Was the south legally allowed to secede? Was the north the real bad guys here?

>Was the south legally allowed to secede?

Yes. America was founded on the basis of Secession.

>Was the north the real bad guys here?

Northerners are a nation of bloodsucking parasites and extortions. They are never the good guys. Ever. Trusting a Northerner with anything, especially money makes about as much sense as trusting shark not to eat you after covering yourself in menstrual blood and urine.

>Northerners are a nation of bloodsucking parasites and extortions
Implying the North is some homogeneous conglomerate of people

Be more specific lad

No they'd sue for peace as the south would not have had the men material to make it that far, and it would be a bitch govern as the population was heavily lopsided towards the north

South was legally allowed to secede but was not right in attacking Fort Sumter. At the same time the Union was not right in continuing to maintain the fort and not recognizing the CSA as a new sovereign state.

The War Between the States (the best name for the war, since it wasnt a civil war in the sense of two factions fighting for control of the entire nation, but it also wasnt the North that was the primary aggressor, instigator? sure. aggressor? no.) is much more complex than good guy bad guy, there were heros on both sides and it was a tragedy that both nations couldnt coexist and eventually settle their differences peacefully.

I think Texas is the only state that retained the right to secede; maybe Hawaii could pull it off too. The South obviously didn't have a right to do so as they had to start a war.

Both of these questions are irrelevant, the south fired the first shots.

If the south hadn't attacked Ft. Sumter they could have seceded peacefully but the retards had to take the bait.

>Was the south legally allowed to secede

Texas vs White. The state of Texas brought a case to the Supreme Court arguing they didn't have a legal right to secede so they could get out of paying all of the Confederate bonds the state issued.

Uhhhh... No.

The goal of the Confederacy was independence from the United States, not taking over the United States.

The 1862 invasion of Maryland was nearly derailed before it began because so many Confederate officers and soldiers protested invading a foreign nation.

Not to mention that the Confederacy had trouble policing itself from the beginning. Appalachia was practically having a miniature Civil War with pro-Union, pro-Secession civilians, and escaped slaves fighting each other.

Which brings us to another issue, slavery itself was already collapsing on an institutional level by 1862. Plantations were being sacked or simply falling apart from neglect. Crop failures were rampant. Slaves were escaping (even before the Emancipation Proclamation, the Union Army declared slaves who walked into their lines to be "contraband" and not returned to their owners) or even rebelling in ever-larger numbers. It's debatable whether an independent South could've maintained slavery at all, let alone expanded it.

Just as you had the Ku Klux Klan and other groups in the South fighting Federal rule in the post-War years. You would find a pro-Union/abolitionist version of the Ku Klux Klan fighting Confederate rule over the North. If the Union, with it's vast resources and manpower was barely able to combat the Klan, what makes you think the Confederate States, who had half the manpower and even less of the resources would be able to occupy the North?

TL;DR Enforcing slavery North of the Mason-Dixon Line was neither a Confederate goal, nor practical in any way.

>the first board had nothing to do with anime
The first board - /b/ Anime & Random. If you're going to talk shit at least try and get your facts straight

...

>Was the south legally allowed to secede?

yes

Just a little "civil disobedience" guys lol xD

Law only applies to your own nation. When the South seceded they were a separate nation. It's the same reason why international law is fucking stupid.

Yes they were.

Yes they were.

>Was the north the real bad guys here?
Yes. War of the northern aggression was literally the first genocide in human history.

No, refer to "The South" didn't secede, a bunch of State's legislatures did unilaterally. The State's governments only have the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government, and deciding US borders is one power specifically granted to congress.

>But the American Revolu...

Let me stop you right there. The American Revolution was also illegal, but that's a separate question from whether it was morally justifiable.

>Yes. War of the northern aggression was literally the first genocide in human history.

I wouldn't go that far...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_War_of_Yucatán

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars

Only Haiti and the Trail of Tears of those listed are anything close to being genocides.

The dispute was started because of anxiety over slavery's future. They'd expand it as far as they could.

the fugitive slave law made made slavery a nationwide institution, free or not. You dont have to have plantations to be forced to participate.

those were just squabbles between warlords

Justification may be up for debate, but it is unquestionably illegal for a state to secede from the union. Only congress can decide what is or is not a US territory. The supreme court has ruled multiple times that secession is unconstitutional.

