Random American Civil War Question

[Stuart]

As for the legality of the CSA, I still hold that secession was legal (and since I have conceded the reasoning for secession, then it stands as immoral).

The matter of secession is covered by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which, as a treaty in good standing, was subsumed into the supreme law of the land.

According to the official history here

The Ordinance provided the means by which new states would be created out of the western lands and then admitted into the Union. Governors and judges appointed by Congress would rule a territory until it contained 5,000 free male inhabitants of voting age; then the inhabitants would elect a territorial legislature, which would send a non-voting delegate to Congress. When the population reached 60,000, the legislature would submit a state constitution to Congress and, upon its approval, the state would enter the Union. The importance of the statute, aside from providing for orderly westerly settlement, is that it made clear that the new states would be equal to the old; there would be no inferior or superior states in the Union. Moreover, in the Ordinance Congress compacted with the settlers of the territories that they would be equal citizens of the United States, and would enjoy all of the rights that had been fought for in the Revolution. Where the Articles of Confederation lacked a bill of rights, the Ordinance provided one that included many of the basic liberties the colonists had considered essential, such as trial by jury, habeas corpus,1 and religious freedom. One should also note, however, the important role that property still played in government, a holdover from British theory that only those with a tangible stake in society should partake in its governance. The Northwest Ordinance would, with minor adjustments, remain the guiding policy for the admission of all future states into the Union.

The Northwest Ordinance has been signed by all fifty states, including those that attempted so secede in 1861.

Article 4 of the Northwest Ordinance states that

The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.

That's quite specific; the signatories here renounce all rights to secession from the Confederacy of the United States (as it was then known) and to its constitutional successor, the Union of the United States. Having signed the Northwest Ordinance, all the states permanently recounce the right to secede from the Union.

Sorry the "legal right to secede" just doesn't fly.

[Darth Wong]

Something I saw a while ago: Hitler cafe in Taiwan. Apparently it no longer exists, whether that is due to its Naziness or other business reasons can't be determined.
I also saw photos of a Nazi-themed clothing store that was either in Taipei or Hong Kong, but I've lost the link.

What people in the West have to understand about Asians is that Asians don't really give a damn about the whole history of Judaism, Nazism, persecution, etc. It's just not a hot-button issue for them; they are perfectly capable of making horribly tasteless jokes about Nazis not because they are secretly pro-Nazi (to say nothing of being Nazi-wankers like so many Europeans), but because it just doesn't have any emotional impact for them either way. Americans are so accustomed to their domestic culture that they can't wrap their heads around this concept.

[Kihmbar]

I believe this is being used out of context:

Article 4 of the Northwest Ordinance states that

The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.

That's quite specific; the signatories here renounce all rights to secession from the Confederacy of the United States (as it was then known) and to its constitutional successor, the Union of the United States. Having signed the Northwest Ordinance, all the states permanently recounce the right to secede from the Union.

Sorry the "legal right to secede" just doesn't fly.

From what I read at the referenced site, here, the Northwest Ordinace applies to new states formed from territories, not existing states. I am led to this conclusion because of the use of the phrase "in the said territory" throughout the document. In addition, Northwest Ordinance Article 6 bans slavery "in the said territory." If this applied to all states, then slavery would not be in practice in 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states belonging to the rebellion. Also if this applied to all states, it would make the treason case against Jefferson Davis rather simple - he led a illegal rebellion against the Union of the United States.
I still maintain that the CSA had a legal right to secede from the Union, evidenced by the failure to try Jefferson Davis for treason.

[Darth Wong]

I still maintain that the CSA had a legal right to secede from the Union, evidenced by the failure to try Jefferson Davis for treason.

So "failure to indict" means something must be legal? You're sure you want to run with this argument, knowing how easily it could be applied elsewhere to come up with truly preposterous conclusions?

[Stuart]

I believe this is being used out of context

No, it isn't. It's exactly on point.

, the Northwest Ordinace applies to new states formed from territories, not existing states. I am led to this conclusion because of the use of the phrase "in the said territory" throughout the document.

Untrue. The preamble to the Northwest ordinance states

That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

The Ordinance lays down the terms and conditions under which new states join the union. It also lays down that there is no difference between states and that no state has any right or perogative that is denied to any other.

whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever

This is an explicit statement that the prohibition of secession applies to all states equally. The states that formed the Confederacy had signed on to this agreement and knew that.

