And stealing property that legally belongs to the federal is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States of America. If you steal it using an artillery detachment, it’s generally called “starting a war.”
Oh come on now.
If you supply a fort off the coast of a foreign nation it’s generally called “starting a war”
Whew! Dodged a bullet there, since it wasn’t a foreign nation!
Not really. Even assuming aggressive intent, it’s still not starting a war, just preparing for one. But it could also be a defensive matter; preparing in case the *other *nation decides to start a war. If I purchase a gun (assuming I lived someplace where this were legal), it doesn’t mean that I plan to invade my neighbour’s house, just that I intend to protect mine if he (or anyone else) should invade. Even then, it isn’t necessarily my neighbour I fear; he just happens to live next door.
Yawn. Let’s repeat the same thing over and over again shall we?
Would you hang out in your neighbor’s house with the gun in the name of protecting yours? How about on the sidewalk in front of his house?
Until you catch on to the reality of the situation, why not?
If I were renting his property to him, or had been invited to, or were the head of the local neighbourhood watch association, yes, I think so. Or as I suggested in the previous post, in the name of protecting his, if I had some guardianship over him.
The constitution opens with “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union”. This supposes a previous union, which would be the AoC. The AoC specifically called the union of the states “perpetual”, and the opening of the constitution reaffirms the validity, and thus the perpetuity of, the union. Thus, even rebellion cannot break the union.
Now, if you rebel and WIN…
But they didn’t, did they?
If South Carolina had a problem with that, they should have brought it up back when the Federal Government first proposed to build the fort in Charleston Harbor. If, at a later date, South Carolina decided that the fort they had actively lobbied to have built in their territory was no longer welcome, they should have, at the very least, attempted some restitution to the (from their point of view) foreign government that had, in good faith, poured millions and millions of dollars into building their infrastructure for them. I admit, the odds of the federal government agreeing to accept payment was pretty long, but it would, at the least, have actually given the south the moral high ground in the fight, and give your argument a leg to stand on.
Instead, they decided to give that up and just start killing people to get what they wanted. I don’t find that defensible. I don’t think you’d find it defensible, either, were it anyone other than the Confederate States that were trying to do it.
Even Confederates didn’t take the legal argument you claim, those that did take a legal argument used a much weaker one they ignored when convenient, and the entire former-Whig group basicall shrugged and said, “We win if we win.” South Carolina simply intended to grab any federal property it could take, and really didn’t pretend otherwise.
Also, John C. Calhoun was probably the most evil American in history.
Streeeeetch.
If the framers were so dead set on a “perpetual” union why didn’t they use similar wording in the Constitution?
No need to, since the Constitution “perfected” the perpetual union of the original Confederation.
If, however, you are insisting on explicit language, all of a sudden, I note that there is no explicit provision for secession while insurrection and rebellion are addressed. By that logic, there is no provision for secession and it is, therefore, illegal.
So, we’re at war with Cuba?
Oops – Gitmo is on the coast of the island, not “off” it, so I guess we’re saved by the loophole.
I’m late in noticing this…
I think a lot of them, possibly a majority of them, joined up because of peer pressure and other social expectations. It’s been said that not Southern boy could expect a second look from Southern girls unless he signed up, for example, which was pretty motivating for 17-19-year-olds. More so than “sovereignty,” I’ll bet.
Or they were drafted.
The Confederacy instituted conscription in 1862. Later rulings that exempted men who owned enough slaves did not sit well with some who came to believe they were fighting a rich man’s war.
(In the North, a man could avoid conscription by hiring somebody else to take his place.)
Yep, and after they were captured by union troops, and released with the understanding they wouldn’t take up arms again, they were drafted *again *and put back in confederate uniforms at gunpoint.
It sure was a war of righteous principles for the South.
Or, you know, rich people keeping slaves.
Likewise, as I mentioned above, Texas joined the Union in part because the Republic of Texas was deeply in debt; Union taxes paid off this debt but Texas’s declaration of ‘secession’ does not mention this debt, but does mock the Declaration of Independence with these words:
"In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. "
Note that though I did not quote the entire declaration, I have quoted its stirring :dubious: conclusion - the portion that summed up, in the minds of its writers, the cause for which the State would be fighting - slavery.
Maybe I should start calling World War 2 ‘The War of Polish Aggression’…