• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the south a conquered nation?

Is the south a conquered nation?

  • Total voters
    41
No. There were those in the Union who wanted to treat it that way, but no.
 
In some sense, yes. The "rise again" mantra from the South over the last one hundred years plays to that idea.

I think it more appropriate, however, to adopt Lincoln's stance, which is to say the South never officially left. They were in a state of rebellion. Attacking the Confederacy's legacy needs to be done.
 
Sort of... if you want to go strictly with the definition, but I think a civil war is a special case of "conquering a nation".
 
you can make a case either way, on the other hand the greater question is "what does that matter NOW"?
 
radcen said:
Is the south a conquered nation?

The Confederate States of America.
Click to expand...

No. They were a bunch of treasonous swine who, as I believe it was Generall Grant said, fought for one of the worst causes a people has ever fought for, but they were never actually a nation.

On a side note it'd be interesting to see who on here exactly thought the the slaveocracy counted as a country.
 
No, the south is not a conquered nation!

They were a repelled insurrection.

While the Constitution is silent on the matter of state secession, the post-war SCOTUS in Texas v White ruled no state could secede from the union and the Texas confederation was null and void.

Since the SCOTUS is the arbiter of the Constitution, that would seem to be a definitive answer. Obviously, President Lincoln believed the same.
 
I think it would be safe to say that our Constitution does not contain language which would preclude
a state from seceding from the union. As such the Confederate states were within their rights to
leave the Union and form their own Union.
Lincoln rightly or wrongly felt that the preservation of the Union was more important than the constitutional limits.
The winner writes the rules, but the Confederacy did exists as a functioning Government for several years.
 
Chomsky said:
No, the south is not a conquered nation!

They were a repelled insurrection.

While the Constitution is silent on the matter of state secession, the post-war SCOTUS in Texas v White ruled no state could secede from the union.

Since the SCOTUS is the arbiter of the Constitution, that would seem to be a definitive answer. Obviously, President Lincoln believed the same.
Click to expand...
I think Texas v White was in 1869, so Lincoln would not have had the benefit of the case law.
 
They formed a separate nation. They were in a war, were invaded, defeated, and had another government unwillingly placed on them. Yeah, that sounds like being conquered.
 
Fiddytree said:
In some sense, yes. The "rise again" mantra from the South over the last one hundred years plays to that idea.

I think it more appropriate, however, to adopt Lincoln's stance, which is to say the South never officially left. They were in a state of rebellion. Attacking the Confederacy's legacy needs to be done.
Click to expand...
Yes, we can think in terms of 'sense', but in Constitutional terms (which this is about) the SCOTUS has definitively weighed-in.

Please see my post #7, above
 
Tigerace117 said:
No. They were a bunch of treasonous swine who, as I believe it was Generall Grant said, fought for one of the worst causes a people has ever fought for, but they were never actually a nation.

On a side note it'd be interesting to see who on here exactly thought the the slaveocracy counted as a country.
Click to expand...

If having slaves makes you not a nation, then why would you consider the United States a nation? Remember the border states kept their slaves.
 
longview said:
I think it would be safe to say that our Constitution does not contain language which would preclude
a state from seceding from the union. As such the Confederate states were within their rights to
leave the Union and form their own Union.
Lincoln rightly or wrongly felt that the preservation of the Union was more important than the constitutional limits.
The winner writes the rules, but the Confederacy did exists as a functioning Government for several years.
Click to expand...
Yes.

But it does not include secession or a method to leave the union!

Your argument is essentially saying the South could abridge their contract because nothing in the contract says they can't!

Besides, the SCOTUS already decided this just after the war.
 
phattonez said:
If having slaves makes you not a nation, then why would you consider the United States a nation? Remember the border states kept their slaves.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a nation because asides from their insistence on continuing to own slaves, they were by and large identical to the collective American identity. They simply considered themselves the "real Americans."