In addition, Northwest Ordinance Article 6 bans slavery "in the said territory." If this applied to all states, then slavery would not be in practice in 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states belonging to the rebellion.

That's a very feeble argument. Breach of the terms of the convention does not imply that all other terms of the convention are immediately null and void. However, that particular aspect of the Northwest Ordinance was superceded by the provisions of the Constitution. Since the Northwest Ordinance was written into supreme law by the Constitution and since the Constitution itself does not address the issue of secession, the Northwest Ordinance provision is still the binding legal authority.

Also if this applied to all states, it would make the treason case against Jefferson Davis rather simple - he led a illegal rebellion against the Union of the United States. I still maintain that the CSA had a legal right to secede from the Union, evidenced by the failure to try Jefferson Davis for treason.

You can maintain it as much as you like. That doesn't mean it is an argument of any weight. The brutal fact is that the states sign on under the terms of an ordinance that denies the right of any state to secede and applies that denial to all states, original and new. Every other consideration is secondary to that. The failure to try Jefferson Davies for treason (personally, I wouldn't have done so either, I'd have just strung the toad up from the nearest convenient tree) has no weight or bearing on the matter. Failure to indict does not mean innocence of crime. It simply means that the way the law is worded makes obtaining a conviction difficult.

Let's look at Article Three, Section Three.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

There's an immediate problem. Levying war is interpreted as meaning "bearing arms against" Can anybody proved that Jefferson Davies actually took pot shots against Union troops? Or fired cannon at Union territory. "bearing arms" has a specific meaning. Now, did Jefferson Davies actually give aid and comfort to said enemies? Again, strictly defied. Did he personally feed Confederate troops? ZDid he personally bind their wounds? Did he personally carry food and ammunition to the front line?

And can you find two credible witnesses who will personally testify in court that they saw Jefferson Davies do all those things.

The criteria for "treason" in the Constitution is very strict because the Founding Fathers had all been on the receiving end of treason charges framed more loosely. You're taking a very broad legal judgement then applying a very narrow focus to it because that suits your purpose.

I'd suggest something much simpler; the war was over, the matter had been decided by force of arms, the cost of going through witha trial was out of all proportion to any gains. So they dumped the idea.

[Kihmbar]

So "failure to indict" means something must be legal? You're sure you want to run with this argument, knowing how easily it could be applied elsewhere to come up with truly preposterous conclusions?

No, I do not want to run with this argument. Thank you for pointing out it could be abused.

This is an explicit statement that the prohibition of secession applies to all states equally. The states that formed the Confederacy had signed on to this agreement and knew that.

Thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. Today was the first I had read through the Northwest Ordinances, I apologize for my misrepresentation of them.

I'd suggest something much simpler; the war was over, the matter had been decided by force of arms, the cost of going through with a trial was out of all proportion to any gains. So they dumped the idea.

That does sound like a simpler solution. I can agree to that while I look into the issue further. Any references you would recommend?

[Lonestar]

What "blinders", dipshit?

Are you being intentionally dense? How can you be so stupid as to not make a reasonable inference about the culture in question where it's a-ok to have ads with Hitler in them. You see many heater ads with Hitler in Toronto?

The ad does not in any way necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a vigorous pro-Nazi movement in Taiwan.

It does indicate that. at best there is an indifference to the crimes, and at worst the Nazis were pretty neat-o. Which makes sense as the Nazis were training up the Kuomintang until the Germans chose the Japanese over the Nationalists as their Far East Allies.

Their culture is considerably different from ours; somebody probably just thought it was funny to have a ridiculous-looking Hitler caricature and the caption "fight the Nazi cold front".

Never thought I'd see you trot out the "respect other cultures" bullshit.

Oh wait, I forgot. Everyone in the world is expected to act like Americans, and have American culture, so their actions should be interpreted as if they were Americans. Gotcha. And you wonder why the rest of the world thinks you're a bunch of self-absorbed twats.

It isn't unreasonable to assume people would get offended by at best being ignorant of mass-murderering shitbags being portrayed in serious ads in another country. And it sure as Hell isn't only Americans that get worked up by these kind of shenanigans, as at least one lady found out recently.



EDIT: Incidentally, typing in "Nazis in Taiwan" reveal at least one National Socialist party in Taiwan. And as of 3 years ago the Mainland was publishing articles about the "Nazi Phenomena" in Taiwan.

