Why did the yanks insist on starting the war of northern aggression,

>>1884428
The north was fired upon, after they refused to surrender their property.

Really makes you think

Yanks didn't like how us true Americans democratically shelled fort Sumter

>>1884428
Lincoln was determined not to let the country split, hence the suspending of habeus corpus, etc. Slavery has been a poison in North America for a long, long, long time, and continues to poison the well today.

>>1884428
South shot first.

>>1884428
There are two other threads that talk about exactly how the war started. Is it really necessary to make yet another thread about this?

>>1884432
>>1884501
Wrong.

>>1884428

>Blatantly ignore the constitution
>Oh yeah, it was democratic!

>>1884589
See
>>1884567

>>1884609
See Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution.

>>1884612
See: I don't give a fuck
The American revolution was also illegal

>>1884628
Aaaaand that's why we took you up on the whole war thing, right after you attacked a United States fort.

>>1884637
The fort was in the CSA's territory. The yanks should have left.

>>1884655
>The fort was in the CSA's territory.
No, it wasn't. Reposting from the other thread:

>"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory
>"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
>"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
>"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
>"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
>"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. >Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
>Jacob Warly, C. S.

As for "old treaties don't apply to a new nation:"
The states that formed the Confederacy justified their secession under the assumption that the United States is a compact of independent states, and that each state has the ability to leave the Union under the constitution. Therefore, the very justification for the separation of South Carolina from the Union is an admission that this is the selfsame State of South Carolina that had signed that same Constitution and had agreed to cede the land on which Fort Sumter was built to the US federal government. To repudiate this treaty with the US government would be to repudiate the very (questionable) legal basis upon which South Carolina declared its secession lawful.

>>1884673
Wrong. The Union was preparing to attack.

>>1884677
>On April 4, as the supply situation on Sumter became critical, President Lincoln ordered a relief expedition, to be commanded by former naval captain (and future Assistant Secretary of the Navy) Gustavus V. Fox, who had proposed a plan for nighttime landings of smaller vessels than the Star of the West. Fox's orders were to land at Sumter with supplies only, and if he was opposed by the Confederates, to respond with the U.S. Navy vessels following and to then land both supplies and men. This time, Maj. Anderson was informed of the impending expedition, although the arrival date was not revealed to him. On April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."[23]
>Fox's orders were to land at Sumter with supplies only
>with supplies only
They weren't, not until they themselves were attacked.

If the South felt secession was fine, why was it made illegal in the Confederate Constitution?

I'm a dixieboo but even I realize this is a bait thread. Yankee tricks are never clever.

>>1884428
Because the south was, is, and always will be the North's bitch.

See: Appomattox

File: Screenshot_20161027-144431~2.png (595KB, 962x834px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 962x834px

>>1884673
Hmm, you interesting left out the clause about SC still having lawful authority over the fort.

>>1884612

Ever hear of government by consent?

The civil war was literally rape.

I'm not even burger, but how, other than by force, can secession ever not be morally justified?

>>1884749

Are you suggesting violence begets the moral justice of secession? Or are you suggesting that violence does not morally justify secession?

>>1884729
>t. Rustbelt juggalo

Enjoying your urban decay?

File: 1477103553333.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>1884789
>tfw I'm not rich but still enjoy a quality of life higher than that of anywhere in the South

t. New York City

>>1884735
>all processes, civil and criminal
Except that invasion is not a civil process, and the attack was not sanctioned by a court of law.

>>1884735
>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/civil+law
>5 law that is not MILITARY LAW.
Wow it's fucking nothing. But thank you, I will remember to add that to the post the next time I copy and paste this.

>>1884819
>this is what Dominicans actually believe

>>1884836
That's not how law works you idiot. Military law is only between members of the armed forces. Criminal and civil are the only ones that really matter. How are you this dumb.

>>1884863
>Military law is only between members of the armed forces.
It also involves the station and location of members of the armed forces, i.e. the United States soldiers that happened to be in the fort when South Carolina began to fire upon it.

