south carolina could have surrendered.
cab21: south carolina could have surrendered.
Hahah.
both sides were states and guilty of all sorts of crimes.
cab21: both sides were states and guilty of all sorts of crimes.
Such as?
lets see, the south had slaves, unless that's ok.
the south is the one that demanded the north surrender and started violence when the north did not.
when south carolina left the union, it did not own the federal land inside the state of south carolina, so why should the usa have to surrender that land . south carolina can either buy the land, or live peacefully with the usa using it's territory as it sees fit , demanding surrender was violent.
the north had taxes they wanted to impose on the south, then fought a war in a brutal way.
both north and south had people in the army raping people and the south killed blacks like it was nothing.
the union was demanded to surrender before the confederates were
cab21: lets see, the south had slaves, unless that's ok. the south is the one that demanded the north surrender and started violence when the north did not. when south carolina left the union, it did not own the federal land inside the state of south carolina, so why should the usa have to surrender that land . south carolina can either buy the land, or live peacefully with the usa using it's territory as it sees fit , demanding surrender was violent. the north had taxes they wanted to impose on the south, then fought a war in a brutal way. both north and south had people in the army raping people and the south killed blacks like it was nothing. the union was demanded to surrender before the confederates were
Your assertions are absurd. It would have been stupid to let the North maintain their military bases in South Carolina. Kicking them out was the only sensible option. That's why they demanded surrender first.
Also, in war, there are always individual cases of pillaging and such. Provide documentation that "the south killed blacks like it was nothing." Why would they kill blacks if they were fighting for - among other things - their legal right to slaves?
All of this is moot. Lincoln was a mass-murdering tyrant. He even ordered a marshall to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for opposing his legislation. There was no reason for the Union to violently and forcefully keep the southern states in the Union other than tyrannical authoritarianism. Lincoln was an evil man.
unless the north was attacking the south, it's the private property of the north to do as the north sees fit.
it is absurd to say the government should give up land it owns because another government want to own it and make the current owners surrender, that is a act of war and a act of agression.
why should a nonowner be able to demand the owner surrender at the threat of a gun?
not sure what the link is, but i know i read letters from union soldiars about how the confederates treated blacks doing the war and reconstruction.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html here is a example of jury nullification when whites in the south murdered blacks
http://www.enotes.com/african-americans-reference/african-americans more of what whites did to blacks with reconstructionism
just leave it at the south wanting legal slaves and to expand legal slavery, if that's not a fail, what is?
there was no need to keep them in the union, but there was a need to defend federal land and property.
if people that want to own property are justified in demanding surrender of current owners, then there are no property rights.
real property rights, neither the union or the confederates were legitmate, so i see no reason why one gets to take over from another if neither would have a great claim.