[CmdrWilkens]

As a quick side note EVEN if one were to state that the Northwest Ordinance gives wiggle room to states that were entered into the union before its enactment that still does not allow for the legal secession of Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee. Amongst the states of initial secession then only South Carolina and Georgia could maintain legal pretext. Again this is even if we accept that interpretation of the Northwest Ordinance.

[Darth Wong]

What "blinders", dipshit?

Are you being intentionally dense? How can you be so stupid as to not make a reasonable inference about the culture in question where it's a-ok to have ads with Hitler in them. You see many heater ads with Hitler in Toronto?

The ad does not in any way necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a vigorous pro-Nazi movement in Taiwan.

It does indicate that. at best there is an indifference to the crimes, and at worst the Nazis were pretty neat-o. Which makes sense as the Nazis were training up the Kuomintang until the Germans chose the Japanese over the Nationalists as their Far East Allies.

Their culture is considerably different from ours; somebody probably just thought it was funny to have a ridiculous-looking Hitler caricature and the caption "fight the Nazi cold front".

Never thought I'd see you trot out the "respect other cultures" bullshit.

Oh wait, I forgot. Everyone in the world is expected to act like Americans, and have American culture, so their actions should be interpreted as if they were Americans. Gotcha. And you wonder why the rest of the world thinks you're a bunch of self-absorbed twats.

It isn't unreasonable to assume people would get offended by at best being ignorant of mass-murderering shitbags being portrayed in serious ads in another country. And it sure as Hell isn't only Americans that get worked up by these kind of shenanigans, as at least one lady found out recently.

Christ, you really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? People over there DON'T GIVE A SHIT either way. The reason people get so upset here when you post Nazi-related stuff, even if it's in jest, is because we are very sensitive about that sort of thing. Nobody does it unless he really IS pro-Nazi, because people who are ambivalent about Nazis wouldn't dare offend anybody. But over there, nobody gives a flying fuck. What part of this do you not comprehend, dipshit? We are very sensitive in Europe, Canada, and the US about this whole issue, they aren't. It's no big deal to them. Many of them don't even know that much about the Nazis.

EDIT: Incidentally, typing in "Nazis in Taiwan" reveal at least one National Socialist party in Taiwan. And as of 3 years ago the Mainland was publishing articles about the "Nazi Phenomena" in Taiwan.

Yes, I'm sure Taiwanese are really big on the idea that they're an inferior race.

[MKSheppard]

Yes, I'm sure Taiwanese are really big on the idea that they're an inferior race.

Then by that logic, there shouldn't be any Russian Neo Nazis, but there are!

[Darth Wong]

Yes, I'm sure Taiwanese are really big on the idea that they're an inferior race.

Then by that logic, there shouldn't be any Russian Neo Nazis, but there are!

Yeah, because they don't even know what the fuck it is that they're playing games with. Kind of refutes your idiotic attempt to associate them with American and European Nazi worshippers who lovingly commit every detail about the Nazi regime to heart, doesn't it?

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, because they don't even know what the fuck it is that they're playing games with. Kind of refutes your idiotic attempt to associate them with American and European Nazi worshippers who lovingly commit every detail about the Nazi regime to heart, doesn't it?

Then how do you define Nazism and it's offshoot Neo-Nazism? What does it consist of?

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, because they don't even know what the fuck it is that they're playing games with. Kind of refutes your idiotic attempt to associate them with American and European Nazi worshippers who lovingly commit every detail about the Nazi regime to heart, doesn't it?

Then how do you define Nazism and it's offshoot Neo-Nazism? What does it consist of?

Who gives a shit about neo-Nazism? I'm talking about all of the people who are fascinated with the original Nazis and who wank over their abilities. All the world's many flavours of self-declared neo-Nazis, many of whom don't even realize what it is that they're talking about, are nothing more than one of your typical red-herrings.

[Qwerty 42]

Lincoln and Grant were also fairly keen on the idea of disarming a resurgent Confederacy by accepting them easily back into the Union. Debate the wisdom of that decision as you wish, but that's probably why Davis was not tried.

For more "legalese" reasons against secession, I'm fairly sure the Constitution outlines military property as belonging to Congress, not the states, which makes actions like Fort Sumter acts of war. Lincoln also argued that the Constitution, as a contract, could not be broken without the consent of the other parties.

The real reason secession was not tolerated is more simple: by allowing for states to leave at their leisure the country would eventually perish.

My apologies if any of this has been brought up before.

[MKSheppard]

Who gives a shit about neo-Nazism? I'm talking about all of the people who are fascinated with the original Nazis and who wank over their abilities.

