...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Liability]

Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."

I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.

I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.

I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.

Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.

I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however. Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too. Not all. But enough so that it's noticeable.

Pretty sad.

 

[paperview]

Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."

You mean the pledge written by a religious socialist who didn't include the word 'God', which was added by anticonstitutionalist rightwingers when Glenn Beck Sr was still around to keep us afraid of the Russians?

That would be the one.

 

[paperview]

Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."

I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.

I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.

I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.

Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.

I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however. Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too. Not all. But enough so that it's noticeable.

Pretty sad.

I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.

I'm sappy that way.

 

[paperview]

Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."

Now you're just poking fun

I never got a chance to elaborate on the Pledge from my earlier post:

I'm just paraphrasing because I'm, honestly, too lazy to go look it up right now. And, besides, I'm at work
But, anyways......I'd read that the Pledge originated with Union soldiers forcing the southern population (primarily children) to pledge their allegiance to the Union.

Have you read or come across this in your studies?

Backatcha.

Wrong.

\Nothing to do with Union Soldiers.

Written by a socialist. 1894.

;/

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What a crock, the both of you. Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw and you know it. Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.

Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.

Who said they shot everyone they saw? They did, however, burn down southern cities and raped, robbed, and murdered southern civilians and slaves.

And so did Confederates.

To repeat my earlier post:

Champ Ferguson
might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.

"...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was actually made a captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However, Ferguson's men were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently violated the normal rules of warfare.
There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories that he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and was willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​

How about Jefferson Davis' Partisan Ranger Act?

How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?

When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate Government and the civilian South shared some of the blame for the Union's hard war policy.

I've acknowledged many of the faults of the Confederacy, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[paperview]

Who said they shot everyone they saw? They did, however, burn down southern cities and raped, robbed, and murdered southern civilians and slaves.

And so did Confederates.

To repeat my earlier post:

Champ Ferguson
might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.

"...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was actually made a captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However, Ferguson's men were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently violated the normal rules of warfare.
There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories that he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and was willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​

How about Jefferson Davis' Partisan Ranger Act?

How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?

When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate Government and the civilian South shared some of the blame for the Union's hard war policy.

I've acknowledged many of the faults of the Confederacy, but two wrongs don't make a right.

True.

Two slaves however, can pull a horse cart.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."

I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.

I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.

I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.

Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.

I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however. Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too. Not all. But enough so that it's noticeable.

Pretty sad.

I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.

I'm sappy that way.

Really? Wanna go to a patriotic rally held by Veterans?

I like it when women get tingly. I'll even wear my American Flag shorts! You can salute when you see it run up the pole!

 

[paperview]

I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.

I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.

I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.

Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.

I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however. Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too. Not all. But enough so that it's noticeable.

Pretty sad.

I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.

I'm sappy that way.

Really? Wanna go to a patriotic rally held by Veterans?

I like it when women get tingly. I'll even wear my American Flag shorts! You can salute when you see it run up the pole!

Um..

 

[hortysir]

I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.

I'm sappy that way.

FWIW, me too....

 

[JBeukema]

I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.

How 'bout instead pledging allegiance to your principles? Borders mean nothing, flags are worthless, and names hold no value unless they uphold strong principles. I stand by my principles and I stand by any nation whenever and only when said nation upholds those principles.

 

[Rogue 9]

There is no constitutional right to leave the union.

10th amendment

show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.

Sure.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Speaks for itself, I think.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So where is the right to secede? I'm certainly not seeing it. Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution. They did not. In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

So much for the right of secession. You lose. Good day, sir.

 

[paperview]

There is no constitutional right to leave the union.

10th amendment

show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.

Sure.
Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?
Speaks for itself, I think.
This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So where is the right to secede? I'm certainly not seeing it. Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution. They did not. In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

So much for the right of secession. You lose. Good day, sir.

*youch* That'll leave a mark.

 

[JBeukema]

There is no constitutional right to leave the union.

10th amendment

show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.

Sure.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

Secession is not insurrection.

Insurrection implies a violent attempt to overthrow the governance, especially by a small separatist or rebellious group. The Hutaree are an example of would-be insurrectionists. Secession is the disolution of an agreement by a member State in accordance with the Constitution and most closely resembles the US leaving the U.N. or any given nation announcing that they will no longer participate in N.A.T.O. When Tyrants refuse to allow the People to peacably exercise those rights, which they hold both morally and Constitutionally, then should they resort to force, you are dealing with a War for Independence, not an insurrection intended to destroy the common government of the Union.