>Was the south legally allowed to secede

how does this question logically even make sense? seceding is "leaving" the country, laws are meant for those within a country, why would there be provisions for "states" wanting to become something else? no revolution was ever legal, because its outside of the parameters of what the definition of a law is...

right?

It may be technically illegal but if a state has seceded then obviously they don't care about the law. It's ridiculous to expect foreign nations to abide by your laws and the Confederacy was a separate nation.

Yes. The union unjustly tried to take away their right to own slaves.

sophistry

The Confederacy was not a separate nation, it was still part of the United States and the Confederate government was illegitimate.

The Confederacy could only be considered a separate nation if they won the war.

Its kind of like you coming to this thread and shitposting because the OP triggered your autism instead of contributing

nah thats bullshit

>dont follow the union's laws, dont pay taxes to the unions
>b-but u guys are still apart of u-us

thats not how it works famalam

>don't follow the union's laws, don't pay taxes to the union
>the rebellion gets crushed
>follow union laws, pay taxes to the unions

That doesn't forbid secession, though. It gives congress the power to forbid secession, but it never did this. Thus, secession was allowed under the tenth amendment until Texas v. White.

The North had every right to maintain Fort Sumter, it was on land that had been sold to the United States government and suddenly declaring yourself a sovereign nation doesn't remove that deal.

1. Seceed from England
2. Start new country
3. Throw a massive hypocritical hissy fit when someone else tries to do what you just did
4. ?????
5. PROFIT!!!1!

Fuck legal.

We had just seceded from the British Empire.

HYPOCRISY

Except we won and you didn't

You traitors are lucky we didn't line you up and shoot you in the streets like the dogs you are

>was it legal
it was legal to secede in either a democratic way or if not thats wasnt possible in a military way if the supression was real and on the felt level
>was the north bad
no in history there never are god and bad people, some just have better justifcations then others

>not liking 2d
>being on Veeky Forums
I want the normals to leave.

>Which brings us to another issue, slavery itself was already collapsing on an institutional level by 1862.
apologist lies. Ever heard of bleeding Kansas? The southerners were trying to expand slavery west and into the Caribbean and revolted when the country elected a compromise moderate who was elected on a platform of preventing slavery's spread to new states.

muh good ol' bois dindu nuffin

If secession went ahead with no fuss, there WOULD have been war either way.
2 scenarios come to mind:
Underground Railroad: The influx of escaped slaves into the north causes border disputes. Southerners was their slaves back, North tells them to eat a dick, couple shots fire, bam, civil war.

2. Carving the Cake
US is now split in two. 2 competing countries scramble for economic loyalties in europe. Clever Europeans craft malicious trade deals that get the Americans fighting against each other. Civil War begins, European countries start supporting either side for territory in the west, eventually continental US resembles a hodge podge of american and european states.

So, I'll take 4 years of Lincoln being a big bad meanie so we can remain the 50 state monolithic power we are today.

The difference is that the 13 colonies had literally zero representation in how and why they were taxed. They were expected to just shut up and pay whatever taxes the government decides to levy upon them.

But if you vote and then lose you were still represented by the system even if it acts in a way that you disapprove of, which i what happened in the south.

Can an American state legally succeed from the United States of America?

I believe Texans think they can. If they tried, however, it would get ugly.

>Kansans were having slaves when they were attacked by thugs hired by northern industrialists seeking to destroy their way of life

No

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

whos your main?

fighting tiger here!

>>Kansans were having slaves when they were attacked by thugs hired by northern industrialists seeking to destroy their way of life
bullshit. Freesoilers who didn't want to have to compete against the guys who didn't have to make payroll. They were there before the southerners brought their slaves and flies right in the face of your "b-but slavery was going away!" meme

>Battlefield: Civil War.

some of those civil war battles must have been some gay-ass shit

>secession
>civil disobedience

>Was the south legally allowed to secede?
It doesn't matter because they didn't care about legality, they just up and split.
>Was the north the real bad guys here?
If they hurt your feelings, then sure.

