Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?

[bripat9643]

The war was about Lincoln invading Virginia. You turds can't stop equating secession with starting the war. That doesn't justify a war. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln did.

The above is why it's pointless to argue with numskulls like you. No matter how may times your claims are discredited, you keep repeating them

Secession was an illegal act. The states are not countries; they are part of a country, bound to it by a document that is the supreme law of the land.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

Sure a state can secede. They have to do it the same way they came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.

Where does the Constitution say that?

The confederates didn't do that, that's why they had their belligerent asses handed to them, and the question was settled with not only the Civil war, but by SCOTUS later.

The real reason is that Saint Lincoln wanted war, and that's what he got. Anything posted to the contrary is pure blather.

The SCOTUS that "settled" the issue was populated by Lincoln appointed hacks. Of course they were going to rule that Lincoln's invasion was justified. It's inconceivable that they would rule otherwise. Their ruling is totally irrelevant. All it proves is that the Union won the war. If the South had one their court would have ruled that they were totally within the law when they seceded.

 

[paperview]

In addition, the question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years." A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/r...wyork0723.html

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo

 

[paperview]

"Perpetual Union."

Straight from our First Constitution.

 

[Faun]

It was not South Carolina territory. They gave it to the U.S. to build a fort.

Fort Sumter

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in 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 will 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 at Fort Sumter and adjacent land contiguous thereto and if he shall be of opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James I 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 opinion that the said title is not legal and valid that he proceed by scire facias or 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 Resolution of State Legislature passed Dec 21 1836 The foregoing resolution was recorded in book C No 11 page 310 etc in the register's office of mesne conveyances at Charleston July 9 1840​

That held up construction until 1841 when Laval's claim was resolved...

Fort Sumter - National Monument

It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.​

Like I said, you're fucking nuts. I wasn't kidding, ya know.

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

 

[paperview]

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

 

[Faun]

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following:

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;

Don't you understand? What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process server individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title for the land on file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the fucking meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

 

[Faun]

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

LMAO

 

[bripat9643]

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

 

[bripat9643]

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

LMAO

You're easily entertained.

 

[rdean]

Emmett Till was killed at 14 for whistling at a white woman. You could do a little research. Funny, I'm never called liberal.

One example? So?

• Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.
• Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.
• Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.
• Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.
• North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.
• North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”
• Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had intercourse with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours. At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”
• Kansas City, Missouri. An Ethiopian immigrant shot two white coworkers — killing one and critically injuring the other — at his workplace, then turned the gun on himself. At his residence, police found a three-page, signed note he had written in which he railed at “black blood sucker supreme white people” for oppressing him and black people in general.
• New York City. In a Midtown office building, a white woman was assaulted, raped, and anally raped by a black man who called her racist names during the attack. Police refused to label it a hate crime.
• Alexandria, Virginia. A black man walking through a neighborhood went over to a white eight-year-old boy playing in his great-grandparents’ front yard and slit the child’s throat, killing him. A witness says that the attacker shouted racial epithets during the attack, and the main suspect in the case owns anti-white hate literature and had written a note about killing white children. He had been previously arrested for attacking an unarmed white stranger with a hammer. (During the attack, he called his victim “Whitey.”)12 This particular case provides a perfect example of the terrible way that anti-white hate crimes are handled. First, the investigators decided not to tell police officers about the racial aspects of the case, even while the police were conducting a manhunt to find the boy’s killer. When this was revealed by the Washington Post, city council member Joyce Woodson defended this withholding of information from the cops on the front line. “What they did was proper. We already live in a racially charged world.” The Democratic mayor of Alexandria implied his agreement: “Efforts to sensationalize this investigation will only hurt this investigation.”To make things even stranger, the FBI offered to send agents and a fugitive task force to help with the manhunt, but the local police rejected the offer. They also refused the help of the FBI’s profilers, forensics experts, and others.Eventually, the police arrested a suspect who was reportedly tied to the scene by DNA evidence. In another bizarre move, the Justice Department — which had acknowledged that it was monitoring the case — declined to prosecute the killing as a hate crime. The government’s prosecutor in the case cannot charge the victim with a hate crime. “There’s no applicable hate crimes law in Virginia,” he explained.An editorial in the Washington Times pointedly commented on the deafening silence surrounding the brutal child-murder: “Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson around lately? Kweisi Mfume? Al Sharpton? For persons whose political antennae are ordinarily so sensitive that they can pick up racial tremors a thousand miles away, they seem to have overlooked a possible hate crime right here in the vicinity of the nation’s capital.”Even though all of the above incidents occurred in the last ten years, anti-white hate crimes are not new. The Village Voice writes of “the wave of random street killings that terrorized San Francisco in 1973. The ‘Zebra killers’ struck without warning, murdering whites at night. Most victims were shot. One was raped, another beheaded. Four young black Muslims were arrested in 1974 and charged with 14 murders, seven assaults, one rape, and an attempted kidnapping. The Zebra killers were convicted in 1976.”