The legal right to secession is clear, and even if it were revoked, such a law would hold no meaning in light of the right to self-determination, being a law that only a Tyrant like the King himself would attempt to enact and enforce.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Once a State leaves thew Union, they are no longer member States or parties to the Constitution. They are no more bound to any Constitutional law anymore than the USA is currently bound to the UN Charter.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Speaks for itself, I think.

Yes, Lincoln committed treason.

 

[Rogue 9]

10th amendment

show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.

Sure.

Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

Secession is not insurrection.

The hell it isn't. Even if it wasn't, the insurgents opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.

Insurrection implies a violent attempt to overthrow the governance, especially by a small separatist or rebellious group. The Hutaree are an example of would-be insurrectionists. Secession is the disolution of an agreement by a member State in accordance with the Constitution and most closely resembles the US leaving the U.N. or any given nation announcing that they will no longer participate in N.A.T.O. When Tyrants refuse to allow the People to peacably exercise those rights, which they hold both morally and Constitutionally, then should they resort to force, you are dealing with a War for Independence, not an insurrection intended to destroy the common government of the Union.

The legal right to secession is clear, and even if it were revoked, such a law would hold no meaning in light of the right to self-determination, being a law that only a Tyrant like the King himself would attempt to enact and enforce.

No, it isn't clear because it's not there. You deliberately ignored the territorial integrity and supremacy clauses in your reply, I can't help but notice. Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to the Congress, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, anything to the contrary enacted by the states notwithstanding.

Once a State leaves thew Union, they are no longer member States or parties to the Constitution. They are no more bound to any Constitutional law anymore than the USA is currently bound to the UN Charter.

States are not independent nations and the Constitution is not a treaty organization; the comparison is invalid from the start.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Speaks for itself, I think.

Yes, Lincoln committed treason.

No, the vast majority of the free southern population did. It should be counted an immense stroke of good fortune that the road from Richmond to Washington was not lined with the hanged bodies of the insurgent governments at the end of April, 1865.

You blatantly ignored the remainder of my post, because you know it disproves your argument. Concession accepted. But because I like to go the extra mile, you may have heard of the Nullification Crisis. Well it may interest you to know that some of the men who wrote the Constitution were still alive and discussing events at the time, and that secession was threatened and commented upon. At random, let's go to James Madison. From a letter he wrote to William Rives concerning South Carolina's behavior in 1832-33:

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.

Madison actually considered the idea of secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to. He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny. Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it.

George Washington was of course dead before this came up, but he had a few words on the subject anyway. This is from his Circular to the States.

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

<snip>

Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.

And Jefferson...

I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.

And in another letter, this one addressed to a third party and talking about a discussion Jefferson had had with Washington that day:

That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government.

I can go on at length, but I trust the point is clear by now. You still lose. Good day, sir.

 

[JBeukema]

Elvis just can't stand the thought that the Founding fathers had any right to tell the King to to f- himself

 

[Kalam]

What a crock, the both of you. Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw and you know it.

Nice strawman argument you have there. Typical yankee tactic in these kinds of discussions.

Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.

No, Sherman's orders were to wantonly destroy civilian property in areas that did not bend over for his invaders. If he felt that his troops were being harassed, destroying houses, cotton gins, mills, and other sources of livelihood became instantly permissible whether the owners of the destroyed property actually participated in any sort of insurrection or not. This is the sort of barbaric tactic that is used by the Chinese against the Tibetans, the Zionists against the Palestinians, and the thuggish Russian military against the people of Chechnya. Sherman was an unscrupulous brute of a man.

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. - Sherman, 1864​

Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.

Do you believe that collective punishment is a legitimate method of suppressing resistance?

 

[JBeukema]

opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.

Whether the CSA committed an act of war against the USA or vise versa is an issue distinct from the matter of secession.

Interesting that you use such a term, since it implies that the CSA was recognized as a sovereign nation already, as opposed to the act merely being a criminal act committed by a number of citizens

Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to the Congress

And of the land of the member States is a power of those States. That's why the Fed now tries to prevent the States from owning themselves, since they know that your argument has been tried and doesn't hold water. Hence this trend:

They knew it was the States' land and not the Feds- hence the attempt by the Fed to own all the land in the new States

States are not independent nations

They are semiautomatics sovereign entities, just as Germany or Spain within the EU. That's why the Constitution so clearly speaks of the united States in the plural rather than the singular in a great many instances.