>Criminal and civil are the only ones that really matter.
>In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because, "I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."[14]
And remind me what was part of the South Carolina Civil Code makes it legal to divest a foreign government of land it owns on the basis that it "might be dangerous and also kind of hurts our dignity?"

File: 1427748552111.jpg (88KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 533x800px

>>1884690

That's unionist propaganda, dixies dindu nuffin dey wuz gud boys

tl;dr

>moderate candidate repeatedly declares that he won't outlaw slavery
>southern states still try (and fail) to prevent his election
>CHIMPOUT.jpg
>south decides that "we country nao"
>attacks a federal fort on their property
>gets ground down to nothing as the north throws waves of men at them
>receives a slap on the wrist and undergoes like a decade of military occupation
>waits for the army to leave before instituting the laws that lead to a lot of our current racial problems
>comes up with romantic fanfiction about how they dindu nuffin
>continue to dominate national politics while squealing about their oppression
>insist that they aren't racist while deflecting any criticism with "lol enjoy ur nigs yankee"
>incest intensifies

File: sherman3.jpg (62KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x600px

OH I'M A GOOD OL' YANKEE
WELL THAT'S JUST WHO I AM
FOR FUCKING ALL MY COUSINS
I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN
800,000 REDNECKS
LAY ROTTING IN THE DUST
I GUESS THEIR WHOLE SECESSION MEME
TURNED OUT TO BE A BUST

>>1884912
>800,000 REDNECKS
>Yankee education

>>1884872
>It also involves the station and location of members of the armed forces

No, it really doesn't. If you commit a crime on a military base, you will never be held under military law unless you're in the military.

>And remind me what was part of the South Carolina Civil Code makes it legal to divest a foreign government of land it owns

Did you not just read the statute? South Carolina still reserved ultimate sovereignty over its lands. Not to mention that the union didn't even occupy the fort until a week after secession. Yes, they invaded a fort outside the states largest city, how would that not be an act of aggression?

>>1884677
>All of that factual shiet you jus said is wrong because the north was going to attack US eventually! so we attacked first

>>1884912

kdr is firmly in the South's favor, even though the North had every conceivable material advantage.

They had shit generals, all the good ones joined with the Confederacy.

>>1885112
>No, it really doesn't. If you commit a crime on a military base, you will never be held under military law unless you're in the military.
That is a completely different affair. Military law covers the stationing, provisioning, property usage and supply procurement for the military, i this case the United States Military in Fort Sumter. South Carolina had no say in that.

> South Carolina still reserved ultimate sovereignty over its lands.
Did you just not read the statue?
>That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory
What it reserves is a limited form of extraterritoriality, in which South Carolina Civil and Criminal law can be applied within those territories, and not exclusively. The territory remains Federal territory, and United States statutes and laws also apply. At any rate, South Carolina did not execute any civil process, it merely listed a military ultimatum and then executed military action without any judicial or civil procedure, and so the eviction was ultimately illegal.

>Not to mention that the union didn't even occupy the fort until a week after secession.
Irrelevant. As said before, the land was theirs. If I own a house but only occupy it two weeks ago, does that make it okay for you to blast it with a pipe bomb?

>Yes, they invaded a fort outside the states largest city, how would that not be an act of aggression?
They moved from one fort (Moultrie) outside the state's largest city to another (Sumter), both of which belonged to the United States Government. By that logic. Japan had the right to invade Pearl Harbor because the US "invaded" Pearl Harbor with Pacific Fleet vessels from San Diego capable of launching attacks on Japan.

>>1885112
>Not to mention that the union didn't even occupy the fort until a week after secession.
Yeah, how dare a nation defend its borders from a newly-formed and potentially hostile neighbor.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-27 at 2.13.26 PM.png (367KB, 986x812px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 986x812px

>>1885168
>If I own a house but only occupy it two weeks ago, does that make it okay for you to blast it with a pipe bomb?

>>1884729
Southerners really need to just admit this and move on.

