Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[UofM-TKE]

I wrote my comment to express my belief in self determination for all people, even Southerners if they chose to exercise it, and the logical problems to which that those who deny self determination must resort. Notice that I do not refer to any legal problems, since we know that any great evil done by a government is always legal to that government and its courts.

Since you took some time to declare me wrong and since your reply is a good example of these problems, I will respond.

Considering the Colonies - America, Great Britain and South Carolina in particular. After we abstract away the redundant, we get this.

SC can leave GB but SC cannot leave A because we are A. This is the definition of Special Pleading i.e. we can do it to them, but you can not do it to us, because we are special.

Except in the case of Virginia and its western counties. V can leave GB but V can not leave A because we are A, except that the western counties of V can leave V because they like A. Twice Special Pleading.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not at all. While the two actions have some similarities, they also have differences.

South Carolina didn't "secede" from the United Kingdon in 1776, it declared its independence from the UK. It was a colony of the UK, not a constituent part of the UK. And the only "right" it possessed to declare its independence was what some might describe as a moral or natural right. There certainly was no legal right. Independence was won only by revolution and by treaty at the end of a war.

By contrast, South Carolina in 1860 had ratified the Constitution and thereby esyablished itself as one of the United States. South Carolina's actions in 1860 brought what before had been a hypothetical constitutional question to a head: Could a state that had ratified the Constitution later withdraw that ratification.

Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in Texas v White held that once a state has entered the Union by ratification of the Constitution, it cannot revoke that ratification. Note this portion (with emphasis added):

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Based on this, the Court held that the articles of secession were null and void as a matter of law.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE

I wrote my comment to express my belief in self determination for all people, even Southerners if they chose to exercise it, and the logical problems to which that those who deny self determination must resort. Notice that I do not refer to any legal problems, since we know that any great evil done by a government is always legal to that government and its courts.

Since you took some time to declare me wrong and since your reply is a good example of these problems, I will respond.

Considering the Colonies - America, Great Britain and South Carolina in particular. After we abstract away the redundant, we get this.

SC can leave GB but SC cannot leave A because we are A. This is the definition of Special Pleading i.e. we can do it to them, but you can not do it to us, because we are special.

Except in the case of Virginia and its western counties. V can leave GB but V can not leave A because we are A, except that the western counties of V can leave V because they like A. Twice Special Pleading.

No, it's not special pleading, it's a different situation to begin with. It's different because SC did not have the same relation to the UK as it did/does to the US. The political relationships were different at the outset.

It's also not the same because SC did not secede from the UK, it revolted. There is a difference between the two. If you'll note, Texas v White pretty much says that states can't secede and that the only way they can sever ties with the Union is with the consent of the other states or revolution. By that Supreme Court holding, it would appear that SC could leave the Union exactly the way it left the UK -- not by secession but by revolution.

I see what you're saying in terms of logical problems and philosophical considerations. But when you term it as "rights," I don't think it's surprising for a response to be framed from a legal perspective.

[UofM-TKE]

Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again.

An American 'legal perspective' is completely irrelevant to a Human Rights issue. The fundamental Human Right of Self Determination is independent of any court. In particular, it is independent of the American Supreme Court. Humanity has the right to choose their own form of government no matter what the USSC says. They had this right before the USSC came into existence and they will have it when the USSC is history.

Quoting a USSC decision from just after the war is merely Victor's Justice. If Ewell had taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, that case would never have been heard. But in any case, the hearing of it or the non-hearing do not effect the right of people to govern themselves.

In logic, we abstract away to get at the underlying form of the argument. Many words that seem different are really the same from the point of view of the analysis of the form of an argument. Saying that secede and revolt are different is ingenuous as born out by the firing on Fort Sumpter, which was surely a revolt. Both words can be abstracted to leave. Then saying that the US has the right to leave GB, but that the South cannot leave the US, is the very definition of Special Pleading.

Saying that the relationship was different, is irrelevant. No mater what the previous form of the relationship, we all have a right to Self Determination which is a right not granted by the USSC, but rather by, in Jefferson's words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801, at least from the English point of view. From the Irish point of view, it was meaningless as the native Irish recognized neither the Kingdom Of Ireland nor the UK. The Irish, the Americans and every other country within the British Empire and every other place on earth had the right of Self Determination which did not depend upon any court.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, it's not special pleading, it's a different situation to begin with. It's different because SC did not have the same relation to the UK as it did/does to the US. The political relationships were different at the outset.

It's also not the same because SC did not secede from the UK, it revolted. There is a difference between the two. If you'll note, Texas v White pretty much says that states can't secede and that the only way they can sever ties with the Union is with the consent of the other states or revolution. By that Supreme Court holding, it would appear that SC could leave the Union exactly the way it left the UK -- not by secession but by revolution.

I see what you're saying in terms of logical problems and philosophical considerations. But when you term it as "rights," I don't think it's surprising for a response to be framed from a legal perspective.