Replies

First off, learn to spell it. It's "Sumter," not "Sumpter."

Well there it is. Bubba's managed to evade all the serious issues, but by calling out my typo, he's shown all my points to be pure fallacy! I'd love to list all of Bubba's previous typos to show his points are obviously therefore wrong as well, but I'll grant him for now that he's human and can also make a few keyboard mistakes now and then.

I didn't realize Pearl Harbor was a base on the island of Japan, just as SUMTER was located in the CSA. I also didn't realize that the Japanese had sent delegates to the White House and asked us when we were leaving, and that FDR repeatedly assured their delegates and government that we were on good terms and it would be evacuated asap (all the while getting an army together in anticipation of that "first strike"). Other than that, thanks for yet another mind-blowing, eye-opening analogy!

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on things that haven't actually come before it....

The Supreme Court also doesn't rule on state income tax rates, unicorn permits or lollipop flavors. Ignoring (as you have once again) the fact that secession had been brought to votes in 1812 (which would count as a "legal attempt" though never executed thanks to the ending of the war), I must say I'm very proud of you...

Without realizing it, you just admitted either (a) the S.C. had no business in the issue (explaining why they hadn't heard it before), or (b) that the issue SHOULD HAVE been heard prior to the executive unilaterally waging war over it - BOTH options making Lincoln's acts unconstitutional.

why the south didn't try to use a judicial route

The South acted as they believed it their right per the laws of the land. I guess using your logic, they should've asked Taney if they were allowed to wipe their own a$$es or if that was Lincoln's job too, but I regress. The problem with you're repeated counter-questions instead of answering those posed to you is this:

The Constitution delegated the federal government a list of responsibilities and duties the States voluntarily sacrificed. To make those powers even more clear, they included a 10th Amendment to clarify any power NOT explicitly granted was reserved to the states or the people. To make it even MORE clear, some states reserved the right to break the compact directly in their ratification.

So when the Southern States seceded, they had no reason to doubt their choice was anything but a right reserved by the states or the people (same as slavery at the time). When Lincoln disagreed, it would therefore be his obligation or ANY of the Northern State governors to file charges. Maybe I missed the part where he exhausted that option before opening the gates of hell on the whole country in my sequence a few posts ago, but feel free to insert it where it belongs.

Well there it is. Bubba's managed to evade all the serious issues, but by calling out my typo, he's shown all my points to be pure fallacy!

I'm merely pointing out your carelessness, which extends to other aspects of your arguments as well.

Other than that, thanks for yet another mind-blowing, eye-opening analogy!

Your argument was a minimization of the importance of the shelling of Sumter on the basis that no one was hurt.

Ignoring (as you have once again) the fact that secession had been brought to votes in 1812 (which would count as a "legal attempt" though never executed thanks to the ending of the war), I must say I'm very proud of you...

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The Hartford Convention wasn't "a vote" or "a legal attempt" at secession. It was a conference of four New England states. There had been some muttering about secession beforehand, but it never appeared in the final report of the Convention, which was just a document that they published, not some official act of government. And that was it. For you to claim that it was a legal attempt at secession is simply incorrect.