Well, lets see; we got Tiger wankers, Panther Wankers, Luft 46 wankers, do I need to go on, from all over the world. Japanese Nazi COSPLAY, etc.

All the world's many flavours of self-declared neo-Nazis, many of whom don't even realize what it is that they're talking about, are nothing more than one of your typical red-herrings.

Uhm. Quite a lot of them do damn well realize what it is they're talking about.

Linka

The more I think about it, Hitler was a frigging psychological genius. He managed to codify a general purpose mass movement built around the hate of another group of people; and all you really have to do to adapt it to a different setting is file off the names, do some rejiggering, etc.

[Civil War Man]

Lincoln and Grant were also fairly keen on the idea of disarming a resurgent Confederacy by accepting them easily back into the Union. Debate the wisdom of that decision as you wish, but that's probably why Davis was not tried.

I would imagine that wanting to avoid making him a martyr to the Cause probably entered into the decision-making process. Doesn't seem to have worked out that way, but it would probably have been worse, at least in the short term, if they did have the hanging.

[Lonestar]

Christ, you really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? People over there DON'T GIVE A SHIT either way.

I was responding to:

ambiguously interpreted advertisement.

Where there isn't very much ambiguity at all in the advert. For those of us who didn't actually read my posts(which apperantly includes you) I even said that it indicates at best the locals are ignorant of the "bad-ness" of the Nazis.

The reason people get so upset here when you post Nazi-related stuff, even if it's in jest, is because we are very sensitive about that sort of thing. Nobody does it unless he really IS pro-Nazi, because people who are ambivalent about Nazis wouldn't dare offend anybody. But over there, nobody gives a flying fuck. What part of this do you not comprehend, dipshit? We are very sensitive in Europe, Canada, and the US about this whole issue, they aren't. It's no big deal to them. Many of them don't even know that much about the Nazis.

Taiwanese get a pass on being ignorant on History. Gotcha. You know, you could have just said that at the start, then I'd know I would be wasting my time talking to a brick wall.

Yes, I'm sure Taiwanese are really big on the idea that they're an inferior race.

Going back to my "For those of us who didn't actually read my posts" comment earlier in this one(not that I expect you to have actually read it) Historically the Germans in the '30s trained, advised, planned the Nationalists' campaigns, and led them in the field. Shocker shocker that the successor country to the Nationalists would look at them through rose colored glasses.

Re: Relatives in Taiwan.

How does that even prove anything? How would you even know? Do phone conversations go like this?

"Hey Bill! Yeah, it's Cousin Mike. Yeah, the wife and kids are fine. So, what do you want to talk about today? How about Nazis?"

[AniThyng]

I feel free to read about Tiger tanks and the Bismark and playing the German side in Panzer General and thinking "way cool" because as an Asian, the holocaust is a abstract historical fact - I am fairly emotionally indifferent to the Rape of Nanking as it is, so you can imagine how detached I am from Nazism - of course the principles are repugnant and I know that, but it's not so visceral.

That and I'm more then a little annoyed at people who see a Buddhist Swastika and go all "OMG NAZIS"

[Darth Wong]

Christ, you really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? People over there DON'T GIVE A SHIT either way.

I was responding to:

ambiguously interpreted advertisement.

Where there isn't very much ambiguity at all in the advert. For those of us who didn't actually read my posts(which apperantly includes you) I even said that it indicates at best the locals are ignorant of the "bad-ness" of the Nazis.

Do you know what "ambiguity" means, dumbshit? Do you own a dictionary? Is English your first language? Saying that something is totally unambiguous and then immediately following that up by saying that there's a range of possible interpretations is the height of stupidity.

Taiwanese get a pass on being ignorant on History. Gotcha. You know, you could have just said that at the start, then I'd know I would be wasting my time talking to a brick wall.

You're the moron who doesn't know what "ambiguous" means.

Yes, I'm sure Taiwanese are really big on the idea that they're an inferior race.

Going back to my "For those of us who didn't actually read my posts" comment earlier in this one(not that I expect you to have actually read it) Historically the Germans in the '30s trained, advised, planned the Nationalists' campaigns, and led them in the field. Shocker shocker that the successor country to the Nationalists would look at them through rose colored glasses.

Jesus fuck, it's not about being ignorant or using rose-coloured glasses, you goddamned moron. It's about the original chain of logic used to declare that the ad = proof that Taiwanese are just as fascinated with Nazism as Europeans and Americans are. In case you've suffered amnesia (and apparently you have), this is about people who WANK ABOUT NAZI ABILITIES, not people who don't give a shit about Nazis or don't know about them or aren't sufficiently outraged by their historical atrocities. The ad does NOT prove that Nazi wankers are abundant in Taiwan (in fact, it really does not speak to the presence of such people at all), hence it is NOT relevant to the point I was making, hence it is a red-herring, and I can say that because I am aware that people in Taiwan do not get offended about the Holocaust the way people in "OMG don't dare say anything that might offend the Jews" America are.

This thread tangent is about people who believe that the Germans really were superior engineers, builders, and warriors and who wank their abilities to support this belief: a belief that is really suspiciously similar to what the Nazis believed about themselves and which is correlated with closeted white supremacists.

Re: Relatives in Taiwan.

How does that even prove anything? How would you even know? Do phone conversations go like this?

"Hey Bill! Yeah, it's Cousin Mike. Yeah, the wife and kids are fine. So, what do you want to talk about today? How about Nazis?"

It goes to the fact, which any Taiwanese will back up, and which is quite frankly the DEFAULT condition around the world, that Taiwanese do NOT share America's peculiar terror of offending Jews. This is the kind of Americentric attitude I accused you of before. Why do I even need to provide any evidence AT ALL that Taiwanese aren't as easily offended about the Nazis as Americans are when that is the normal condition for most of the world's population, fucktard?

As I said right at the beginning, the testimony of a single Taiwanese might not be enough to overturn real evidence for the opposing view, but no such evidence has been provided in this thread: something you continue to gloss over or bullshit by trying to distort what it is that we're actually talking about. Since when the fuck is this thread about whether Taiwanese are sufficiently outraged about Nazism to make Lonestar happy?

[Stuart]

I would imagine that wanting to avoid making him a martyr to the Cause probably entered into the decision-making process. Doesn't seem to have worked out that way, but it would probably have been worse, at least in the short term, if they did have the hanging.

I agree; there's a good case to be made that the verbal instruction to those investigating the case was "Find an excuse to let this drop."

[Rogue 9]

For more "legalese" reasons against secession, I'm fairly sure the Constitution outlines military property as belonging to Congress, not the states, which makes actions like Fort Sumter acts of war.

We don't even need that. Here is South Carolina's ordinance turning over ownership of the fort to the federal government:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

[Lonestar]

Do you know what "ambiguity" means, dumbshit? Do you own a dictionary? Is English your first language? Saying that something is totally unambiguous and then immediately following that up by saying that there's a range of possible interpretations is the height of stupidity.

Here, I'll look it up for you since you clearly won't.

ambiguous
One entry found for ambiguous.


Main Entry: am·big·u·ous
Pronunciation: am-'bi-gy&-w&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ambiguus, from ambigere to be undecided, from ambi- + agere to drive -- more at AGENT
1 a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness <eyes of an ambiguous color> b : INEXPLICABLE
2 : capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways <an ambiguous smile> <an ambiguous term> <a deliberately ambiguous reply>

At best you're running with the secondary defination, but it isn't ambigious. If you were to send that ad to someone else who hadn't followed this, and not tell then what country it came from, what conclusions do you think they would have made about that country?

"Gee whiz, I'm not sure what that means!"

You're the moron who doesn't know what "ambiguous" means.

Concession accepted.

Jesus fuck, it's not about being ignorant or using rose-coloured glasses, you goddamned moron. It's about the original chain of logic used to declare that the ad = proof that Taiwanese are just as fascinated with Nazism as Europeans and Americans are.

No, it's the original "I have family in Taiwan so it's bullshit" argument you made. And you waved it away when presented with anything challenging your worldview.

In case you've suffered amnesia (and apparently you have), this is about people who WANK ABOUT NAZI ABILITIES,
not people who don't give a shit about Nazis or don't know about them or aren't sufficiently outraged by their historical atrocities. The ad does NOT prove that Nazi wankers are abundant in Taiwan (in fact, it really does not speak to the presence of such people at all), hence it is NOT relevant to the point I was making, hence it is a red-herring, and I can say that because I am aware that people in Taiwan do not get offended about the Holocaust the way people in "OMG don't dare say anything that might offend the Jews" America are.

I already mentioned this once(but with your track record in the thread thus far, I guess I shouldn't be surprised I have to repeat it), there is at least some perception of a Nazi Phenomena in Taiwan.