The border states kept their slaves--- those they could keep from escaping, anyway--- only until the 13th Amendment became law of the land. Even before that slavery was dead---even if, in a few states, it wasn't officially dead quite yet.
 
longview said:
I think Texas v White was in 1869, so Lincoln would not have had the benefit of the case law.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true.

But I'm not sure what bearing that would have, because without a change via a Constitutional Convention the states were not provided a way out of the union. And the Court ratified this.
 
longview said:
I think it would be safe to say that our Constitution does not contain language which would preclude
a state from seceding from the union. As such the Confederate states were within their rights to
leave the Union and form their own Union.
Lincoln rightly or wrongly felt that the preservation of the Union was more important than the constitutional limits.
The winner writes the rules, but the Confederacy did exists as a functioning Government for several years.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, the United States was not formed with the intention of becoming a country as much as a group of self governing entities with some mutual needs better served in common. The Senate was chosen to represent the states, not the people. States rights took precedence over federal rights.

Somewhere along the line the federal government began usurping more and more power, culminating in Lincoln decreeing the power of the feds to turn this upside down, right or wrong. The South revolted. Set up their own confederation. As you say, the winner gets to write the rules.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes.

But it does not include secession or a method to leave the union!

Your argument is essentially saying the South could abridge their contract because nothing in the contract says they can't!

Besides, the SCOTUS already decided this just after the war.
Click to expand...
Rather strange language seems to be required, "already decided after the war" past tense and future tense in the same sentence!
Also the nature of the law is if something is not specifically disallowed, it is allowed,
So if the contract did not include language that the individual could not leave the Union,
the seceding states, did not abridge the contract, but rather adhered to the terms.
 
jimbo said:
States rights took precedence over federal rights.
Click to expand...

Governments do not have "rights," they have powers. State prerogative took precedence in areas/powers not delegated to the federal government. In the areas delegated to the federal government -- which include all those in which the United States behaves as a nation to the outside world -- the federal government is supreme.
 
jimbo said:
If memory serves, the United States was not formed with the intention of becoming a country as much as a group of self governing entities with some mutual needs better served in common. The Senate was chosen to represent the states, not the people. States rights took precedence over federal rights.

Somewhere along the line the federal government began usurping more and more power, culminating in Lincoln decreeing the power of the feds to turn this upside down, right or wrong. The South revolted. Set up their own confederation. As you say, the winner gets to write the rules.
Click to expand...
For good or not, there is a law higher than the courts, The rulings are not written with ink on paper but in the blood
of the plaintiffs on the fields of battle.
The ruling is that states do not have the right to secede from the Union.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes.

But it does not include secession or a method to leave the union!

Your argument is essentially saying the South could abridge their contract because nothing in the contract says they can't!

Besides, the SCOTUS already decided this just after the war.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that if succession is not prohibited, it is allowed.

The word "union" means something here, too, IMO. States are allowed to voluntarily join but can never leave? "Voluntarily" is the key thing here. Is this the Hotel California? :2razz:

(Second time in a week I got to use the Hotel California "...but you can never leave" reference.)
 
Nope.

'The South' is no longer a 'nation'.

Thusly, it cannot be a 'conquered nation'.
 
radcen said:
Is the south a conquered nation?

The Confederate States of America.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Confederate States were ever a nation. They tried but failed.
 
No. The south was never a separate nation.

The only ways the south could have had nationhood would be if -

a) the secession was legal or,
b) the secession was illegal and they won the war.


Neither is the case. Since the south was never a nation it was never a conquered nation.
 
Was the CSA ever recognized as a nation by other nations? I want to say France was the only one, but am not sure. I have read that several European nations were sympathetic to them, but held back until they saw how it would shake out. No bridge burning with the USA, IOW.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, that is true.

But I'm not sure what bearing that would have, because without a change via a Constitutional Convention the states were not provided a way out of the union. And the Court ratified this.
Click to expand...

That's pretty weak court precedence to make your stand on from an era where it was criminalized to voice anti-war opinions. Suffice to say, no constitutional opinions from that era should really be taken to have any merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom