The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs...

>legally
>secede

So I'm saying that the Union was scum of the earth by stating the obvious that Fort Sumter was a forced pretext for invasion? Stop projecting, at least I contributed more to this thread then the first two posters.

...

not an argument.

secession was seen as legally viable all through the early republic. That's why when New England threaten secession various times, their was no accusation that it was illegal, only unreasonable.

>PROVIDED that all processes, civil and criminal issued under the AUTHORITY of THIS STATE, or any officer thereof, shall and may be SERVED and EXECUTED upon any person there being who may be IMPLICATED IN LAW

ah so SC still had legal authority over the land, thanks for proving my point. The federal government had a land title? so what, I have a land title for the land my house is build on and guess what? I'm still under state law.

>I notice in Kentucky a disposition to cry against the tyranny and oppression of our Government. Now, were it not for war you know tyranny could not exist in our Government; therefore any acts of late partaking of that aspect are the result of war; and who made this war? Already we find ourselves drifting toward new issues, and are beginning to forget the strong facts of the beginning. You know and I know that long before the North, or the Federal Government, dreamed of war the South had seized the U.S. arseuals, forts, mints, and custom-houses, and had made prisoners of war of the garrisons sent at their urgent demand to protect them 'against Indians, Mexicans, and negroes'.
>I know this of my own knowledge, because when the garrison of Baton Bouge was sent to the Rio Grande to assist in protecting that frontier against the guerrilla Cortina, who had cause of offense against the Texan people, Governor Moore made strong complaints and demanded a new garrison for Baton Rouge, alleging as a reason that it was not prudent to have so much material of war in a parish where there were 20,000 slaves and less than 5,000 whites, and very shortly after this he and Bragg, backed by the militia of New Orleans, made 'prisoners of war' of that very garrison, sent there at their own request.

what did he mean by this

>when the confederates don't do anything for months you decide to send a totally not hostile fleet full of arms to reinforce captured fort

>union would have let SC secede peacefully but just wanted to reinforce a giant fort outside their largest city because of muh federal property.
Well, the land should have to have been bought legally from the seceding state, not taken violently. Anyway, we know that the government didn't want the states to secede, so they would never have given up a fort in one of the South's most important ports. The northern public also wanted the fort protected and considered its defenders as heroes, so a retreat would have been a blow to its prestige.

the civil war put a rest to the secession question by force desu. secession is retarded anyway because then the states would divide innumerably if they didn't agree with the federal government.

in what way?

>If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.

t. le burning Atlanta man.

Frankly, I think he understood the modern world better than just about any other thinker of the time.

>Well, the land should have to have been bought legally from the seceding state, not taken violently.

The CSA sent multiple delegations to Washington in order to pay for all Federal forts in the South. The President refused to meet with them. As I said above, the storming of Fort Sumter was a direct result of Washington sending ships into the harbor.

But yeah, the North obviously needed to find a pretext for invasion as every month that went by gave the CSA more credibility and might cause foreign recognition.

Are you stupid, or just so blinded by hypocrisy you can't see your own backtracking?

The question of local state law applying (or not) isn't the relevant factor. The federal government was the owner of the fort, and thus had the right to move people and equipment into it without fear of interference.

That was Lincoln's main argument against secession as well

And the secession was a direct result of the south being fanny flustered that other people didn't want to adopt their shitty socioeconomic system.
Maybe they should have just changed with the times, or let the results of a legal election proceeds apace instead of chimping out.

Isn't the average "white" in the south actually 30% black?

No, this is like the ancap dream of buying up all the land around someone you don't like and preventing all traffic in and out until they die from starvation.

I said the state legally seceded aka it doesn't recognize Washington's authority under its jurisdiction. You respond with some picture of proving that the Federals still owned the land deed thus they still control the fort even if SC seceded. I responded to that saying your pic states that SC can still execute its authority over the land, which it did multiple times by demanding Anderson to leave the fort. sorry your png didn't live up to its name.