What aggression?

The South was allowed to peacefully secede. It was only when they tried to forcibly seize a fortress owned by the Federal government that war broke out.

You are dumb.

Veeky Forums is first and foremost an anime/japan culture site. All other are secondaries.

Don't go spouting nonsense if you don't even know your history.

It's never been tried.

IIRC, the decision was that a state cannot unilaterally declare itself independent.

name a better civil war than the american civil war

protip: you cant

>This idiot doesn't realize I was referring to the war itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband_(American_Civil_War)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen's_Colony_of_Roanoke_Island

How 'bout you fucking read what I wrote you dumbass.

Any sympathy you might have for them should go out the window when you realise that they shot first.

Their music was better tho

youtube.com/watch?v=KYDmJbFS7HY

>No 11th Mississippi Company A

>Was the north the real bad guys here?
how could they be? The South were askng for it when they attacked Fort Sumter. I doubt Lincoln could have gotten support for a war without it

>The South were askng for it when they attacked Fort Sumter

you mean when they kicked a foreign army out of their own territory?

Fort Sumter was Federal Territory.

>>This idiot doesn't realize I was referring to the war itself.
Do you know what irony is? Irony is the south revolting on fears that Lincoln was going to free the slaves, but actually freeing the slaves would never have been politically feasible were it not for the emergency war-time powers granted to Lincoln.
>TL;DR Enforcing slavery North of the Mason-Dixon Line was neither a Confederate goal, nor practical in any way.

Like all southern apologia it's riddled with squirrely language deliberately designed to be evasive. The Confederates were buttblasted because Lincoln was elected on a platform of stopping slavery's spread to new states. He was a compromise moderate who's chief goal was preserving freedom in newly created states, not messing with southern ones. Wherever they could, southerners were seeking to expand the practice of slavery, and if left to their own devices almost certainly would have tried adapting it to industrialization, and often envisioned creating a slave owning empire stretching across the south, west, Mexico, and the Caribbean. They fancied themselves an expansionist power and Lincoln's election was a specific referendum on stopping that, which the southerners couldn't abide and seceded. The whole "we was only rebelling fer our freedums and states rights!" was a blatant Confederate rebranding strategy after the "we want the freedom to own slaves" argument was falling on deaf ears to the European powers.

>How 'bout you fucking read what I wrote you dumbass.
Seriously, there's no fucking reason for the salty language you fucking dick. Stop shitting up the board with this crap it does nothing to contribute to the conversation.

Oh, and the other thing I forgot to add
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

For all their talk of suspicion about the federal government, they were totally fine with using it to enforce slavery in states that weren't complying

...

>Except we won
because the south bailed you out... never trust the eternal yankee.

>they were totally fine with using it to enforce slavery in states that weren't complying

you mean enforcing the constitution?

>Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3,
>No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Yeah, on top of this the south had much more representation than the north in the Senate just because they would throw a hissy fit over everything.

t. cleetus

>you mean enforcing the constitution?
I mean the "hurr slavery was dying on its own confederates were good boys they dindu nuffin" argument is a giant load of hogwash.

>Was the south legally allowed to secede
It doesn't really matter if they did it legally or not.

>sidestepping the question

slaves made up the same percent of the south prior to the war as it did after the revolution. It was dying nor growing proportionally. Although it was slowly dying off in the eastern southern states like Virginia, NC, etc as they moved them westward.

wasn't* dying nor growing proportionally.

>Was the south legally allowed to secede?

Well no, but does that really matter? Since when has secession ever been legal? When you secede you're basically saying that the national government has no legitimacy on your soil, laws stop mattering.

>Was the north the real bad guys here?

It depends. Despite the memes, the south acted first. States started seceding before Lincoln even got into office. And there was that whole Fort Sumter business. And ALSO despite the memes, the south's primary motivation was slavery. Obviously there were other factors at play, but slavery was the biggest. People who say that "it wasn't about slavery" are lying to you.

