Replies

the "elusive written peace treaty" you're trying to strawman is what I referred to as "armistice". you'll find there's a difference, and if my wording at any point confused you...well, i'm not surprised.

Then I'm sure you'll show what the definition of an armistice is, right? Here's what the Hague Convention of 1899 said:

Article 36
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not fixed, the belligerent parties can resume operations at any time, provided always the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

That doesn't seem to apply to the situation from December 1860 to April 1861 in a number of ways. Maybe you've got some antebellum definition we can discuss. Or is this going to be another of your "everybody knows" arguments with no actual support?

i do enjoy one thing you, rockrr, kstate, x and your buddies enjoy as a valid argument....

use amendments, laws, supreme court rulings, hague conventions, or whatever else - all of which happen AFTER an illegal event - to defend the “legality” of the precursor. I’ll concede that I’ll never recognize the legitimacy of such arguments. (Nor any “he said, she said” defense.)

Acting in accordance with the written law is “legal”, and in defiance is “illegal”. If there is no written law forbidding state action or delegating the federal government jurisdiction in such actions (i.e. “secession”), then to act with force against it is “illegal” (see 10th Amndmt). To argue that its legality simply because you think it was “worth it” is just “stupid”.