My apologies to Rob Singer

[Mission146]

You can't say that there's not until there isn't; they never tried.

In an alternative history, (where Lincoln was still elected, which he may well not have been, had the Democrats gotten their shit together at convention) the first thing that the South would want to do is actually have out the matter of slavery expanding into the new territories before Congress. My opinion is that South Carolina (and others) were simply too quick to secede and had done so as an obvious and direct result of Lincoln's winning the Election---they said as much in the document I quoted.

Anyway, what they should have done was waited until some action that would be hostile to the notion of keeping their own slaves in their own states happened. They were probably quite correct in seeing the writing on the wall in that, if slavery is not permitted in the new territories, and the new territories eventually become states, then MAYBE it becomes a Constitutional Amendment question. Even then, just based on the number of states there are now (and those who joined the Confederacy) such an Amendment, at best, would have been a very long way off.

In other words, the institution of slavery, within the Confederate States themselves, was not yet under any great direct threat. The problem that the South had was that slavery was not being permitted to expand.

Even without all of that, just by waiting for a year (or so) into Lincoln's term, you could eventually gather up enough support amongst the Southern states such that they all secede at once.

At that point, the Confederacy can send a delegation to Washington to discuss not only a peace treaty, but also discuss how they can maintain an alliance such that they will mutually defend one another against foreign attacks. The delegation could also address the idea of the Union pulling its troops out of the Confederate states in an orderly fashion.

The way it went down, South Carolina made no real effort (nor did any of the Confederate states) to engage in a peaceful effort by which they might even be recognized as sovereign by the United States. For further evidence of that, keep in mind that no other country in the world recognized the Confederacy as sovereign, either. By attacking without making any attempt to even be recognized first, after first cutting off Fort Sumter's supply lines, they'd committed an act of treason.

By the time the attack on Fort Sumter took place, South Carolina (and a few others) had already seceded for multiple months---and obviously, the United States had not attacked them. The Government of the United States still hadn't really figured out what it should be doing yet. Congress (what was left of them) was still debating with itself as to the question of whether or not the secessionists had the right to leave the Union, so they weren't to the point of being ready to negotiate with them yet.

At the time Fort Sumter was attacked, the United States hadn't even expelled the Senators Elected from the secessionist states yet. It wasn't until July of 1861, almost exactly three months after the attack on Fort Sumter, that the Senate essentially voted that the states did not have the right to secede...though I'm sure such vote had to do with the attack itself.

The question of the right to secession was very much on the table prior to that, and especially prior to the attack on Fort Sumter.

[tableplay]

On their way to into Starbucks (those that aren't waiting in the drive-thru in their SUVs), they sometimes have to sidestep homeless people.
They've also made sure that the oil refinery (Chevron) is in Richmond,California (https://www.csb.gov/chevron-refinery-fire/). Most people in Richmond don't have two nickels to scrape together.

A very Merry Christmas to you sir and have a Happy New Year too.

Thanks very much Monet. I would like to wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas and New Year.

[mickeycrimm]

Mission, I've never seen anyone so delusional about northern racism. You think it doesn't and has never existed. And of course, the black troops of the north were segregated. Why was that? They were segregated in the 1st and 2nd world wars too. WTF? I thought you yankees weren't prejudiced. 6

600,000 confederates survived the war. Here is Mission advocating genocide. Says a lot about you, Mish. You have all the tendencies of Mao Zedong.

[mickeycrimm]

South Carolinians fired on Sumter, not the other southern states. The north unconstitutionally invaded the south. And as far as whipping ass goes you obviously haven't read the battle history of the Civil War. You yankees lost almost all the battles and had to keep drafting more and more farm boys and sending them down to get killed. Northern generals found out quick the southerners fought hard. Lincoln ran thru failed general after failed general until he found a drunk, Grant, that would fight a war of attrition and continually throw up men to the slaughter.

Whipping that ass? LOLOLOL!!!! 360K yankees killed to 260K confederates killed. Was that 360K killed worth it to the families of those killed?

South Carolinians fired on Sumter and, as opposed to the other Southern states rebuking that behavior, they seceded right along with them. They can't invade somewhere where they already were and, if you're referring to the fact that they went down there and killed people guilty of treason, killing people who are guilty of treason is not an illegal invasion.

You'd have to go ask the families.

Anyway, listen to you over there. I've never heard anyone be more in the bag for the Confederacy than you are. The North whipped that ass! Sherman stormed through The South and destroyed everything in sight. The only mistake that the North made was to leave any of the male soldiers in The South alive to live to tell about it---because then you get conversations like this where you're actually trying to defend the South's actions while, simultaneously, admitting that Jefferson Davis was on the wrong side of history and that the Southern elites seceded due to the slavery issue.

