Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Post removed [View all]

MineralMan

(151,198 posts)
74. The South tried. Many people died. The South lost.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 12:47 PM
Apr 2017

End of story. Whether or not secession was constitutionally allowed is a moot point. The Civil War is over. The South lost.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Post removed [View all] Post removed Apr 2017 OP
The founders provided a mechanism to add new states but no mechanism for them to leave. Statistical Apr 2017 #1
but if secession wasn't prohibited... eniwetok Apr 2017 #6
"leaving aside the rather tortured 1869 Texas v White decision" jberryhill Apr 2017 #2
Excellent (am *not* being sarcastic). So what about Scotland & Catalonia? UTUSN Apr 2017 #4
As they are not states of the USA, this is hardly relevant to us, is it? Hekate Apr 2017 #34
Extrapolating from the literal appears to be like taking UTUSN Apr 2017 #38
I am not familiar with the laws of the UK or Spain jberryhill Apr 2017 #68
texas v white is "rather tortured" because it doesn't give him the answer he was looking for. unblock Apr 2017 #5
pray tell, what answer was that??? eniwetok Apr 2017 #9
i read minds rather well whenever someone pretty much spells it out in an o.p. unblock Apr 2017 #15
your unremarkable talent seems to have missed MY OTHER ARGUMENT... eniwetok Apr 2017 #47
if you're not convinced by well settled law, i rather doubt a few internet replies will convince you unblock Apr 2017 #62
sure... eniwetok Apr 2017 #75
I take it you've never read Texas v White. eniwetok Apr 2017 #7
I was educated in Texas and the only odd thing I can remember is TexasProgresive Apr 2017 #8
I love your time machine "logic" eniwetok Apr 2017 #11
No, and if you actually read Texas v White, you would understand why jberryhill Apr 2017 #13
if you want to discuss citizenship start your own thread... eniwetok Apr 2017 #48
c'mon, you're just being argumentative for the sake of argumentation. unblock Apr 2017 #19
so leaving aside your temporal incongruity... eniwetok Apr 2017 #22
That one has stood for a long time jberryhill Apr 2017 #28
there's no temporal incongruity. unblock Apr 2017 #41
No, since the "confederates" lost the war. The American war for independence was legal because... PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #3
How many nations fell to Nazi Germany? eniwetok Apr 2017 #10
We're talking about "independence"/"secession" not invasions. Please keep to the topic. nt PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #12
Hey YOU were the one who raised the "might makes right" "doctrine" eniwetok Apr 2017 #21
First your post questioned what was "legal" not what might be "moral". PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #23
Is Russia Behind California Secession Effort? jberryhill Apr 2017 #14
RED HERRING ALERT!! eniwetok Apr 2017 #20
Quite a feat for a member since 2016 jberryhill Apr 2017 #24
Thank you, jberryhill. I so much prefer the fact-based universe. Hekate Apr 2017 #31
LOL! Adsos Letter Apr 2017 #39
RED HERRING ALERT #2 eniwetok Apr 2017 #50
You joined this site in 2016 and weren't posting in 2004 jberryhill Apr 2017 #51
promise you'll retract your accusation eniwetok Apr 2017 #64
Texit Forces Welcomed At A Russian Separatist Conference jberryhill Apr 2017 #66
Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #70
What was your DU name in '04? Hekate Apr 2017 #35
I'm sure some irrational few have jumped to the conclusion I was for the Confederacy. eniwetok Apr 2017 #16
No, that's not the conclusion at all jberryhill Apr 2017 #17
and those purposes are? eniwetok Apr 2017 #18
You are wrong jberryhill Apr 2017 #25
You don't know me... so quit trying to insinuate I'm a Putin Tool... eniwetok Apr 2017 #52
There's more than one way to destroy a nation, and Putin knows it. Leave my state alone. Hekate Apr 2017 #33
Well said, Hekate. Adsos Letter Apr 2017 #42
I AWAIT those who want to discuss the constitutional issues... so please stop your personal insults. eniwetok Apr 2017 #53
As long as nobody includes in such discussion the most relevant Constitutional decision on the topic jberryhill Apr 2017 #54
back to your fatuous time machine argument? eniwetok Apr 2017 #57
The "time machine argument" is only fatuous... jberryhill Apr 2017 #63
and yet the question was WAS SECESSION LEGAL IN 1861? eniwetok Apr 2017 #69
Quite obviously because you don't understand either the decision or how courts work jberryhill Apr 2017 #71
another pathetic argument... eniwetok Apr 2017 #72
And you're waiting in this time machine you keep brigning up whenever anyone addresses synergie Apr 2017 #84
At a certain level, law becomes nothing more than a social compact HopeAgain Apr 2017 #26
No you nailed it jberryhill Apr 2017 #29
back to your personal attacks? eniwetok Apr 2017 #61
Why do you believe the process of amending the Constitution is undemocratic? jberryhill Apr 2017 #65
do the math.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #77
So? jberryhill Apr 2017 #79
Because it takes more than a simple majority dumbcat Apr 2017 #80
if you can't make a point without bastardizing my argument... you haven't made a point eniwetok Apr 2017 #83
It's worth noting that the CSA preempted any possibility of legal secession by attacking. cemaphonic Apr 2017 #27
Yes, the question of legal secession was rendered moot by the firing on Sumpter... Rollo Apr 2017 #32
I believe the first state to secede was 5 months before Sumter eniwetok Apr 2017 #60
1. No 2. Yes. ismnotwasm Apr 2017 #30
I will quote Lincoln: Worktodo Apr 2017 #36
the term rebellion is only used ONCE prior to the 14th eniwetok Apr 2017 #56
absolutely, but you'll get no support from the authority-lovers here. "the consent of the governed" TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #37
The Constitution provides its own mechanism for Amendment jberryhill Apr 2017 #40
if you want to appeal to a "higher law", that's a different question. unblock Apr 2017 #43
Without the consent of the slaves, there was no legal right geek tragedy Apr 2017 #44
Ooooh, "authority-lovers," is it? You should trot on over to the United Airlines threads... Hekate Apr 2017 #45
Did the slaves consent to be governed? Adrahil Apr 2017 #55
I believe secession was legal Yupster Apr 2017 #46
NO, and YES hatrack Apr 2017 #49
The touchstone here is to find out... MicaelS Apr 2017 #58
Short answer is no. Buzz cook Apr 2017 #59
but the first state to secede was in Dec 1860... eniwetok Apr 2017 #73
And what legal mechanism did those states use? Buzz cook Apr 2017 #85
It seems to me the civil war was the whole poiint: to settle the issue more firmly. CTyankee Apr 2017 #67
The South tried. Many people died. The South lost. MineralMan Apr 2017 #74
Thanks for the op. Some very good replies. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #76
illegal and justified steve2470 Apr 2017 #78
seriously, WHY DEBATE THIS TOPIC ? steve2470 Apr 2017 #81
+1000 wcast Apr 2017 #82
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Post removed»Reply #74