Except the ruling was made by a pro-Union court with a weak argument. Reminds me of the Nuremberg trials which never put an Ally on trial.
I wouldn't compare Reconstruction or other Postbellum policies with the Nuremberg trials or Denazification. That's like comparing apples to atomic bombs.
On the other hand, we did pour in a lot aid into West Germany to help them rebuild their industries and infrastructure. If we had done that in the South, they would have recovered much more quickly.
Ergo there was no illegality in secession.
Of course, using the same argument, there was no illegality in the Union using military force to oppose secession.
Law namely.
The legality of it is all about law.
So, no law against secession, and no law forbidding the Federal government to use force to oppose secession.
Did the Union agree to secession? No? War was inevitable under those conditions. It happens when negotiations break down or never happen.
Yes, but where does "the law" come into this? Was it a war of anarchist vs. anarchist?
Nope as there was no law about secession. Judicial overreach.
Then it wasn't really so much of a legal question as much as it was a political question. But the law is made by politicians, and judges are de facto politicians anyway. Always have been, always will be. Even judges have to be practical and acknowledge that, in the dispute in question, there was a clear winner and a clear loser.
The South wasn't really in much of a position to challenge it, and it was clear that they were willing to accept judgment on secession and the abolition of slavery. So, instead, they argued for segregationist, Jim Crow policies and white supremacy - which the North accepted, since they embraced many of the same principles.
Again SCOTUS is creating law which is overreach.
Maybe. Or maybe it was more of a "rubber stamp" of a decision which was previously made in the Executive Branch. In any case, it doesn't appear that they were any kind of crusading liberal judges using the bench to pursue their own personal agenda. A lot of conservatives criticize judges on that basis, but I don't believe that was the case in 1869.
No Amendment making secession illegal yet.
No, but then again, no state has dared try to secede since the Civil War. At most, cries of "secession" (such as in California these days) are symbolic acts of protest, but they're never considered to be serious proposals. Every state is heavily vested in America as a whole, so secession is a political and practical impossibility.
It is called legislation ie Congress
Yes, I've heard of it. But I've also heard that Congress has had periods of divisiveness and gridlock, oftentimes very dysfunctional and inundated with squabbling fools. It's easy for you to say that they should have made a law, but seriously, if you were in Congress at the time, what could you have done to persuade your fellow congressmen to make a law about secession?
Lincoln's campaign was a tipping point as many believe he was radical enough to purse an abolition policy
By seceding and setting the stage for war, they forced his hand. They gave him no other choice and created a national emergency which justified Lincoln exercising broad, quasi-dictatorial powers. If they had stayed in the Union, they could have done more to stifle Lincoln than they did by seceding. Any proposals towards Abolition could have been tied up in Congress for years, and they certainly wouldn't have gotten enough states to ratify any amendments - not simply through Lincoln's oratory alone, nor even through the very limited powers of the presidency.
By seceding, the South unwittingly gave Lincoln the power to end slavery. They ended up being hoisted by their own petard.
UK politicians are stalling.
Every CSA delegation was refused. There was never going to be any negotiation for a peaceful separation.
The Union didn't want a separation. But they might have been willing to make compromises, as they had done in the past - as long as the South stayed in the Union. Lincoln already said as much. But how could they accept a CSA delegation when their position was that the CSA had no right to exist? If they came as
USA politicians from Southern states, it might have been different.
Not to the same extend or scale which is why I use those two as an example.
Yeah, although I think the overall point is that it would have been a very messy situation indeed - even if the Union allowed for a "peaceful separation" at first. The situation was already deteriorating before Lincoln even took office.
Yes making Germany a 3rd world nation. How gracious the West was in victory.... An industrialized Germany not allied with France and/or UK would always be a threat at that point in time
Actually, when I said "They would have had to restructure their economy from an agrarian one to an industrial one," I was referring to the CSA in the hypothetical circumstance that they would be able to remain independent.
As for Germany, I don't think the West was totally unified on that. Americans were on the Allied side and fought against Germany. But unlike Britain and France, America had no real deep-seated hatred of Germany. So, we didn't really want to stick it to them like they did.
But even before WW1, there seemed to be a desire on the part of Britain and France to contain Germany, as there were growing fears of German nationalism and potential expansionism.
Of course. However you framed it differently before which is what I object to, the framing. It is understandable to defang a potential future enemy. However the treaty crippled Germany completely and made it dirt poor as France and Germany didn't want to pay off their own debt. Compare that to the Marshall plan
What's interesting is that this was a major sticky point between the US and USSR towards the end of WW2. The Soviets (and French, to a lesser extent) wanted to totally dismantle Germany and turn it into a giant goat pasture. Even some in the US and UK wanted that as well, but ultimately, the West decided to rebuild their portion of occupied Germany, as well as maintain occupation of West Berlin. That rattled the Soviets and led us into a Cold War which lasted more than 40 years.
The Allies were not behind in the arms race. France and the UK had more equipment, better tanks, more aircraft and more manpower. Both had low morale and a lack of political willpower combined with incompetent military leadership. That is why Germany won in the early stages.
I thought the Allies were behind on aircraft in 1938, but they were in somewhat better shape by 1939. I don't think it was a problem with political willpower. If that was the case, they would have taken Hitler's peace offer and hoped for the USSR and Germany to wipe each other out.
There was American pressure due to the "image" America promoting decolonization. The UK admitted it especially as US was wasn't going to fight against revolutions in their interest. France fought until the 60s over it's empire. It still tried to play world power until the 70s.
Maybe, although wasn't there growing public opinion within Britain itself against colonialism? American policy was mainly focused on suppressing communist uprisings (real or imagined) and containing Soviet expansion. We had no stake in the British or French imperial systems and no real reason to defend it. There was definitely an "image" problem there, and US policy seemed to be all about "gaining hearts and minds."
Somehow, it was believed it would work better if we controlled puppet governments which were nominally "independent" than to simply take over and rule them as colonies. We wanted to apply the "banana republic" philosophy to the rest of the world. It still didn't turn out well for our "image," so I'm not sure if anyone was actually fooled - except for large segments of the American voting public.
Although one is benefiting thus has far more self-interest at the population level to maintain their system within some limits (Accounting for reforms or minor changes in systems). I do not believe people in NK like starving but I could be wrong about their level of brainwashing.
I guess starvation can be used as a tool in brainwashing, but they might be persuaded to blame it on the US, not their own government.
I do not expect a unified state short of a war anytime soon. A peace accord, demilitarization and opening of some trade seems more likely. Perhaps something similar to the progress between Taiwan and China.
Possibly. If the US wants to eliminate the potential threat of NK, we would need the help of China. If we want something from them, they might want something from us in regards to Taiwan.
Most civil wars are given the enemy is not some "other". Some of the journals of West Point Generals on both side are interesting to read given they were fighting friends they had known for years. The US/Mexico War created a lot of bonds which were divided later.
This is true. I remember this line from the movie
Gettysburg (which was adapted from
The Killer Angels), and it was a rather interesting commentary by a British military observer during the Civil War.
Col. Arthur Freemantle : You call yourselves Americans, but you're really just transplanted Englishmen. Look at your names: Lee, Hood, Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart...
Lieutenant General James Longstreet : My people were Dutch...
Col. Arthur Freemantle : And the same for your adversaries: Meade, Hooker, Hancock, and - shall I say - Lincoln! The same God, same language, same culture and history, same songs, stories, legends, myths - different dreams. Different dreams. So very sad.
It does kind of wax poetic there a bit, but then I have to think: What was the South's "dream"? To own slaves? To have a white supremacist society?
