3 ms·

"Actually yes, the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of treason." Yes, the attack on Fort Sumter is now considered an act of treason, to no dispute, since the n

"Actually yes, the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of treason." Yes, the attack on Fort Sumter is now considered an act of treason, to no dispute, since the north has won and (probably) the country is better for it. However, at the time of the conflict, it was the sovereign state of South Carolina exercising its sovereignty on its territory. I personally think the emphasis on state sovereignty of the phrase "War Between the States" is ever more relevant today in the face of the ever expanding power grab of the federal government.

empath75 9y ago
South Carolina wasn't a sovereign state from the day it joined the union.
- hammock 9y ago
  Have you forgotten about the Articles of Confederation? They were created with the specific goal of maintaining state sovereignty.
  - AndyMcConachie 9y ago
    First, the Articles of Confederation were superceded by the Constitution. Second, Article XIII of the Articles states the union will be perpetual: "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. " So I really don't know where you're coming from with this comment.
- dixie_land 9y ago
  the 10th amendment would beg to differ
  - AndyMcConachie 9y ago
    The 10th amendment does not grant sovereignty. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Two of the powers granted to the United States are the power to print money and the power to raise an army. There are plenty of other powers that states lose to Congress, but you can't be sovereign without those two atleast.
jcranmer 9y ago
The American Civil War has sometimes been described as the war whose history was written by the losers, as there is a lot of southern revisionism that obscures the causes of the civil war. Chief of the revisions is that the war was not about slavery but states' rights. If you actually go read the CSA's constitution, though, the fallacy becomes clear. The confederate constitution is virtually a carbon copy of the US's constitution (with the amendments inserted into the body of the text). The only major differences are the explicit forbidding of the confederate government from levying tariffs for industrial production and promoting internal improvements, and the very explicit prohibition of the disavowal of slavery. This should be a clear indication of what the states were actually concerned about (especially when you also go read the actual declarations of succession). While you might take some of the minor changes to be indicative of states' rights concerns, there's equally other minor changes that suggest they didn't actually believe in them. There's no clause granting states the right to nullify federal laws, and the Supremacy Clause remains untouched, for example (perhaps because the southern states were miffed by northern states' attempts to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act). And the preamble states outright that it is promulgated "in order to form a permanent federal government"--which suggests that succession was not in fact permissible in the CSA. The south seceded and fought the Civil War because of slavery--or, more precisely, because they realized that they lost the political power to force the northern states to accept slavery. So they decided to pack up their toys and leave the sandbox rather than be the minority.

empath75 9y ago

South Carolina wasn't a sovereign state from the day it joined the union.

hammock 9y ago
Have you forgotten about the Articles of Confederation? They were created with the specific goal of maintaining state sovereignty.
- AndyMcConachie 9y ago
  First, the Articles of Confederation were superceded by the Constitution. Second, Article XIII of the Articles states the union will be perpetual: "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. " So I really don't know where you're coming from with this comment.
dixie_land 9y ago
the 10th amendment would beg to differ
- AndyMcConachie 9y ago
  The 10th amendment does not grant sovereignty. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Two of the powers granted to the United States are the power to print money and the power to raise an army. There are plenty of other powers that states lose to Congress, but you can't be sovereign without those two atleast.

jcranmer 9y ago

The American Civil War has sometimes been described as the war whose history was written by the losers, as there is a lot of southern revisionism that obscures the causes of the civil war. Chief of the revisions is that the war was not about slavery but states' rights. If you actually go read the CSA's constitution, though, the fallacy becomes clear. The confederate constitution is virtually a carbon copy of the US's constitution (with the amendments inserted into the body of the text). The only major differences are the explicit forbidding of the confederate government from levying tariffs for industrial production and promoting internal improvements, and the very explicit prohibition of the disavowal of slavery. This should be a clear indication of what the states were actually concerned about (especially when you also go read the actual declarations of succession). While you might take some of the minor changes to be indicative of states' rights concerns, there's equally other minor changes that suggest they didn't actually believe in them. There's no clause granting states the right to nullify federal laws, and the Supremacy Clause remains untouched, for example (perhaps because the southern states were miffed by northern states' attempts to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act). And the preamble states outright that it is promulgated "in order to form a permanent federal government"--which suggests that succession was not in fact permissible in the CSA. The south seceded and fought the Civil War because of slavery--or, more precisely, because they realized that they lost the political power to force the northern states to accept slavery. So they decided to pack up their toys and leave the sandbox rather than be the minority.