Civil War arguments

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me start off by saying that I think it is a ridiculous notion that a person has rights, but people don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Explain to me how a group of people can have rights.

[ QUOTE ]

According to you, governments have no rights. The Confederacy was a new government. Then, it logically follows, that the Confederacy had no rights. So why are you complaining that the Union waged war against them? The Confederates had no rights to life, liberty, or property, ACCORDING TO YOU. Therefore, killing them and taking their liberty and property did not violate any rights.

I'll wait for you to change your definition again, although I don't see how you could. Either the Union had rights, or the Confederacy did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Individuals in the Confederacy had rights, and they were infringed upon by the Union government. This is not to say that the Confereracy didn't infringe on the rights of individuals who were citizens of the Union (Fort Sumter comes to mind). The North was just much worse about it.

You need to stop personifying government and groups of people. It is impossible to quantify human action.

[BCPVP]

I've yet to hear any of the local anarchists explain how the attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederacy doesn't constitute an act of war or explain how the Union was trespassing in FEDERAL forts, presumably built with federal funds by federal troops. While it may not justify the level of violence that occurred because of it, because the South attacked first, I think they lose some of their moral superiority in justifying their secession. If they had waited till the Union struck first, it'd be a different story.

But I'm glad a semi-intelligent discussion has brewed besides the normal bush-lied drivel that litters this board.

[BluffTHIS!]

Although I've made clear in this thread that I think the North was morally justified in fighting the war solely to free the slaves, and gave a little of the history re Ft. Sumter, the South's argument would go like this:

1) Upon secession, in which South Carolina ceased to be part of the federal union, there could exist no federal property within the boundaries of South Carolina.

2) In consideration of the above, the refusal of Federal troops to vacate installations in South Carolina constituted tresspass and forcible occupation.

3) South Carolina and its southern allies were then justified in using force to remove federal troops and recover property now belonging to South Carolina, the same as if a 3rd country had invaded the US.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Upon secession, in which South Carolina ceased to be part of the federal union, there could exist no federal property within the boundaries of South Carolina.

[/ QUOTE ]
I still don't buy that. How did what was federal property turn into state property merely because the South seceeded? The South may have been a different country then, but those forts would still be the property of the Federal U.S. government and an attack on them by a foreign power would be a declaration of war.

If your girlfriend decides to leave you and take her stuff out of your house, she's not justified in taking your stuff too, much less attacking you for not giving her your stuff.

[BluffTHIS!]

Federal property is nothing other than the common property of states, although usually of course considered indivisible. So South Carolina could reasonably think that by appropriating all prerviously federal property in its state borders, it was merely getting its fair share of what it should receive upon leaving the union, same as if you and your girlfriend divided up common property that you had both paid for. Of course the question is whether the federal property in South Carolina was more or less than its fair share, and there were supposed to be negotiations regarding this, that were cancelled by a Federal officer's actions which brought about the attack on Ft. Sumter (read my earlier post).

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't buy that. How did what was federal property turn into state property merely because the South seceeded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eminent domain. The Federal US government may have owned that property, but once South Carolina seceded from the union, the Federal US Government has no special status above any other private landowner.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't buy that. How did what was federal property turn into state property merely because the South seceeded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eminent domain. The Federal US government may have owned that property, but once South Carolina seceded from the union, the Federal US Government has no special status above any other private landowner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, eminent domain is an illegitimate way of acquiring property, but the Federal US government didn't have *legitimate* ownership of the property in the first place (see my previous posts on why governments can never legitimately own property), so turnabout seems fair play in this case.