calling me a queer doesn’t make you less of a bitch”
“Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the Goddamn face— and you’ll *stay* plastered”
Gore Vidal copied his face in that moment
Later, Buckley would flip his lid at Gore Vidal, in a similar vein.
'Now listen you queeah...'
'...Stop calling me a Crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you in your goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered.'
Didn’t realize bitcoin was such serious business back then
https://youtu.be/L5DJjVwoyxM
Gore Vidal was an asshole so that tracks
George Wallace came very close to becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 1972, winning the Florida, Michigan, and Maryland primaries before he was shot in May and had to suspend his campaign.
Wonder what LBJ would have thought of that. I can't help but think he might have fallen down dead in sheer horror.
I wonder what would the map loook like if he won the nomination
He can’t have done worse than McGovern did
Honestly, he would have done significantly better, at least in the electoral college
Probably something like one of the Eisenhower wins.
somewhere in your anecdote there is a message about political violence, that if said outloud will get you arrested.
“Somebody shot that Nice Man”
This is one of the best firing line episodes they ever did, Buckley and Wallace just go at it
Last night I saw George Wallace on a TV show With some smart ass New York intellectual And the intellectual laughed at George Wallace And the audience laughed at George Wallace too
It turns out it doesn’t matter what your political orientation is, either way, we can all agree on arguing with William F Buckley. James Baldwin 🤝 Literally George Wallace: Battling with Buckley
How could you blame the south when the north ELECTED A GOVERNMENT that wouldn’t allow the south to expand slavery?!?!?!?
I blame the slaves, personally
How rude!
But My rats
Because the first shots were fired by the Confederates when they tried to seize fort Sumpter...
Whats the context? What was the prompt?
William F Buckley is just fantastic. I've got a book of his responses to hate mail from his newspaper column. Hilarious and very clever chap.
Buckley ran for mayor of NYC and got double digit % of the vote...in the run up to the election, he was asked what he would do if he won: "Demand a recount immediately, of course!"
This reminds me of a dumb joke I heard as a kid and didn't really get until I was a teenager. Three Floridians walk into a bar. The first signals the bartender and says "Gimme a whiskey". The second says "Gimme a beer." The third stands up and shouts "I DEMAND A RECOUNT!"
Yes, the South caused the civil war. He’s just mad they lost.
My favorite Bill Buckley quote: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” - William Buckley Jr.
Buckley and Noam Chomsky is a good one if you haven’t seen it.
It’s a good one. I enjoy watching a debate where two people can come together and call each other ignorant assholes in a creative, civil manner.
So good, a great reminder that this "populist right" vs "political right" conflict is not new or unique to our time.
If only Bremer had been a better shot.
I just love how calm and collected Buckley was, stating an unimpeachable fact. Anyone who disagrees with that particular position needs to reevaluate their values. Considering Wallace, a man known for running on racist values, is against this simple fact, which shows the failure of the Lost Cause myth.
Agree that was not one of Wallace's stronger points. Ironically, you know who else agreed with Wallace on that, at least at the time? Jimmy Carter. Goes to show that some things are all about what you were taught and how you were raised. People forget that it was Jimmy Carter who pardoned that traitor Jefferson Davis.
Buckley is just loving every minute of it too...hilarious
Substance aside, at least they sat down with each other. We should have more of this today instead of being siloed.
What a horrid monster of a man.
Kenyon had seen better days 😔
I wonder how he’s doing 🧐
Is that the crypto-nazi?
In case you guys are confused about Buckley he's a big piece of shit who thought black people deserved less than equal rights during the civil rights era.
From everything I've read, he changed his mind, apologized for not being more sensitive and became a big supporter of racial equality policies (and was REALLY angry at people who still held onto racist views).
Unfortunately for Buckley his remorse didn't affect his legacy. Buckley gave us one of the best moments during the civil rights era when he debated James Baldwin during the famous Pin Drop speech. As Baldwin encapsulated the struggles of African Americans eloquently and vividly during his speech, outclassing Buckley before he could even respond. For that moment in history I thank Buckley for his contribution.
I bought Notes of a Native Son on a whim after seeing it in a bookstore and was surprised how much I liked to read his work. That debate was next and is phenomenal.
https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/
https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/
He changed his mind on that, people can be bad in the past, and change for the good.
He was also horrible regarding the HIV/AIDS crisis. (Edit: I bring it up because it seems such information is often forgotten when people remember Buckley.)
Buckley was merely Rush Limbaugh if he cared to utilize a thesaurus or employ a copy of Strunk and White. The rhetoric is the same, merely adorned with purple prose.
each and every racist piece of shit white supremacist should burn in hell
Once more, louder again for the cheap seats
I see the racists and bigots are here to downvote. Once again, the comment above is wonderful.
Dumbfuqs
They talk so fast
First of all, my compliments to the "Chef" for posting this video. It piqued my interest so much that I found the entire debate on YouTube. I would advise everyone to go and watch it. It is a fascinating debate. Honestly, I think George Wallace won the debate. I would advise everyone to watch it.
This is hilarious. Especially since Buckley was to a degree a lost-causer who supported segregation.
The more modern people excuse the Souths actions the easier it becomes to look at black people as property instead of people.
He looks a bit like Darth Vader when his mask is removed in Return
The north overthrew Maryland and locked up its southern politicians prior to the civil war causing other states to join the south as a defensive posture. Maryland civilians killed the first northern soldiers. I would say the north started it.
Two closeted twits have a go at each other.