Arguing over wether or not it was "legal" to seceede is silly. There were many other factors that lead up to the Civil War, besides just legality. And the primary "State's right" the South was seceeding over was the "right" to own slaves. Which wasn't threatened by Lincolin's election, as you said.
And I wasn't excusing the North on the slavery front either, the North used the South's textiles and (less so) food and other natural resources in the factories and such. Which were not happy or safe places to work, in any way, shape, or form, either.
As for the forts, militarily, and maybe even ethically, that could be justified, in part by what you mentioned, but on the technical legal level these people were arguing, it's definitely not legal. The forts are/were Federal property, on land owned, or at least leased, by the Federal government. And even assuming they were seperate countries, just seizing them without any negotiation would be a definite act of war. Yes, that's reducing it to a "he did it first!", but.
I'm dismissing the legitimacy of the "legal to seceede" argument out of hand because it leaves out most of the picture.
But I'll gladly admit my mystification in general at the people who idealize the Confederacy and think of it as something to honor, and my disbelief of their arguments, because, yes, I do think it's silly. And it's also 150 years ago almost. And because the government's also run by people who're pretty close to being Confederates these days, anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-12-14 01:48 am (UTC)And I wasn't excusing the North on the slavery front either, the North used the South's textiles and (less so) food and other natural resources in the factories and such. Which were not happy or safe places to work, in any way, shape, or form, either.
As for the forts, militarily, and maybe even ethically, that could be justified, in part by what you mentioned, but on the technical legal level these people were arguing, it's definitely not legal. The forts are/were Federal property, on land owned, or at least leased, by the Federal government. And even assuming they were seperate countries, just seizing them without any negotiation would be a definite act of war. Yes, that's reducing it to a "he did it first!", but.
I'm dismissing the legitimacy of the "legal to seceede" argument out of hand because it leaves out most of the picture.
But I'll gladly admit my mystification in general at the people who idealize the Confederacy and think of it as something to honor, and my disbelief of their arguments, because, yes, I do think it's silly. And it's also 150 years ago almost. And because the government's also run by people who're pretty close to being Confederates these days, anyway.