Fort Sumter

@Metal-Brain said
@sh76
It was not a civil war. It was an invasion from the north.

A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The southern states that seceded did not fight for control of the US government. They fought because they were invaded. The northern states fought to prevent secession. Nothing in historical documents is more clearly established. Yet ...[text shortened]... hese war bonds? If so, what percentage of the bonds were held by foreigners and from what countries?

Holy crap and I do mean crap.

@no1marauder said
Did you read Texas v. White like I told you to?

The Constitution by its nature is perpetual, just like its predecessor "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". In fact, it declares one of its objects to be to form "a more perfect union".

It would hardly be that if any subdivision of the Union could leave whenever they disagreed with the policies of the whole.

To clarify, once a State joined the Union, was there any mechanism to leave? Like a majority of States agreeing?

And I don't buy the States rights malarkey.
The lost cause argument truly is a lost cause.

@no1marauder said
Did you read Texas v. White like I told you to?

The Constitution by its nature is perpetual, just like its predecessor "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". In fact, it declares one of its objects to be to form "a more perfect union".

It would hardly be that if any subdivision of the Union could leave whenever they disagreed with the policies of the whole.

Britain has left the European Union, so I don’t think IN GENERAL it is an outlandish idea for states to retain the right to secede from their associations. Europe did not declare war to keep Britain in. 😆

I know the EU is different, but it’s the same idea.

@wildgrass said

But the South attacking Sumter did sink their cause - they were not ready for war and a few years delay would have helped them a lot to prepare.

Wouldn't a delay have simply made the matter worse, without affecting the final outcome?

History sometimes seems inevitable, but we never really know, do we? If the South had been let go, who knows how much longer slavery would have survived? 20 years? 40?

@spruce112358 said
Britain has left the European Union, so I don’t think IN GENERAL it is an outlandish idea for states to retain the right to secede from their associations. Europe did not declare war to keep Britain in. 😆

I know the EU is different, but it’s the same idea.

The EU was a treaty that had specific provisions for nations leaving it.

The Union could have been made a treaty or a confederation. It was not.

@kmax87 said
To clarify, once a State joined the Union, was there any mechanism to leave? Like a majority of States agreeing?

And I don't buy the States rights malarkey.
The lost cause argument truly is a lost cause.

A Constitutional Amendment would be required.

@no1marauder said
A Constitutional Amendment would be required.

Where in the constitution does it say states must remain in the union?

The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Where in the constitution does it say states must remain in the union?

The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason

By right wing nuts, nobody else.

@no1marauder said
By right wing nuts, nobody else.

You cant show it in the constitution because it isn’t there, no amendment needed

@Mott-The-Hoople said
You cant show it in the constitution because it isn’t there, no amendment needed

Read Texas v. White.

I could also quote numerous Founders and Framers regarding the unconstitutional nature of secession from the compact (Madison, Jefferson and Adam's for starters) but someone with a third grade education like yourself probably wouldn't like that much homework

@no1marauder said
Read Texas v. White.

I could also quote numerous Founders and Framers regarding the unconstitutional nature of secession from the compact (Madison, Jefferson and Adam's for starters) but someone with a third grade education like yourself probably wouldn't like that much homework

Is succession in the constitution? Easy question

You are posting about immigration that got overturned…nothing to do with succession

@sh76 said
Let's take a little break from the Orange Man Great/Orange Man Bad fighting, shall we?

Yesterday, I took advantage of a meeting I had in Charleston to invest a couple of hours on riding the ferry to Fort Sumter and exploring it for maybe an hour.

I'm a bit of a military history buff, though the Civil War has never really been my favorite area to study and read about. I cer ...[text shortened]... a very strong union weapon in enforcing a blockade had it been held by the Union throughout the war.

To Civil War buffs

I am at this moment reading The Demon of Unrest. Eric Larson, a fantastic author (The White City, Midnight in the Garden of good and Evil) starts off this Civil War non-fiction right there, in Charleston, and Sumter is profusely the scene.

I recommend it.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Is succession in the constitution? Easy question

You are posting about immigration that got overturned…nothing to do with succession

No, Texas v. White has nothing to do with immigration. It held the US was "an indestructible union" and that secession was not permitted under the Constitution.https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Where in the constitution does it say states must remain in the union?

The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason

A factual example.
"Texas joined the United States in 1845 for a number of reasons, including economic and political advantages, military protection, and Manifest Destiny.
Economic and political advantages
Texans wanted to take advantage of the economic and political benefits of being part of the United States.
Texans wanted to protect themselves from Mexico and Native Americans with the military protection of the United States.
Manifest Destiny
The doctrine of Manifest Destiny drove American expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
President John Tyler annexed Texas because of its strategic location near New Orleans.
Political divisions over slavery
The issue of slavery in the West threatened to tear the nation apart.
Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren rejected annexing Texas because of their concerns about the potential for Texas to become a slave state.
Texas citizens' desire for annexation
Texans voted to be annexed by the United States in 1836.
Citizens of the new republic were overwhelmingly in favor of annexation.
Texas became the 28th state
Texas became the 28th state in the United States on December 29, 1845."

The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason
It was only called that by the Confederate states. FACT: The Confederate states started the war by attacking federal troops at fort Sumter; end of story lying loser.
"They bit off more than they could chew." 🙂

"Once you check in you can never leave." Eagles. Great concert by the way. 🙂
Get over it loser; you lost. Now, stop sniveling and grow up; ya all LOST! 🙂

@spruce112358 said
Britain has left the European Union, so I don’t think IN GENERAL it is an outlandish idea for states to retain the right to secede from their associations. Europe did not declare war to keep Britain in. 😆

I know the EU is different, but it’s the same idea.

I like apples but hate oranges.
I know oranges are different but it's the same idea.