NE_Pilot

The colonies benefited from being a part of the British Empire, do you believe that we should rejoin? Or that revolution was unjustified or unfair?

What of those who believe the costs outweigh the benefits? Who gets to decide that?

2StgTurbine

The winners. Sorry, but the South lost. Get over it.

NE_Pilot

So you realized the ridiculousness of your “fairness” argument and have reverted to the “might makes right” argument.

2StgTurbine

I honestly don't know what you are trying to argue. Do you think Hitler was justified to start WWII? I mean everyone knows the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. It is kind of like you thinking States should be able to leave the Union when they don't like the results of an election.

Revolutionary War: We fought over not being represented. Does a tax on paper and tea really justify a war? Sure that might be up for debate, but in the end, it is a pointless debate since the entire planet seems to have deemed colonization as unjust government.

Civil War: Was fought over the South not liking the results of a election that they thought would end slavery. Unlike the Revolutionary War, the South had representation. And while the Revolutionary War was fought over taxes, the Civil War was fought over chattel slavery.

So no, the Revolutionary War was not the same as the Civil War.

SonicFlyer

Then a Constitutional Amendment should have been passed preventing secession. Secession is and was perfectly legal per the Constitution.

SonicFlyer

It was fought over the Southern states leaving the Union. And it was an illegal war. This has been explained above, please pay attention.

And just because one group of people "has representation" doesn't mean their right to leave an oppressive government is null and void. Everyone has a right to leave an oppressive government whether they have representation or not. Excessive taxation and regulation was also a large part of the Southern states leaving the Union in addition to slavery. So yes they had every right to leave, and it was legal too.

Likewise the slaves had a right to leave their owners. It's the natural right of every human.

Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

NE_Pilot

You came in bringing up an argument against secession because it was “unfair”, and when questioned switch to a “right makes might” defense.

Incorrect, the war was not just about taxes and representatives. There were a myriad of rights violations, including warrantless searches and seizures, denial of a trial by jury, forced billeting of soldiers. Much of the disagreement that led to the war involved the colonists belief that they were guaranteed the same rights as Englishmen, the King and Parliament did not share that belief.

The war started on April 19, 1775 with the first shots being fired over the British attempt to confiscate arms.

Incorrect, again. The Civil War was not fought over chattel slavery. A basic look at the timeline of events would reveal that. The outbreak of the war did not led to an immediate emancipation of slaves in the Union, the Emancipation Proclamation did not come until over a year after the war started. It did not apply to Union states. Chattel slavery was still practiced by the Union throughout the war. All slaves in the Confederacy were granted there freedom by the time the war was over, but slavery did not end in the Union states until the passing of the 13th Amendment.

SonicFlyer

Yes you are referring to the Militia Act of 1903 which federalized the state guards (militia) and created the national guard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903


This was of course unconstitutional because the Constitution does not authorize consolidation of the state militias. In essence this was a move to subvert state power and sovereignty and give the federal government more power.

John Carr

Me too, but it is APC afterall...

But I believe the thread started out with Millennials and not GenZ.

2StgTurbine

The Supreme Court ruled that the Confederate government was illegal in Texas vs. White.

And why did the South secede? Because they didn't like the result of the election. Why didn't they like the results of the election? Because Lincoln didn't want slavery to spread to new states.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Fair point. The question is how does one leave the Union. Instead of coming up with a legal reason and use the legislative processes, the South went rouge and unilaterally left. It kind of defeats the purpose of a nation if people can just break off as soon as they don't get their way.

While the South included taxation and regulation in their reasons, the primary reason was over the issue of slavery.

South Carolina:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world." Note they aren't claiming excessive taxation as the "greatest interest in the world."

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. " Again, they state that slavery is their main concern.

Trying to remove slavery for the Civil War is impossible.

Yes I have. The Founding Fathers stated their case to the crown and George III, ignored them. That is similar to the South. The South complained and the North ignored them. As a result in both cases, a war was fought. The difference is in what were they complaining about? The Colonies lacked representation in a government and wanted that fixed. The South had representation, but didn't like the results of a form of government they were part of. That is a big difference.

What you want to argue is a clean example of whether states can leave the Union. That is a valid question that our country has never answered. It sounds like you should be a constitutional lawyer. Then you could talk about hypothetical tests of the Constitution and possible remedies. But the Civil War is not the correct vehicle for this.