I'm sorry this is racism and this woman needs to be fired.

[darb72]

Well I’m happy and I’m sure darb will be too that we have established that the war of northern aggression was not only about slavery

[Ortizer]

Actually, the South seceded from the Union, legally and peacefully.

Lincoln decided that participation in the Union was not voluntary, but mandatory. (and that he would not allow peaceful secession from the Union)

Lincoln made this decision for primarily financial reasons (the factories of the North were dependent on the commodities from the South)

Having decided to nullify and disregard the peaceful withdrawal from the Union of the Southern States, Lincoln sent Federal Troops to occupy South Carolina.

It was only then that hostilities broke out.

I know the victors write the history books, but this it what actually happened.

To occupy south Carolina, or to safeguard the US government property that was present there?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[owknows]

To occupy south Carolina, or to safeguard the US government property that was present there?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

If one were to recognize the right of participant states to peacefully secede from the Union, I think they'd be hard pressed to make the subsequent case that a physical part of South Carolina was the property of said Union.

[mikezpen]

Lincoln felt that preserving the Union was the important thing. He said if he could preserve the Union with slavery-fine. If he could preserve it w/o slavery-fine.

[stevez51]

Lincoln felt that preserving the Union was the important thing. He said if he could preserve the Union with slavery-fine. If he could preserve it w/o slavery-fine.

He also said slavery could remain in the states it already was, but not in any new states or territories.

[Ortizer]

If one were to recognize the right of participant states to peacefully secede from the Union, I think they'd be hard pressed to make the subsequent case that a physical part of South Carolina was the property of said Union.

So you're saying it would be like when Cuba nationalized American assets after Castro took over?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[owknows]

So you're saying it would be like when Cuba nationalized American assets after Castro took over?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

If Cuba were part of the United States, and then peacefully seceded... and we were speaking exclusively of territory, and not assets that were held by private individuals... then yes.

[BcRaven]

If Cuba were part of the United States, and then peacefully seceded... and we were speaking exclusively of territory, and not assets that were held by private individuals... then yes.

What about "Sanctuary Cities?" Is it OK for them so secede from the United States? LOL, we'd still have to support them with taxpayer money and all kinds of other backing. Of course they wouldn't need a police force of army to protect them either... Right?

... Bc

[owknows]

What about "Sanctuary Cities?" Is it OK for them so secede from the United States?

Oh GOD yes!!

LOL, we'd still have to support them with taxpayer money and all kinds of other backing. Of course they wouldn't need a police force of army to protect them either... Right?

... Bc

I think it's time for them to stop taking our dirty tainted free market money.

On principle

[Ortizer]

If Cuba were part of the United States, and then peacefully seceded... and we were speaking exclusively of territory, and not assets that were held by private individuals... then yes.

I was speaking of assets.

This will be a slightly tortured example, so bear with me. Fort Sumter was a property with a building and equipment on it owned by the government of the United States. Similar to how your house is a property with a building and equipment on it owned by you. If Maryland seceded today, would it be lawful for them to say you have no claim to your house?


Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[owknows]

I was speaking of assets.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Yes, you were.

And I of course... was not.