You are irreversibly retarded. No one doubted there are racist blacks who kill whites due to their racism.

You were given an example of where racist whites killed blacks because you doubted that ever occurred over mere words.

Too bad you don't possess the character required to simply admit you were wrong and move on.

1. The original claim implied that such incidents were common. So far there has only been one example posted. Whereas, I posted multiple examples of black atrocities committed against whites.
2. The second implication of the claim was that it was something unique to whites. That obviously isn't the case.

Why should anyone be concerned about a unique occurrence of white on black crime?

Lynch Law By Ida B. Wells

I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

BTW, ass breath, no one ever claimed there were never any lynchings in the South.

You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

I can't believe you said that when the most famous lynching of all was Emmett Till.

 

[bripat9643]

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following:

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;

Don't you understand? What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process server individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title for the land on file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the fucking meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

Nope, it retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." The later part says "and any person there being who may be implicated by law." That means in addition to "all processes, civil and criminal."

You really need to take some remedial English.

 

[bripat9643]

One example? So?

• Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.
• Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.
• Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.
• Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.
• North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.
• North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”
• Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had intercourse with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours. At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”
• Kansas City, Missouri. An Ethiopian immigrant shot two white coworkers — killing one and critically injuring the other — at his workplace, then turned the gun on himself. At his residence, police found a three-page, signed note he had written in which he railed at “black blood sucker supreme white people” for oppressing him and black people in general.
• New York City. In a Midtown office building, a white woman was assaulted, raped, and anally raped by a black man who called her racist names during the attack. Police refused to label it a hate crime.
• Alexandria, Virginia. A black man walking through a neighborhood went over to a white eight-year-old boy playing in his great-grandparents’ front yard and slit the child’s throat, killing him. A witness says that the attacker shouted racial epithets during the attack, and the main suspect in the case owns anti-white hate literature and had written a note about killing white children. He had been previously arrested for attacking an unarmed white stranger with a hammer. (During the attack, he called his victim “Whitey.”)12 This particular case provides a perfect example of the terrible way that anti-white hate crimes are handled. First, the investigators decided not to tell police officers about the racial aspects of the case, even while the police were conducting a manhunt to find the boy’s killer. When this was revealed by the Washington Post, city council member Joyce Woodson defended this withholding of information from the cops on the front line. “What they did was proper. We already live in a racially charged world.” The Democratic mayor of Alexandria implied his agreement: “Efforts to sensationalize this investigation will only hurt this investigation.”To make things even stranger, the FBI offered to send agents and a fugitive task force to help with the manhunt, but the local police rejected the offer. They also refused the help of the FBI’s profilers, forensics experts, and others.Eventually, the police arrested a suspect who was reportedly tied to the scene by DNA evidence. In another bizarre move, the Justice Department — which had acknowledged that it was monitoring the case — declined to prosecute the killing as a hate crime. The government’s prosecutor in the case cannot charge the victim with a hate crime. “There’s no applicable hate crimes law in Virginia,” he explained.An editorial in the Washington Times pointedly commented on the deafening silence surrounding the brutal child-murder: “Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson around lately? Kweisi Mfume? Al Sharpton? For persons whose political antennae are ordinarily so sensitive that they can pick up racial tremors a thousand miles away, they seem to have overlooked a possible hate crime right here in the vicinity of the nation’s capital.”Even though all of the above incidents occurred in the last ten years, anti-white hate crimes are not new. The Village Voice writes of “the wave of random street killings that terrorized San Francisco in 1973. The ‘Zebra killers’ struck without warning, murdering whites at night. Most victims were shot. One was raped, another beheaded. Four young black Muslims were arrested in 1974 and charged with 14 murders, seven assaults, one rape, and an attempted kidnapping. The Zebra killers were convicted in 1976.”