>south wanted others to adopt slavery
>they tried to accomplish this by separating themselves from others

You sound a little upset and confused but nothing you said was an argument against the legality of secession. New England threatened secession multiple times when they didn't get their way so secession had a long history of acceptance in early US politics.

Let me try to illustrate this with a modern day example, so it can penetrate.

>You live in the state of South Carolina
>You own a house.
>One day, a state employee, say, an actuary, drives up to your driveway, says that you can't bring your friends into your house, and he will shoot you if you try.

This would be majorly illegal, BECAUSE APPLICABLE LAW AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Even IF, and this is a big IF, the state secession is legal, that doesn't give the state the right to abrogate pre-existing property rights, especially when they themselves explicitly acknowledge them. What "Civil or criminal process" evicted the feds?

Do you get it?

I don't know and don't care.

What really gets my goat is the way the south love them their 'lost cause confederacy' revisionism when really they were kicking and screaming and getting millions of Americans killed solely over the fact that their aristocrats wanted to be European nobility, and decided they'd rather start a war rather than risk it being suggested that the law apply to them the same as everyone else.

Was the state legally allowed to confiscate land from its rightful holders?

>le rich aristocratic slavers started the war maymay

The rich slaveowners wanted to remain in the union, why would they want to threatened their entire wealth by secession when the federal government was going to protect their right of slavery? Most rich southerners voted Constitutional Union in 1860. Fire eaters were mostly middle class.

>reminder that this is the same president who thought the Mexican-American war was uncalled for even after mexicans came over the border and massacred American soldiers.

That never happened.

A platoon of American dragoons patrolling well ahead of the Army that Polk had ordered into the disputed territory between Texas & Mexico engaged a contingent of the Mexican army on the Rio-Grande, which had been ordered specifically not to conduct any offensive activities to avoid giving the US a pretext to declare war, and several Americans died in the ensuing fire-fight. This happened ever after Zachary Taylor had blockaded the mouth of the Rio Grande which was technically an act of war.

The Mexicans certainly didn't 'come across the border & massacre American soldiers'. Since 1. the border was in dispute on a tenuous pretense and 2. it was America who sent its army to occupy the territory, which if you examined the context was pretty clearly meant from the start to spark a casus belli for Polk to wrest California from Mexico by force since they refused to sell it

Your example of having friends over to your house is a little different than holing up on your property with weapons in a effort to block trade leaving the State's largest city.

Also you keep saying so and so would be illegal. According to what? If SC seceded then they would obviously have the final legal say in whether or not there could be foreign soldiers on their land.

Correct

>Your example of having friends over to your house is a little different than holing up on your property with weapons in a effort to block trade leaving the State's largest city.

When exactly did the forces in Fort Sumter interdict trade? And since when is it illegal to bring your own physical property onto your own real estate?

>Also you keep saying so and so would be illegal. According to what?

Every code of state law I've ever heard of.

>If SC seceded then they would obviously have the final legal say in whether or not there could be foreign soldiers on their land.

It isn't their land. It's federal land subject to SC civil and criminal law.

Just like, you know, the Pentagon today. (Except Virginia, but I trust that won't confuse you too much)

>The Mexicans certainly didn't 'come across the border & massacre American soldiers'. Since 1. the border was in dispute on a tenuous pretense

If the border was in dispute, that would mean the US claimed it as their own. Unless Lincoln agreed with the Mexican position for some reason.

>you examined the context was pretty clearly meant from the start to spark a casus belli for Polk

yeah no shit sherlock, just like Fort Sumter was obviously a pretext forced by the Union in order to invade the south. My initial point was that the same guy who didn't agree with Polk's actions can't really justify his actions at Fort Sumter.