>nation founded by slave owning traitors upset when slave owners betray them

Really makes you think

>>1885168
>At any rate, South Carolina did not execute any civil process

It literally seceded from the union

>>1885272

>King renounces his protection of the crown lands
>no representation in parliament
>traitor

>>1885324
>it's OK when we do it

At least the confederates humored us with some legal arguments instead of going full Muh feels, muh natural law.

>>1885283
That has no standing whatsoever on Fort Sumter's status as Federal Territory. Under the law, South Carolina can enforce South Carolina (and only South Carolina, not the laws of the Confederate government) civil and criminal proceedings on Fort Sumter, but it is still irrevocably United States land. And what it did was consistent with neither Civil or Criminal procedure.

>>1885126
what is the advantage of being on the defensive?

>>1885498

almost the entire war was fought in the south

>>1885168
Yanks BTFO

File: 1476160571239.jpg (381KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1024x768px

Every thread you hicks get BTFO and yet every thread you keep trying. Why?

All these "northerners" defending a country their ancestors probably never lived in. Just a tip to all the John Guizzepis, Patrick Kazaskis, and James Horvats out there if your family came to the US after the war and it was only your parents who moved to the suburbs (most likely in a Yankee colony in the south like Northern Virgnia or Raleigh triangle because of the cheap cost of living or because they couldn't get out of the hellish burbs of New Jersey or some god forsaken place) you have NO connection to the north and the average northern soldier in the war would have considered you more of a foreigner than a man from Dixie.

I don't get why you guys are still arguing about this 160 some years later.

The North won the war, learn to deal with it.

>>1887580
We should have just nuked the south

>>1887580
I wish the North was harsher on the South honestly

but noooo, they were all like "they're fellow americans, let's be conciliatory to them"

and then look what fucking happened, this lost cause bullshit and jim crow laws

>>1887594
Why not just let the south be free?

>>1887953
Because they chimp out and attack federal forts.

>>1887972
Forts that were part of their land

>>1884628
And the American Revolution resulted in a war, a war that was won by one of the sides.

>>1887978
>Forts that were part of their land
not since 1836.
>muh extraterritorial jurisdiction
>"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, ALL the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory
Just because you can exercise some of your law there doesn't mean it's not the United States'.

>>1887978
Nope, land belonged to the state of Massachusetts.

>>1884428
Because you don't have the right to leave the union. It's that simple.

Fort Sumter sat in the middle of Charleston harbor and south Carolina is not exactly a border state. Of course the got shot at, pissing off the locals until started shooting was the only reason they were there.

And the first shots were fired by fucking college students in the middle of the night, it wasn't some super villains master scheme.

>>1888279
>Fort Sumter sat in the middle of Charleston harbor and south Carolina is not exactly a border state
That doesn't justify a Confederate invasion anymore than British Hong Kong's proximity to China justified a Chinese invasion, or Brithsm Malta justified an Italian invasion. You signed over the territory with no severability clause, it's your own fault. Somebody else's land doesn't automatically become yours when you declare independence next to it by any standard of international law, no matter what cockamamie irredentist explanation you have.

>Of course the got shot at, pissing off the locals until started shooting was the only reason they were there.
Or, you know, defending lawful United States territory from already pissed off locals. Or does having soldiers on your borders with another nation immediately provide a casus belli for invasion by your neighbor?

>And the first shots were fired by fucking college students in the middle of the night
And instead of prosecuting said college students and apologizing to the United States for firing on its territory, the Confederacy decided to invade United States territory, and their new "nation" got burnt to the ground for it so that descendants such as yourself could cry about how mean the North was for responding to a military attack.
>it wasn't some super villains master scheme.
Super villain's master scheme or not, it was still an act of war.

>>1886899
>>1884907
>>1884912
>>1887580

Not a hick, but I think secession is one of the few paths left for freedom. We should encourage modern, peaceful secession.

The modern Democratic super state known at the United States should not be praised for preserving the Union. It should be vilified as what it is, hostile towards self determination and liberty.

Hopefully we will see the US dissolve in our life time.