At random, let's go to James Madison.

Let's go to Thomas Jefferson. Are you familiar with the need for revolution and the tree of liberty? Self-determination is a moral right as well as a legal one, and any tyranny that infringes it warrants its own destruction. It was a sign of discretion that they opted to allow those content with the growth of federal power to be slaves to the Fed and to merely leave peaceably as they attempted before Lincoln made it clear he would not allow it. Their actions mirror those of the FF themselves.

Quote: Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1794
I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.

I see, you're one of those nutters who think the FF were Jesus in many bodies and worship their corpses. You want to throw Jefferson quotes around?

"No one, I hope, can doubt my wish to see... all mankind exercising self-government, and capable of exercising it." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116


"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their oppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141



"We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will... The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792. ME 9:36




"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429


"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282


"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430


"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548


"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Thomas Jefferson

[/FONT]

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Did you mention Virginia?

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

Capitalism Magazine - Do States Have a Right of Secession?


Anyway, back to Madison

Federalist 39:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

and again the whole Virginia thing:

Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people—but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
-Patrick Henry

And back to the Federalist, this time Hamilton:
But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

The Paris Peace Treaty

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.


New Hampshire Constitution:
The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

Mass. Constitution:
The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of “THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS”

Connecticut legislature protesting the War of 1812:
But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.

Mass again:
While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of State government.

and Jefferson again:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.[/FONT]


​

and again:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

[/FONT]


​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.

Whether the CSA committed an act of war against the USA or vise versa is an issue distinct from the matter of secession.

Interesting that you use such a term, since it implies that the CSA was recognized as a sovereign nation already, as opposed to the act merely being a criminal act committed by a number of citizens

Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to the Congress

And of the land of the member States is a power of those States. That's why the Fed now tries to prevent the States from owning themselves, since they know that your argument has been tried and doesn't hold water. Hence this trend:

They knew it was the States' land and not the Feds- hence the attempt by the Fed to own all the land in the new States


They are semiautomatics sovereign entities, just as Germany or Spain within the EU. That's why the Constitution so clearly speaks of the united States in the plural rather than the singular in a great many instances.


Let's go to Thomas Jefferson. Are you familiar with the need for revolution and the tree of liberty? Self-determination is a moral right as well as a legal one, and any tyranny that infringes it warrants its own destruction. It was a sign of discretion that they opted to allow those content with the growth of federal power to be slaves to the Fed and to merely leave peaceably as they attempted before Lincoln made it clear he would not allow it. Their actions mirror those of the FF themselves.

Quote: Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1794
I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.

I see, you're one of those nutters who think the FF were Jesus in many bodies and worship their corpses. You want to throw Jefferson quotes around?

"No one, I hope, can doubt my wish to see... all mankind exercising self-government, and capable of exercising it." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116


"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their oppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141



"We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will... The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792. ME 9:36




"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429


"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282


"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430


"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548


"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Thomas Jefferson

[/FONT]

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Did you mention Virginia?

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

Capitalism Magazine - Do States Have a Right of Secession?


Anyway, back to Madison

Federalist 39:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

and again the whole Virginia thing:

Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people—but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
-Patrick Henry

And back to the Federalist, this time Hamilton:
But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

The Paris Peace Treaty

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.


New Hampshire Constitution:
The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

Mass. Constitution:
The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of “THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS”

Connecticut legislature protesting the War of 1812:
But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.

Mass again:
While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of State government.

and Jefferson again:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.[/FONT]


​

and again:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

[/FONT]


​

I can't rep you for this, but I'd like to point out that this is an extremely solid post.

 

[Rogue 9]

Elvis just can't stand the thought that the Founding fathers had any right to tell the King to to f- himself

Don't know what Elvis has to do with anything, but they did have every moral right to do that. You have said nothing about moral rights until your last pair of posts, however; instead you have tried unsuccessfully to justify secession on constitutional grounds. If you want to get into moral rights, however, you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's liberty.

What a crock, the both of you. Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw and you know it.

Nice strawman argument you have there. Typical yankee tactic in these kinds of discussions.

You charged Sherman with genocide; pointing out that you're wrong is in no way irrelevant to the point.

Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.