Why do people still get butthurt over this event? There's nothing that can redeem the South because they lost. Get over it, famalam

>If the border was in dispute, that would mean the US claimed it as their own. Unless Lincoln agreed with the Mexican position for some reason.
The Polk administration supported Texas' border claim which rested on a flimsy pretense which by all accounts never would have held up under any kind of arbitration. No "Texans" even lived in the disputed territory, whereas some Mexican rancheros did. For all intents and purposes Polk invaded Mexico & the first encounter of the war was pretty undeniably on Mexican soil.

Saying that "Mexico crossed the border" is a gross misrepresentation, or closer to an outright lie, of the facts.

Anderson barricaded the largest Fort in the state that had never even been manned prior. He then placed 60 guns on the perimeter. Even though the fortress was obviously built to protect Charleston and faced the sea, Anderson ignored some of those positions and had as many facing the city as possible. In what would would a sovereign state see that as anything but an act of aggression?

If it was subject to SC civil and criminal law than the state obviously had legitimate reasons to remove Anderson.

>don't you dare argue about history on the history board

ok I guess I'll go back to posting stirner memes and asking what various portraits meant by this.

>Anderson barricaded the largest Fort in the state that had never even been manned prior.

You mean he, without orders from higher up, abandoned the fortress he was previously stationed in (Moultrie) because he thought it was indefensible, and linked up with other federal forces somewhere that was half-built but could at least offer a plausible defense with his tiny force against the state militia that had shown up.

>Even though the fortress was obviously built to protect Charleston and faced the sea, Anderson ignored some of those positions and had as many facing the city as possible

Yeah, since you know where that militia was coming from?

> In what would would a sovereign state see that as anything but an act of aggression?

The sorts that have armed forces from other countries around at the moment of inception?

>If it was subject to SC civil and criminal law than the state obviously had legitimate reasons to remove Anderson.

And yet they did not perform any process of civil law, they just showed up with an army. Show me the court order lawfully evicting the federal government, from a duly appointed SC court.

Mexico still considered all of Texas as theirs so stop acting like they had reasonable arguments. The border was given to Texas in writing by Santa Anna when he lost and retreated. It's not Polk's fault that Mexico was being too stubborn to acknowledge they lost Texas.

>You mean he, without orders from higher up, abandoned the fortress he was previously stationed in (Moultrie) because he thought it was indefensible, and linked up with other federal forces somewhere that was half-built but could at least offer a plausible defense with his tiny force against the state militia that had shown up.

How is it helping your case to acknowledge that Anderson did it without Presidential orders. If anything it makes it look more aggressive and manipulative as Buchanan gave Gov. Pickens assurance that the fort would not be taken.

>The sorts that have armed forces from other countries around at the moment of inception?

Sumter was different. There were hundreds of federal installations throughout the south that left according to the south's wishes. The friction happened at Sumter precisely because it was fortified a week after secession in an act of aggression.

>go through a million 19th century old law tomes to find a civil law where positioning guns towards state authorities is illegal or else I win the argument

no thanks

I don't even know why you're arguing this as you seem to think secession was illegal in which case Fort Sumter doesn't even matter because SC would obviously still be under Federal Jurisdiction and Anderson could do whatever he wants. However if secession is legal then the Union would definitely be over stepping their bounds by even the lowest standards. The US owns WW2 graveyards in France, doesn't mean we can sneak howitzers in there aimed at the surrounding towns overnight and not expect it to be seen as an act of aggression.

>Mexico still considered all of Texas as theirs so stop acting like they had reasonable arguments
Doesn't make Polk's claim any less flimsy, and anyway Mexico was willing to negotiate over the Texas border. Claiming 'all of Texas' wasn't a serious position as much as an initial bargaining position. There's a big difference between using a claim as leverage in peaceful negotiations and sending an army to enforce your bogus claim at the barrel of a gun.
>The border was given to Texas in writing by Santa Anna when he lost and retreated
In a treaty he signed essentially at gunpoint that was never ratified by the Mexican government so it legally meant nothing.
>It's not Polk's fault that Mexico was being too stubborn to acknowledge they lost Texas.
Oh don't give me that bullshit. Polk wasn't an innocent bystander. He deliberately instigated hostilities to grab clay. Unless Mexico was willing to sell California for what was essentially pennies of what it was worth Polk was willing to go to war to wring it from them.

