Skip to comments.
Was the Union Army’s Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?
LewRockwell.com (Where else?) ^
| July 29, 2002
| James Ostrowski
Posted on 07/30/2002 8:57:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
On 27 May 1861, the army of the United States of America (the Union) a nation which had been formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 1788 invaded the State of Virginia,1 which had itself recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate Virginias secession by violent force.
-- It's really long. Check the link for the whole thing.
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: civilwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
Why is it that when all you southron supporters insist on comparing your actions with the 'secession' of the original 13 colonies, you condemn Lincoln for opposing your actions but not King George, you accuse Lincoln of waging an illegal war but not King George, and you characterize Lincoln's actions as an 'invasion' but not King George's, you claim Lincoln should have declared war but not King George? Why is that? If the founding fathers expected to fight then why didn't you? If the founding fathers expected the British to oppose their actions then why didn't you?
To: Non-Sequitur
Of all the moot points....
To: Non-Sequitur
Thank you for visiting LewRockwell.com, it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.
To: Non-Sequitur
OK, it was illegal. Now what?
4
posted on
07/30/2002 9:02:38 AM PDT
by
Russ
To: Non-Sequitur
Why is it that when all you southron supporters insist on comparing your actions with the 'secession' of the original 13 colonies, you condemn Lincoln for opposing your actions but not King George, you accuse Lincoln of waging an illegal war but not King George, and you characterize Lincoln's actions as an 'invasion' but not King George's, you claim Lincoln should have declared war but not King George? Why is that? If the founding fathers expected to fight then why didn't you? If the founding fathers expected the British to oppose their actions then why didn't you? I guess this explains how you picked your screen name.
ML/NJ
5
posted on
07/30/2002 9:03:02 AM PDT
by
ml/nj
To: Russ
The South shall rise again, with the impending do-over.
To: Zeroisanumber
Of all the moot points.... Probably right. Was the South Carolina malitia's attack on Fort Sumter a lawful act? Was it Federal property or South Carolinian property? Guess it really doesn't matter now but it is interesting. Check out Harry Turtledove for Alternative History books. There's some good alternatives regarding the War between the States.
7
posted on
07/30/2002 9:06:53 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: Non-Sequitur
They won, we lost, get over it.
and Dixie is a hymn.
t
8
posted on
07/30/2002 9:08:02 AM PDT
by
P7M13
To: Non-Sequitur
For those who'd hate to have a lewrockwell cookie on their hard drive, the whole article was posted in the "chat" section:
HERE
9
posted on
07/30/2002 9:08:59 AM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: Non-Sequitur
I don't have to read a long Lew Rockwell article to know that it can't be illegal for the United States Army to enter the United States, whatever the state in question called itself at the time.
To: rhombus
Federal Property, of course. That, in itself, not to mention the other Federal forts overrun by the rebels, was enough of a casus belli.
To: Non-Sequitur
all you southron supportersYou obviously went to a government school. It is spelled "southern."
12
posted on
07/30/2002 9:15:40 AM PDT
by
Mark17
To: Mark17
Southern is a direction. A Southron is a person.
You obviously went to a Yankee school.
13
posted on
07/30/2002 9:31:01 AM PDT
by
Sledge
To: Zeroisanumber
Of all the moot points.... On the contrary! As history so often repeats itself, the questions concerning the morality, legality, and functionality of states seceding may well become an open question again in our lifetimes.
Between 1861 and 1865, the previously ambiguous and undetermined questions of legality, were largely settled by force, though mysteriously were not codified afterwards. The questions of morality and functionality remain.
These questions will perhaps become paramount again when the conditions of a one-world government are to be decided.
Would it not be better for North America to split up along regional, cultural, demographic, and ideological lines, in order to have more votes, thus more power, in a new government?
The study of history teaches that no questions are ever permanently settled. They evolve in circles. We may well live to see a Britain without a monarch, a democratic and capitalist China, Iran, etc., and a truly free democratic republic serving as a shining example of prosperity to all of the others. Many of the provisions of the CSA's constitution could provide a blueprint for such a republic.
Though considering the socialist nature of modern government, I am not holding my breath.
14
posted on
07/30/2002 9:31:28 AM PDT
by
muleboy
To: All
As a Southerner, I disagree with these "Confederates" who want to question everything about the Civil War. If it was illegal, I'm glad they broke the law. I'd rather be an American than a present day Confederate with a black terrorist movement that would make recent South African and other southern African nation's histories look like a cakewalk. I don't care whether Lincoln did wrong things, whether the Union Army did wrong things, whether the Reconstruction policies were wrong. What about what Southerners and the South did wrong? What about Andersonville, in south Georgia? Anyone want to defend that, with anything other than "the North did that too?"
The South brought this on themselves by succession, and then by firing on Ft Sumter. The South would have been more powerful today had most of the young men of the South not died in that war. We brought those "illegal" actions of the North on ourselves, period. These Civil War discussions are just attempts to smear the North, who had to be goaded, left and right, to enter and start fighting the war. The Southern leaders of that time, who led the South into an unprovoked war we could not have possibly won against the far more populous and industrial North, are not to be lauded in any way.....
15
posted on
07/30/2002 9:32:06 AM PDT
by
Malcolm
To: P7M13
... and Dixie is a hymn. Not this Dixie. She's a her.
16
posted on
07/30/2002 9:33:40 AM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Non-Sequitur
Bottom line is: Might makes Right.
17
posted on
07/30/2002 9:37:25 AM PDT
by
Paradox
To: Non-Sequitur
Seems simple to me. Southerners rebelled against their country, attacking United States forces at Forst Sumter. Armies suppressed the rebellion. The question of legality is as simple as is it is irrelevent. You rebelled, we put down the rebellion, you lost. Y'all get over it.
To: Mark17
You don't hang out on these posts much. A lot of the more fanatic ones prefer 'southron'.
To: Gumlegs
LOL
t
20
posted on
07/30/2002 9:49:29 AM PDT
by
P7M13
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson