Nobody had declared war when Pearl Harbor was bombed, yet I doubt anyone would have disputed that it was indeed an act of war.
The other point I was making was that this first "shot" did not justify the deaths of 600 000 people / the destruction of Dixie homes nor the subjugation of the Southron people & the reversal of their independence.
The south fired on the U.S. garrison in Sumter, and continued firing until they were forced to surrender. What about that did not justify the Union response?
When the North declared independence from Britain (with significant help form the South) it was celebrated as freedom. When the CSA did essentially the SAME THING -as a continuation of the secessionist revolution started in 1776
When the founding father's declared their independence in 1776 one thing that they knew for sure was that they would have to fight for it. Since, by your own admission, the confederate actions were viturally the same thing, then the fact that their actions were opposed should be no cause for complaint on your part. The major difference being, of course, that the confederacy lost.
But there is also no law that says secession is legal.
The United States Constitution was adopted in 1789 which the express guarantee of retaining the right to secession. The Declaration of Independence stipulates the right of the people to alter or abolish governments & to re-institute one which better represents the people.
ruled that the southern acts of unilateral secession to be illegal.
What about the act of unilateral secession which created the Republic you live in for which my moniker is named after.
Furthermore:
Of cource the federal Courts are going to make ruling which do not threaten their existence. Do you really think one could ever get a fair ruling on secession from such a biased source? The Courts are not exactly going to issue ruling which undermine source (ie: the State) of their existence. To use an analogy: the fox will always rule against the freedom of the hens. The State derives its power from the maximun taxation of its denizens. The Courts are not about to allow a major source of their revenue to simply walk away no matter how Constitutional or legal secession is.
unless the Constitution is amended or the decision is overturned, those actions remain illegal.
Wrong. Try reading the 9th & 10th Amendments sometime. The right of secession is covered by defacto as it is a non federal issue which the Constitution states is left to the states & the people.
the 14th Amendment punished the leaders of the rebellion
The 14th Amendment punished everyone as it was a clever centralization device / gimmick which made people citizens of a unitary State (the United States of America) when prior they were citizens of their respective states. The 14th Amendment used sophistry in order to extend their hegemony over the entire American population.
Certainly it would. In case you hadn't noticed all Supreme Court decisions are made after the fact, and their ruling in Texas v White clearly stated that the southern actions were illegal. Court decisions are never made before the fact. That would be unconstitutional.
Nice try but no cigar. You clearly were using this decision to insinuate that it made secession "illegal" when in reality all it was was a decision relating to a specific case. Remember: Court decisions do not make law. The ruling of this or any Court decision are meaningless to the abstract notion of secession as it only deals with individual cases.
It certainly did. You may not agree with the decision, but abortion is a protected right in this country until the Constitution is amended or the Roe v Wade decision is overturned.
Read what I wrote following that line. I noted that the only reason why it is considered law is due to the ignorance people have concerning where laws are supposed to emanate from & from a lack of opposing the rulings. Abortion is not a protected right. The states can enact a law banning the practice at any time, but many are reticent to do so for fear of the political fallout form the pro-abortion lobby groups. The notion that abortion is "legal" stems from ignorance, media propagated illusions & a lack of political will to enact the proper checks & balances arising from the separation of powers.
The illusion that Roe vs Wade made abortion a protected right is testement to the power of media supported propaganda.
The North was indeed denying the South from having a republican form of government as they first tried to cripple them through excessive taxation & later through the illegal invasion. You like to make a lot of noise propagating your erroneous belief that secession was somehow "illegal" while you have never mentioned once how the actual invasion of the CSA was in fact illegal. Nor have you mentioned how Lincoln violated the Constitution & jailed political dissenters in the North.
You can, of course, provide some statistics to back this claim up?
Of course. Read the following.
There were two factors about the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860. Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.) In 1860, for example, just four Southern-states paid in 50% of the total tariffs.
Pay particular attention to that last line. Just four Southern states paid 50 % of the total tariffs.
Who?
People did question & still question whether Pearl Harbour was "an act of war", since it was used as convenient excuse to enter into the war.
Why did they hold back?
For political reasons.
President Davis was willing to emancipate the slaves in return for their (of France & Britain) recognition.
If this is true,
7. In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. France showed interest but Britain refused.
From. Black Confederates.
Well well well. Not only did I find the text to prove my point... but what else did I notice. You sir, have just proven to this whole board that you do not even pay attention to the very discussions in which yu participate in!!!! I noticed that none other than yourself had posted messages at that discussion starting at # 22. The statement I made is true... & you knew it all along.
Well, here you were being demagogic & behaving skeptical ("if this is true", your said) WHEN THE TRUTH ON THIS MATTER WAS KNOWN TO YOU ALL ALONG!!!!!!
Well well well. Here I was digging for the quote, when what do I find. Why another discussion board with the very quote I was referring to in which none other than yourself had participated on. After this latest escapade your credibility had just sunk to zero.
since you're such a stickler for the Constitution, where would Jefferson Davis get the power to emancipate the slaves. Wouldn't that be a states rights issue?
He would have obviously have had to obtained the power from the various states, but as it clearly states in black & white from the quote (in which you yourself were even fully aware of all this time while feigning ignorance for demagogic purposes!) Davis had approved a plan which proposed this.
It is always funny to see how fast you pro-Union sympathizers will assert "states rights" when it is convenient.
No, those actions were not Constitutional.
Wrong. Their actions were in accordance with Secession Conventions which were in accordance with the 9th & 10th Amendments. Furthermore: the Constitution was only ever adopted (on the insistence of New York, Rhode Island & Virginia) with the assurances of retaining the right to secession.
The southern states were in rebellion.
Repeating this mendacious absurdity does not make it a fact.
Rebellion Against who? Against what?
Absolute nonsense! The CSA states were not in rebellion as they had no desire to control or effect the government of Washington. Nor were they "in rebellion" to the said federal government of which they had seceded from. Note: the CSA did not "rebel" against Washington... They simply SECEDED from Washington. Where pray tell is the "rebellion" in simply leaving the Union? The Union has no right to force a state to remain like some power mad abusive husband who will not let his wife divorce him. Do you also think that abused wives are in "rebellion" to their husbands when they leave their abusiveness? The Union was in rebellion to the agreements stipulated in the adoption of the Constitution.
The court ruled that they did not.
The Court can rule that the Earth is flat for all I care. Their ruling still does not present a shred of EVIDENCE backing up their erroneous claims. Nor were the rulings based on a single law. Those are the facts.
I beg to differ. The patriots of 1776 invoked the right of rebellion from "intolerable oppression" and explained in the DoI exactly the forms that oppression took. The confederates could not claim a "right to revolution" since they were in no way being oppressed. Instead, they claimed a non existant Constitutional right to violate their oaths to that very constitution.
And then they lost their illegitimate rebellion.