>How is it helping your case to acknowledge that Anderson did it without Presidential orders.

Because it's not an act of policy, but rather a few hundred men trying to get themselves under cover in a newly formed state that became hostile overnight.

>Sumter was different. There were hundreds of federal installations throughout the south that left according to the south's wishes.

Sumter was different because it was staffed with federal troops and not local militia on secondment. Think that might have something to do with why it held out?

>no thanks

Nice strawman. All I'm asking for is, consistent with the document that started this all, actual evidence of process of civil law to evict the Federal government.

You do realize that just because something may or may not be illegal, it doesn't necessarily mean that the penalty is forfeiture of property, right?

>However if secession is legal then the Union would definitely be over stepping their bounds by even the lowest standards. The US owns WW2 graveyards in France, doesn't mean we can sneak howitzers in there aimed at the surrounding towns overnight and not expect it to be seen as an act of aggression.

You do realize that pretty much every country in the world keeps a small force of soldiers (but not usually called as such) on their foreign embassies and nobody bats an eye?

>There were hundreds of federal installations throughout the south that left according to the south's wishes.
Rebs seized a lot of other military bases and weapon caches without any permission from the federal govt, though. Sometimes the federal troops defected to the South, other times not and the rebs disarmed and detained federal troops.

>trying to get themselves under cover in a newly formed state that became hostile overnight.

well he should be happy that the confederates finally put him and his men on boats unharmed and sent them back north

>Sumter was different because it was staffed with federal troops

dude come on, Sumter was not the only union garrison in the south. Sherman seemed to have found a way out of Louisiana safely without sparking a war. It's almost as if the southern states weren't as "hostile" as you seemed to think they were.

If you can't wrap you head around how the manning of Fort Sumter and placement of cannons under the cover of darkness in retaliation to secession, and then continued attempts of shipments of reinforcements doesn't seem like an act of aggression, I don't know what more I can say. SC's civil law jurisdiction could obviously find that illegal. If they had passed a law prior to the taking of the fort would you have felt better?

>nah senpai Fort Sumter was just like an embassy

this is how far your argument has degraded? Well I'm off to a christmas dinner, I'll be back if this thread still exists tomorrow.

>well he should be happy that the confederates finally put him and his men on boats unharmed and sent them back north

After penning them in for months and shelling them.

>Sherman seemed to have found a way out of Louisiana safely without sparking a war

Sherman, at the outbreak of secession, resigned as a federal superintendent of a school which hosted a class of about 20 cadets. That's not a military garrison of a fortress, nor is he in command of a military force that is suddenly no longer in its own country.

>If you can't wrap you head around how the manning of Fort Sumter and placement of cannons under the cover of darkness in retaliation to secession, and then continued attempts of shipments of reinforcements doesn't seem like an act of aggression

I'm saying that's not RELEVANT you daft jackass. It's not about aggressive vs unaggressive. It's about lack of actual civil process in what is explicitly acknowledged to be federal property.

> SC's civil law jurisdiction could obviously find that illegal.

Then where is the court judgment doing so?

> If they had passed a law prior to the taking of the fort would you have felt better?

That doesn't even make sense. The document states, and I quote

"Provided, that all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this state, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded,..."

They are subject to lawsuits, to criminal complaints, to general local law. It has nothing to do with the action of a legislature; it acknowledges that the pre-existing laws of the state hold sway on the fort, the same way they do in every bit of federal (and anyone else's) property within a given state.

>nah senpai Fort Sumter was just like an embassy

Strawman harder.

>Putting guns and men in your property in another country is an act of aggression
>Except when it isn't!

Ignoring that the "aggressiveness" of the action is the wrong question to be asking.

Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions to make a point, albeit exaggerated...and then John Calhoun and nullificationists seized on the opportunity to make serious Jefferson & Madison's prank