Secession did not start the "Civil War"

[dannno]

Aaaaand, there you went. When you can't win an argument over how South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter back in 1836 and all claim and title to it, revert immediately to a completely different esoteric philosophical discussion over "rights" and "states" and "man".

It just demonstrates you can't argue the indisputable fact, so you go cling to your go-to safe space arguments, however irrelevant it is. It took you two whole posts to go from South Carolina ceding Fort Sumter to the US in 1836 to the philosophy of rights and government. Yawn. Hahahahahah.

It mostly seems to demonstrate you are a statist.

[1stvermont]

And the South took the bait. They actually thought it was about slavery and many southern men of power said it was about slavery so now, so many generations later we are seeing the public at large spouting quotes from those southern men and using them to "prove" the war was about slavery. As stated above, the war did not free 4 million, it enslaved 8 million (even more because all who followed from north and south became slaves in one form or another...)

"What we call liberty our founders called bondage...we have not freed the slaves we have extended the plantation, know, we are all slaves"

-Peter Marshall JR The Great War Debate

“Many think our present federal government is the same one our founders fathers established. Nothing could be further from the truth....after the [civil war].... government power over the people underwent a radical change in the limits of government authority”

-James and Walter Kennedy The South Was Right

The war “Destroyed voluntary union of the founders and made all Americans servants rather than masters of their own government... transformed the American government from a constitutional republic to a consolidated empire”

-Thomas Dilorenzo author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked

“The US government has grown into a monstrous tyrannical body that would not even by reorganized by its founders”

-Lochlainn Seabrook The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained


“The civil war was that the right to govern is paramount over the right to live, that man is made for government, rather than that government is made for man, and that for men to claim the right of self government is to deserve and incure the death penalty”

-Charles L.C minor The real Lincoln 1928

[Gaddafi Duck]

Swordsmyth, you're twisting and contorting yourself it's laughable. You've blamed Southern slavery on the North not blocking the South's own decisions (but also simultaneously argue Northern-supported tariffs pushed the South into secession???), so it's , you argue when South Carolina gives up title to property that they still own it, you then argue it's "joint property" which is laughable, so it's clear you're stuck in your Neo-Confederate ways.

It boils down to 1836. South Carolina clearly gave up all claims to the land. You Neo-Confederates argue 1+1 does not equal 2. So, there's no reasoning with that.

The best part? The Confederacy got their asses kicked, and it drives you guys crazy 150 years later. That's the comforting factor. Cue the Neo-Confederates, "We all lost in the Civil War....we now have a nationalist government...." Yadda yadda yadda. Anything to distract from 1836 and the subsequent aggression by the South to start the Civil War by firing the first shots.

[Gaddafi Duck]

It mostly seems to demonstrate you are a statist.

Actually, it demonstrates your original argument was so weak you resort to the most generic libertarian opening statement we've all heard a million times over.

It's as much of a reflex as Antifa shouting "RACIST!!!". Anytime you lose an argument (which only took one post, which is pathetic), revert immediately to talking about libertarian philosophy!!! Yeah, let's not talk about how in 1836, South Carolina gave up all title to the land the rest of you claim was theirs in 1861.

[dannno]

Actually, it demonstrates your original argument was so weak you resort to the most generic libertarian opening statement we've all heard a million times over.

It's as much of a reflex as Antifa shouting "RACIST!!!". Anytime you lose an argument (which only took one post, which is pathetic), revert immediately to talking about libertarian philosophy!!! Yeah, let's not talk about how in 1836, South Carolina gave up all title to the land the rest of you claim was theirs in 1861.

You're the one claiming government has rights, I don't think anybody else here supports that notion.

What you are proclaiming is very dangerous to humanity from a philosophical standpoint.

[Swordsmyth]

Swordsmyth, you're twisting and contorting yourself it's laughable. You've blamed Southern slavery on the North not blocking the South's own decisions (but also simultaneously argue Northern-supported tariffs pushed the South into secession???), so it's , you argue when South Carolina gives up title to property that they still own it, you then argue it's "joint property" which is laughable, so it's clear you're stuck in your Neo-Confederate ways.

It boils down to 1836. South Carolina clearly gave up all claims to the land. You Neo-Confederates argue 1+1 does not equal 2. So, there's no reasoning with that.

The best part? The Confederacy got their asses kicked, and it drives you guys crazy 150 years later. That's the comforting factor. Cue the Neo-Confederates, "We all lost in the Civil War....we now have a nationalist government...." Yadda yadda yadda. Anything to distract from 1836 and the subsequent aggression by the South to start the Civil War by firing the first shots.

You need professional help, your reading comprehension is non-existent and your logic skills are worse.

When did I "blame Southern slavery on the North not blocking the South's own decisions"?

I have said that the South never should have joined the Union with the North, I have said I opposed slavery and thought that the original Constitution should have had a time delayed prohibition on it, I clarified that North and South were at fault that it did not.

As to the rest you simply don't want to understand that the Federation is a partnership between the States and that they have a right to a just portion of it's property when they leave it, but you probably agree with Marx, Lincoln and Hitler that the member States have no right to leave at all don't you?

[otherone]

It's as much of a reflex as Antifa shouting "RACIST!!!".

Worthless, coming from someone who labels anyone critical of the federal government a "neo-confederate".

[Swordsmyth]

Worthless, coming from someone who labels anyone critical of the federal government a "neo-confederate".

A picture of Daffy:

[PierzStyx]

Actually, it does matter. Because when you give up "all title/claims" to a piece of land, you can't "clawback" that provision. It's over with. You have no claim to it. Unless, of course, you invade it, which is what the South did.

It's hilariously odd Ron Paulians/Misesians/Rothbardians are rewriting what cession of title for a piece of property actually means. Apparently when you give up title to something, you have rights to it. That's news to me--doesn't resemble anything in America, but okay.

Secession changes all prior agreements by nullifying the basis of such agreements. This is obvious with the American Revolution as all the Crown lands in the Colonies became the property of the state governments when the Colonies seceded from the British Empire.

The same applies to when a state secedes from the Union. It doesn't matter what prior agreements there were between South Carolina and the US government, they were nullified when South Carolina seceded from the Union. This si equally true of all land owned or occupied by US troops in seceded states, such as Union forts.

[Swordsmyth]

Bump