No, Sherman's orders were to wantonly destroy civilian property in areas that did not bend over for his invaders. If he felt that his troops were being harassed, destroying houses, cotton gins, mills, and other sources of livelihood became instantly permissible whether the owners of the destroyed property actually participated in any sort of insurrection or not. This is the sort of barbaric tactic that is used by the Chinese against the Tibetans, the Zionists against the Palestinians, and the thuggish Russian military against the people of Chechnya. Sherman was an unscrupulous brute of a man.

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. - Sherman, 1864​

Sherman was a military commander behind enemy lines deep in enemy territory with the objective of neutralizing the enemy's capacity to make war. He did this admirably, and in practice with remarkable restraint, having the second lowest rate of casualties in his command of any general officer of the war despite commanding the most exposed army group for nearly a year (the Army of Northern Virginia had the highest casualty rate, by the way) and similarly inflicting as few casualties as practical upon his enemies. He liberally destroyed and confiscated property useful for sustaining the Slave Power's war effort, and his orders specifically commanded his troops to leave behind sufficient goods to sustain the families foraged from. I will here quote Sherman twice; the first is his Special Field Orders, No. 120, which governed the march to the sea. The second his his response to John Bell Hood when the traitor general disingenuously asked him in the name of God to spare Atlanta (and it's munitions plants, and factories, and military supply depots...) for the sake of the women and children.

Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, In the Field, Kingston, Georgia, November 9, 1864

I. For the purpose of military operations, this army is divided into two wings viz.: The right wing, Major-General O. O. Howard commanding, composed of the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Corps; the left wing, Major-General H. W. Slocum commanding, composed of the Fourteenth and Twentieth Corps.

II. The habitual order of march will be, wherever practicable, by four roads, as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at points hereafter to be indicated in orders. The cavalry, Brigadier - General Kilpatrick commanding, will receive special orders from the commander-in-chief.

III. There will be no general train of supplies, but each corps will have its ammunition-train and provision-train, distributed habitually as follows: Behind each regiment should follow one wagon and one ambulance; behind each brigade should follow a due proportion of ammunition - wagons, provision-wagons, and ambulances. In case of danger, each corps commander should change this order of march, by having his advance and rear brigades unencumbered by wheels. The separate columns will start habitually at 7 a.m., and make about fifteen miles per day, unless otherwise fixed in orders.

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or bridges. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms.

&#8211; William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864

Contrast to the field orders of most 20th century wars, particularly the World Wars, which mainly consisted of "burn it to the ground."

I say that it is kindness to these families of Atlanta to remove them now, at once, from scenes that women and children should not be exposed to, and the "brave people" should scorn to commit their wives and children to the rude barbarians who thus, as you say, violate the laws of war, as illustrated in the pages of its dark history.

In the name of common-sense, I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner. You who, in the midst of peace and prosperity, have plunged a nation into war&#8212; dark and cruel war&#8212;who dared and badgered us to battle, insulted our flag, seized our arsenals and forts that were left in the honorable custody of peaceful ordnance-sergeants, seized and made "prisoners of war" the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians, long before any overt act was committed by the (to you) hated Lincoln Government; tried to force Kentucky and Missouri into rebellion, [in] spite of themselves; falsified the vote of Louisiana; turned loose your privateers to plunder unarmed ships; expelled Union families by the thousands, burned their houses, and declared, by an act of your Congress, the confiscation of all debts due Northern men for goods had and received! Talk thus to the marines, but not to me, who have seen these things, and who will this day make as much sacrifice for the peace and honor of the South as the best-born Southerner among you! If we must be enemies, let us be men, and fight it out as we propose to do, and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity. God will judge us in due time, and he will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women and the families of a brave people at our back or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people.
--from a letter, dated 10 Sep 1864, from W.T. Sherman to J.B. Hood

Short version: Hood was being the treacherous snake we already knew him to be, and hiding behind civilians in an attempt to blackmail Sherman out of attacking. Sherman told him that if he were so concerned, to get them out of his way because Southern armies had already done more and worse than he was about to. And so they had.

Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.

Do you believe that collective punishment is a legitimate method of suppressing resistance?

I don't know. Ask the residents of eastern Tennessee around Knoxville. The Slave Power's military conquered the region and systematically killed and imprisoned most of the adult male population because they voted against secession. The point is that the South committed blatant , unconscionable, and unprovoked aggressions against the free states in the name of preserving and expanding the abomination of chattel slavery. And you defend them for it. If you have any answer to my essay that the link leads to, I invite you to share it in that thread.

opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.

