Replies

If I was like you, I could say that you are not fit to be here with your hatred of the country, but I think you do love much about the country. I don’t hate the south, though I think the past insurrection launched by the slave power in the distant past was incorrect, not justified, and illegal.

Really when you think about it, what is legal is determined by the winner and the ability to use force to impose its/their will. I would have sympathized and fought for the South if I was around then, I think they were right and the North was wrong, but the South did make some mistakes that cost them. First, they fired the first shots, bad move, like any schoolyard fight or even any war (with few exceptions), the first ones to shoot are seen as the bad guys. So the North had on their side already, "well, he started it," as they would explain it to the principal. Fort Sumter was the first boo-boo. However, there is always chance of recovery. If you do that, you have to be able to cash the checks you write. The South did a fairly good job at first but they lacked the industry the North had and most trade from the outside was blocked. They needed factories to make the munitions they needed and/or get them from elsewhere, both were lacking. Third, you need recognition from other, preferably, major nations. If the South was able to get the UK or the French on their side, especially the former, the North would have been toast and might have to come to the bargaining table. The South lacked that, so that was strike three.

Then in today's world, you have two additional equalizers. First, nukes. If the Civil War was anytime past 1950 and the South was able to score or make some nukes then it would have been game over, the North would have had to come to the table. Asymetrical Warfare is the other, make to too costly for the victor to hold onto you. Then again, that type of warfare is much easier with knowledge of 20th and 21st century science and the will to fight.

So in a way, might makes right, the South tried and lost so it is seen as illegal.

What is legal is determined by the law. When the slave power started their insurrection, they could have attempted secession by amendment, or even by federal legislation, but they didn’t have the votes. They had just lost an election for president and there was a Republican Speaker of the house. They couldn’t get their way politically. They could have filed a suit, to resolve their complaint legally, but they recognized they had no grounds. So they chose to illegally attempt an insurrection.

And the East India Company soon went out of

Which they lost.

The 1773 Tea Act exempted the British East India company from duties paid for importation to the colonies (money paid to the colonial government) and instead, they paid a tax to the English Parliament. The colonists were offended by the pretense (in violation of the Townshend Act) that England’s parliament where they were not represented, and could not be represented, was presuming to to tax their goods, and in every port except Boston, the tea was either not unloaded, or in Charleston SC the tea was unloaded and nooone would buy it. In Boston, the tea was going to be unloaded, as the attempt to boycott had been unsuccessful. To prevent the unloading, the “Tea Party” was staged. It was indeed a crime: vandalism, but the British response was illegal, to close the harbor to punish the entire city most of which had not been involved in the act. The British collective punishment failed because the colonial response was legal and effective: to send food for the city over land. There were no prosecutions of any persons for the Tea Party. England chose illegality. And the English lost too.