It goes to the fact, which any Taiwanese will back up, and which is quite frankly the DEFAULT condition around the world, that Taiwanese do NOT share America's peculiar terror of offending Jews. This is the kind of Americentric attitude I accused you of before. Why do I even need to provide any evidence AT ALL that Taiwanese aren't as easily offended about the Nazis as Americans are when that is the normal condition for most of the world's population, fucktard?

Well, we aren't even talking about Taiwanese being offended by Nazis, are we? Have I ever said it? Or have I said, several times now, "at best the Taiwanese are ignorant and you're giving them a free pass, or at worst they think it's neat-o for historical reasons".

As I said right at the beginning, the testimony of a single Taiwanese might not be enough to overturn real evidence for the opposing view, but no such evidence has been provided in this thread: something you continue to gloss over or bullshit by trying to distort what it is that we're actually talking about. Since when the fuck is this thread about whether Taiwanese are sufficiently outraged about Nazism to make Lonestar happy?

Less of an outrage over that, then you trotting out anecdotal evidence as a counter to people who are trotting out real evidence.

[The Dark]

Untrue. The preamble to the Northwest ordinance states

That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

The Ordinance lays down the terms and conditions under which new states join the union. It also lays down that there is no difference between states and that no state has any right or perogative that is denied to any other.

whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever

This is an explicit statement that the prohibition of secession applies to all states equally. The states that formed the Confederacy had signed on to this agreement and knew that.

The first problem that comes to mind is that this treaty was formed under the Articles of Confederation, which was a different nation from the United States formed under the Constitution. I'm not clear on how treaties transfer from one government to another, but this may not have been a valid document at the time of the secession.

Let's look at Article Three, Section Three.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

There's an immediate problem. Levying war is interpreted as meaning "bearing arms against" Can anybody proved that Jefferson Davies actually took pot shots against Union troops? Or fired cannon at Union territory. "bearing arms" has a specific meaning. Now, did Jefferson Davies actually give aid and comfort to said enemies? Again, strictly defied. Did he personally feed Confederate troops? ZDid he personally bind their wounds? Did he personally carry food and ammunition to the front line?

And can you find two credible witnesses who will personally testify in court that they saw Jefferson Davies do all those things.

This last line is the only one that matters from your entire section. 3:3 specifically states "overt act," not "personal action." Leading the government of the Confederacy would provide de facto aid and comfort to the Confederate soldiers through the provision of arms and equipment by said government. The most likely reason for the decision to not charge Davis with treason was that it would have led to even more hatred and anti-Union sentiment in the South.

[Big Phil]

I'm curious about something - what is the reputation of French, Prussian, and Austrian commanders in their respective wars immediately after the US Civil War? The popular impression is that the Prussian generals were military masters, while the French and Austrians were buffoons, when in fact the Prussians (and their allies) simply brought so many troops to battle that their opponents were eventually overwhelmed.

I wonder if the same people who wank to Longstreet, Lee, Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart also rub one out to Bismarck, von Moltke, and Steinmetz.

[Stuart]

The first problem that comes to mind is that this treaty was formed under the Articles of Confederation, which was a different nation from the United States formed under the Constitution. I'm not clear on how treaties transfer from one government to another, but this may not have been a valid document at the time of the secession.

Not a different nation but a different form of government within the same nation. For example, France has had a number of forms of Government but it remains France. Thailand has had 14 constitutions in forty years but it is still Thailand. Rules, treaties and agreements continue on from one form of government to the next unless explicitly changed. When teh Soviet Union ceased to exist and the present Russia took its place, all its treaties and agreements continued as if nothing had happened. The Northwest Ordinance was never challenged or excluded so national continuity means it is still in force, What is more, its terms were repeatedly applied after the present Constitution was adopted (and continue to be so). Therefore, its prohibition of secession remains in force.

This last line is the only one that matters from your entire section. 3:3 specifically states "overt act," not "personal action." Leading the government of the Confederacy would provide de facto aid and comfort to the Confederate soldiers through the provision of arms and equipment by said government. The most likely reason for the decision to not charge Davis with treason was that it would have led to even more hatred and anti-Union sentiment in the South.

Oh, I agree that was the reason. My point is that if you're looking for a reason not to try Davies for treason, the ones I quoted would do very nicely without even touching the issue of the legality of secession. After all, did JD personally organize the supply of arms and equipment or did somebody do it in his name. My point was that it's quite possible to find many legal reasons for not indicting JD, without having to enter secession waters. So asserting that the lack of indictment against JD proves secession was legal is making stone soup.