You are irreversibly retarded. No one doubted there are racist blacks who kill whites due to their racism.

You were given an example of where racist whites killed blacks because you doubted that ever occurred over mere words.

Too bad you don't possess the character required to simply admit you were wrong and move on.

1. The original claim implied that such incidents were common. So far there has only been one example posted. Whereas, I posted multiple examples of black atrocities committed against whites.
2. The second implication of the claim was that it was something unique to whites. That obviously isn't the case.

Why should anyone be concerned about a unique occurrence of white on black crime?

Lynch Law By Ida B. Wells

I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

BTW, ass breath, no one ever claimed there were never any lynchings in the South.

You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

I can't believe you said that when the most famous lynching of all was Emmett Till.

It wasn't listed in the post I was responding to, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

Property may be territory, but that doesn't imply the later. SC owns almost none of the land within its territory. It's mostly owned by private citizens. According to you, that means they are able to build military bases there and station foreign troops. You have to be suffering brain damage to believe such a proposition is in accordance with international law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

Stealing from the Federal government is not within the rights of a state, a territory, or a foreign nation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The war was entirely about slavery because if you take slavery out of the equation it is impossible to envision a plausible scenario where 11 states would secede while unifying around the forming of a completely new nation,
the result being a war between that nation and the states remaining in the Union.

The war was about Lincoln invading Virginia. You turds can't stop equating secession with starting the war. That doesn't justify a war. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln did.

The above is why it's pointless to argue with numskulls like you. No matter how may times your claims are discredited, you keep repeating them

Secession was an illegal act. The states are not countries; they are part of a country, bound to it by a document that is the supreme law of the land.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

You're wrong. The states commit to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the United States government, law, and Constitution when they choose to become a US state.

 

[bripat9643]

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

Stealing from the Federal government is not within the rights of a state, a territory, or a foreign nation.

IF the federal government refuses to leave property it is trespassing on, it's not stealing. They forfeit the right to any property they leave in the territory of another nation. Many foreign nations have taken ownership of military equipment the U.S. military left behind when it vacated the premises. We left tons of it in Iraq, and we are going to leave tons of it in Afghanistan.

Once again, your claims about what is legally allowed only serves to prove that you're a numskull.

 

[paperview]

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

 

[bripat9643]

The war was about Lincoln invading Virginia. You turds can't stop equating secession with starting the war. That doesn't justify a war. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln did.

The above is why it's pointless to argue with numskulls like you. No matter how may times your claims are discredited, you keep repeating them

Secession was an illegal act. The states are not countries; they are part of a country, bound to it by a document that is the supreme law of the land.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

You're wrong. The states commit to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the United States government, law, and Constitution when they choose to become a US state.

That is, until they decide to secede.

 

[paperview]

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

Stealing from the Federal government is not within the rights of a state, a territory, or a foreign nation.

IF the federal government refuses to leave property it is trespassing on, it's not stealing. They forfeit the right to any property they leave in the territory of another nation. Many foreign nations have taken ownership of military equipment the U.S. military left behind when it vacated the premises. We left tons of it in Iraq, and we are going to leave tons of it in Afghanistan.

Once again, your claims about what is legally allowed only serves to prove that you're a numskull.

Hey birdbrain, property purchased by all of the taxpayers of the US, is owned by all of the people of the US.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

Stealing from the Federal government is not within the rights of a state, a territory, or a foreign nation.

IF the federal government refuses to leave property it is trespassing on, it's not stealing. They forfeit the right to any property they leave in the territory of another nation. Many foreign nations have taken ownership of military equipment the U.S. military left behind when it vacated the premises. We left tons of it in Iraq, and we are going to leave tons of it in Afghanistan.

Once again, your claims about what is legally allowed only serves to prove that you're a numskull.

It's not trespassing because a seceding state is in a state of rebellion.