What happened when the South tried to come up here? Gettysburg happened.

What happened when the North went down there?

Sherman neckties happened, son! And burning down fucking everything in sight. That's what happens when you commit treason, or should happen, anyway.

LOLOLOL! Sherman burned down the homes of women and children. You're proud of that? Dude, you're fucked up.

[mickeycrimm]

While the results of the Civil War are a fait accompli and cannot be undone, one issue about the conflict still bothers me, i.e. what legal right did the north have to object to the south wishing to secede and leave the union?

The US Constitution seems silent on this point.

Given the absence of guidance on this matter I should think that common sense would be helpful; in that instance the US was created by a voluntary union of individual states, so why shouldn't states later be permitted to leave the union if they so choose?

In the end I suspect it came down to power politics; not so much that the north valued the intrinsic value of the south so much as they didn't want a new neighbor whose values differed drastically from their own, whom it was feared might later seek to force those values (e.g. slavery) upon others.

What if today the nascent Pac NW succession movement gains steam, how can it be addressed and what would be the likely outcome?

Why should groups of people be forced to remain under a government if most of them do not want that?

Hello, freedom to choose.

Nothing in the Constitution forbade secession. And the Declaration of Independence specifically said the people had the right to abolish a government they didn't want and start a new one. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address glaringly avoided both the Constitution and the Declaration because he knew he couldn't invoke either in what he was doing.

[mickeycrimm]

While the results of the Civil War are a fait accompli and cannot be undone, one issue about the conflict still bothers me, i.e. what legal right did the north have to object to the south wishing to secede and leave the union?

The US Constitution seems silent on this point.

Given the absence of guidance on this matter I should think that common sense would be helpful; in that instance the US was created by a voluntary union of individual states, so why shouldn't states later be permitted to leave the union if they so choose?

In the end I suspect it came down to power politics; not so much that the north valued the intrinsic value of the south so much as they didn't want a new neighbor whose values differed drastically from their own, whom it was feared might later seek to force those values (e.g. slavery) upon others.

What if today the nascent Pac NW succession movement gains steam, how can it be addressed and what would be the likely outcome?

Why should groups of people be forced to remain under a government if most of them do not want that?

Hello, freedom to choose.

Outside of Texas, most of the secession-leaning current states won't do it. They rely too much on federal funds. Texas would have to pick up the tabs. Can you see how that would play out? Suddenly the states that can't support their own programs would become red-headed conservative stepchildren.

The secession-leaning states, in short order, would have to try to conquer the wealthy states to make their economies work. So Texas would have to declare war on California. Nevada would be the battleground state. I think I have a book plot here.

I would be willing to pay, maybe a third of my income, to see red states secede. The entertainment value would be off the charts.

Revoke statehood and go back to being a territory. That way you get all the federal money but don't have to pay any taxes....like Puerto Rico.

[mickeycrimm]

When two spouses decide to split up they get divorced.

Why shouldn't states have the right to be divorced from the USA?

Authoritarians like Misssion won't tolerate it.

[mickeycrimm]

The problem is there is simply no mechanism short of war to resolve such an issue.

Had Fort Sumtner not been fired upon, and had the south sought to resolve the secession issue "legally," there was no process in place, no roadmap, to allow their arguments to be heard and adjudicated.

It didn't take Fort Sumter for the northern authoritarians to invade. The elites had an invasion already in the works. But they caught a lucky break with Fort Sumter. It gave them a rallying cry to mobilize troops "They fired on a the flag."

But as it was, there just wasn't enough volunteers. They had to conscript soldiers and keep on conscripting soldiers. Both sides did. Most of those that served, north and south, served involuntarily.

It took a nation of 20 million mechanics 4 years and 360,000 lives to put down a nation of 4 million farmers. LOLOL at Mission thinking the north "kicked that ass." The north got bloodied up by a ragtag bunch of farmers.

[Mission146]

Mission, I've never seen anyone so delusional about northern racism. You think it doesn't and has never existed. And of course, the black troops of the north were segregated. Why was that? They were segregated in the 1st and 2nd world wars too. WTF? I thought you yankees weren't prejudiced. 6

600,000 confederates survived the war. Here is Mission advocating genocide. Says a lot about you, Mish. You have all the tendencies of Mao Zedong.

Evidently, you did not read my response to your post whatsoever...at least, not prior to writing this one.

As far as the war goes, the only difference between myself and Sherman is that, if war is the remedy that the enemy has chosen, I think we should give them more than the amount they want.

In all things in matters of war, be peaceful and have a goal of peace, diplomacy and finding some sort of agreement. If that's not acceptable to the other side, then kill every single one of them.