Whether the CSA committed an act of war against the USA or vise versa is an issue distinct from the matter of secession.

Interesting that you use such a term, since it implies that the CSA was recognized as a sovereign nation already, as opposed to the act merely being a criminal act committed by a number of citizens

Are you daft? The treason clause says "levying war against them" (the states) in reference to individual citizens, not foreign powers. It is possible to commit an act of war without being a legitimate government; it is done all the damned time in the present day, in fact.

Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to the Congress

And of the land of the member States is a power of those States. That's why the Fed now tries to prevent the States from owning themselves, since they know that your argument has been tried and doesn't hold water. Hence this trend:

They knew it was the States' land and not the Feds- hence the attempt by the Fed to own all the land in the new States

...

The United States has sovereignty over its borders. No individual state can prejudice that. This is about as black and white as it gets; your red herring about national parks aside, there's simply no way to reasonably read it the way you're trying to.

They are semiautomatics sovereign entities, just as Germany or Spain within the EU. That's why the Constitution so clearly speaks of the united States in the plural rather than the singular in a great many instances.

No, they're not. The European Union is a treaty organization, not a nation; the member nations of the EU still maintain their sovereign borders, their own militaries, their own legal structures, and are not under a supreme federal head.

Let's go to Thomas Jefferson. Are you familiar with the need for revolution and the tree of liberty? Self-determination is a moral right as well as a legal one, and any tyranny that infringes it warrants its own destruction.

Ah, so you agree that the Slave Power, which was founded specifically to preserve and defend the institution of chattel bondage of the black race, thus denying them self-determination, deserved utter annihilation. Concession once again accepted. The War of Southern Aggression was indeed a revolution; by its end, the entire aristocratic social order of the old South was overthrown, slavery abolished, and liberty granted to the enslaved for the first time in American history; these developments were nothing short of revolutionary. That Andrew Johnson did not prosecute Reconstruction vigorously enough and allowed the South to backslide (in the period between the end of the war and the end of Reconstruction there was a higher proportion of black men in office than there is even today, something that the former slaveholders put an abrupt and often violent end to as soon as the federal government let them) is unfortunate, but there it is.

I see, you're one of those nutters who think the FF were Jesus in many bodies and worship their corpses.

No, I am not. But since we were discussing the Constitution, I thought the insights of the men who wrote it would be valuable.

 

[JBeukema]

you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's libert.

Ah, so you're joining in the whole 'they had slaves' argument. Again, it's good to know that we all belong to the King, seeing as the FF had their own slaves and they, too, fought largely for economic reasons.

Sherman was a military commander behind enemy lines deep in enemy territory with the objective of neutralizing the enemy's capacity to make war. He did this admirably

Giving your men the okay to hang people on a whim is admirable? Clearly we admire very different traits in people. I winder what his thoughts were regarding Butler's Order 28- I find it hard he had any real objections.

He liberally destroyed and confiscated property useful for sustaining the Slave Power's war effort

Really? He took property from states loyal to the Union?

You can't have slaves when fighting a war then claim you fought the war to get rid of slavery.

The United States has sovereignty over its borders.

And the member States in their own borders, save for the very few areas in which supremacy is given to the common government of the Union in accordance with the Constitution.

Because the EU has authority within its borders does not mean Luxembourg does not retain authority within its own borders.

No, they're not. The European Union is a treaty organization, not a nation; th

Both are unions. The EU is a confederation, like the U.N. The USA is a federation of sovereign States. If it were not, then the states could not call themselves such in their own Constitutions. It's all right there in ink. Face it: your little Statist pipedream of an empire where nobody is allowed to leave it totally at odds with all liberty-based ideologies and the Constitution of the Union as well as those of member States.

Ah, so you agree that the Slave Power,

The colonies? The Union? The Railroads? The 7 loyalist slave States?

Yes, the CSA warranted inhalation, as did the USA. Both nations permitted slavery and had slaves during the war. Neither nation allowed blacks, hispanics, women, or the poor equal standing and representation. Both were opposed to the principles that mark a just society. Both deserved destruction. Neither was in the right and until you mature enough to be able to see the world as it really is instead of your sad binary lens of reformist history and partisanship, there's no point wasting any further time with you.