Read this: civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Now you could make the argument that Lincoln should have just left well enough alone and let them secede, but would that have ended well? It could have led to a weaker nation as well as unstable/chaotic borders. The US would almost certainly not have become a world power if the split was permanent. And the Confederacy would have potentially slid into poverty because of the lack of industralization (as well as Europe's lessened dependence on southern cotton). Though now we're getting into "what if" territory.

a democracies' purpose is to serve the people, not allow a tyranny instituted by the majority. If secession is a means to achieve liberty and representation then it is perfectly justified.

teachingushistory.org/lessons/pdfs_and_docs/documents/TheImpactoftheCottonGin.html

>a democracies' purpose is to serve the people, not allow a tyranny instituted by the majority.
unless we make them only count as 3/5ths of a person.
>representation
If anything, the south were way over-represented in the senate and secession was just sour grapes that democratic society was moving in a direction that they didn't like and couldn't stop.

>Was the south legally allowed to secede? No.
Unfortunately, our legal traditions are still and were mired in conceptions of the sovereign as the literal owner of the country and as such the source of law. 'King's peace', 'God's law', 'People vs. X' etc.

Secession, in so far as it implies either the owner divesting themselves of ownership or divesting themselves of their person cannot be contemplated in this understanding. It would imply a lack of authority for the source of authority to be divisible and not thereby inferior to the whole or former state.

To use the American Revolution as an example, the Declaration makes reference to a previous sovereign owner, "Nature's God" as the 'real' source of law. By extension it paints the king, George III and his predecessors as usurpers in that vein. It is nominally (and you can smell the stink of legalism from here) a 'restoration' of authority, not a 'secession' from authority.

If we concede the American revolution was a restoration of a people to 'natural law' (if only discovered after the fact), then no further secession may be made without positing a God of Nature's God, invalidating the revolution, or being prima facie a post facto, and therefore inferior source of authority.

>Was 'the north' the real bad guys here?
As a generalization, no better or worse than 'the south', albeit in different ways.

Were the concerns of the Southern wealthy over their disappearing power as land/capital holders before the concentrated power of northern wealthy bankers and stock holders out-competing them by paper trickery legitimate? Yes, and we now suffer that yoke instead of chattel slavery's evils.

>muh 'rich man's war and poor man's fight' and conscription spread north soon after it hit in the south, and fundamentally that was what the war was about. But there were enough people trying for something better that the country as a whole came out ahead afterward in the aggregate.

Land, capital, and labour are no longer owned outright by dynastic holding familes backed by their suzeraint government.

However, now virtually all land, capital, and labour is encumbered by financial instrument holding companies backed by their suzeraint government.

>Anime has absolutely nothing to do with Veeky Forums
What about the history of anime?

How was it genocide?

>the united states
>throw a successful revolution when you get taxed without representation and treated unfairly from a monarchy
>the confederacy
>get incredibly buttblasted and pull a "fuck you ill make my own country with slaves and incest" and start a war because we said that slavery was immoral and that you can't do it anymore

wasn't genocide but northern armies raped their way throughout the south and continued during reconstruction. Stories passed down in my family of female family members that did go out dressed as men and boys.

>anecdotes
It's already been established that a shit ton of Georgia towns which today claim to have been destroyed during Sherman's march to the sea were never visited by his army. Obviously there were atrocities (which the South also perpetuated see: Andersonvile, and, y'know, slavery) but they've been substantially exaggerated over the years to fuel the Southern persecution complex.

The constitution covers all people, so it could be argued that the south was breaking the constitution by keeping people as property and the matter just wasn't pushed until Lincoln.

I agree the swath Sherman took missed more than it hit however there was systemic rape of southern women and girls and the US government has been covering it up since going so far to say the few rapes that did occur were of black women and girls not white. Like that somehow makes it better.

Yes Andersonville was horrible and accurately documented and never justified while you never hear of about Camp Douglas near Chicago. Who cares right?

>was the South legally allowed to secede?
maybe
>was the North the real bad guys here?
nah. hard to be the 'real bad guys' when you didn't start the fighting.

don't start wars you can't win is my main thing.

that would belong on /a/ or /jp/

that picture is really stupid, was the east even relevant at the time of the civil war?

>Northerners are a nation of bloodsucking parasites and extortions
>Southerners literally practiced slavery
what did he mean by this?