[Mission146]

LOLOLOL! Sherman burned down the homes of women and children. You're proud of that? Dude, you're fucked up.

None are spared the consequences of treason.

[Mission146]

Nothing in the Constitution forbade secession. And the Declaration of Independence specifically said the people had the right to abolish a government they didn't want and start a new one. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address glaringly avoided both the Constitution and the Declaration because he knew he couldn't invoke either in what he was doing.

I agree with all except the last part, but the Confederates never afforded the Union the opportunity to negotiate for some sort of military alliance. It's not impossible, though I will admit that it's extremely unlikely, that they could have found a truce had the South not attacked.

[Mission146]

The problem is there is simply no mechanism short of war to resolve such an issue.

Had Fort Sumtner not been fired upon, and had the south sought to resolve the secession issue "legally," there was no process in place, no roadmap, to allow their arguments to be heard and adjudicated.

It didn't take Fort Sumter for the northern authoritarians to invade. The elites had an invasion already in the works. But they caught a lucky break with Fort Sumter. It gave them a rallying cry to mobilize troops "They fired on a the flag."

But as it was, there just wasn't enough volunteers. They had to conscript soldiers and keep on conscripting soldiers. Both sides did. Most of those that served, north and south, served involuntarily.

It took a nation of 20 million mechanics 4 years and 360,000 lives to put down a nation of 4 million farmers. LOLOL at Mission thinking the north "kicked that ass." The north got bloodied up by a ragtag bunch of farmers.

We kicked that ass. The fact that you think that we didn't is just more kindling on the fire for my notion that we should have destroyed everything and killed everyone. There should have been nothing between Atlanta and Richmond save a trail of dead bodies...all of treasonists.

[mickeycrimm]

LOLOLOL! Sherman burned down the homes of women and children. You're proud of that? Dude, you're fucked up.

None are spared the consequences of treason.

There was no treason. It was a legal separation.

[Mission146]

LOLOLOL! Sherman burned down the homes of women and children. You're proud of that? Dude, you're fucked up.

None are spared the consequences of treason.

There was no treason. It was a legal separation.

Until they attacked holdings of the United States. Prior to that, it could have been a legal separation and one, to which, I would have no fundamental objection. Separating to preserve (in their view) the institution of slavery? As I see it, yes. But, well within their rights at the time.

[mickeycrimm]

The problem is there is simply no mechanism short of war to resolve such an issue.

Had Fort Sumtner not been fired upon, and had the south sought to resolve the secession issue "legally," there was no process in place, no roadmap, to allow their arguments to be heard and adjudicated.

It didn't take Fort Sumter for the northern authoritarians to invade. The elites had an invasion already in the works. But they caught a lucky break with Fort Sumter. It gave them a rallying cry to mobilize troops "They fired on a the flag."

But as it was, there just wasn't enough volunteers. They had to conscript soldiers and keep on conscripting soldiers. Both sides did. Most of those that served, north and south, served involuntarily.

It took a nation of 20 million mechanics 4 years and 360,000 lives to put down a nation of 4 million farmers. LOLOL at Mission thinking the north "kicked that ass." The north got bloodied up by a ragtag bunch of farmers.

We kicked that ass. The fact that you think that we didn't is just more kindling on the fire for my notion that we should have destroyed everything and killed everyone. There should have been nothing between Atlanta and Richmond save a trail of dead bodies...all of treasonists.

There was no treason. It was a legal separation. You pansies got your ass kicked in practically every battle.

[mickeycrimm]

None are spared the consequences of treason.

There was no treason. It was a legal separation.

Until they attacked holdings of the United States. Prior to that, it could have been a legal separation and one, to which, I would have no fundamental objection. Separating to preserve (in their view) the institution of slavery? As I see it, yes. But, well within their rights at the time.

The attack occurred in South Carolina after they seceeded not in the United States.

[Mission146]

There was no treason. It was a legal separation. You pansies got your ass kicked in practically every battle.

Yeah, until we used your tactics better than you did.

[Mission146]

The attack occurred in South Carolina after they seceeded not in the United States.

South Carolina was not recognized, though the matter of recognizing them was fairly on the table. Instead, they went off half-cocked and attacked U.S. holdings, mostly with arms that were provided to them by Northern industry.

[mickeycrimm]

In the first battle of the Civil War 35,000 yankees marched down to Bull Run in Virginia and attacked 20,000 confederates. The outnumbered confederates routed the yankees who then fled the battle field.

[mickeycrimm]

There was no treason. It was a legal separation. You pansies got your ass kicked in practically every battle.

Yeah, until we used your tactics better than you did.

You had five times the population of the south. It took you pansies 4 years and cost you 360,000 lives. You lost almost every battle. You won because the south ran out ammunition, rations and manpower.