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

[jillian]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

that's what happens when people commit treason

treason created this country, just fyi.

the difference between treason and revolution?

when you win you were a revolutionary.

when you lose, you committed treason.

 

[Liberty]

kalam nice!!! I am learning a lot tonight...but unfortunately betty boop over there is having some trouble proving her case with all of this evidence against her.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?

 

[jillian]

I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?

Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?

only if he let them keep their slaves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?

Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?

No. Why should they have come back into the fold?

 

[jillian]

Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?

kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.

 

[Dr Grump]

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

My bold....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that's what happens when people commit treason

treason created this country, just fyi.

the difference between treason and revolution?

when you win you were a revolutionary.

when you lose, you committed treason.

So might makes right?

 

[Dr Grump]

kalam nice!!! I am learning a lot tonight...but unfortunately betty boop over there is having some trouble proving her case with all of this evidence against her.

From where I'm sitting she's whopping your arse...you just don't know it....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?

Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?

only if he let them keep their slaves.

He offered to do so and they still didn't want to rejoin.

 

[Liberty]

jillian,

please address the constitutional definition of treason and the court case that kalam presented. Thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

Because ya know, when they seceded they didn't think a war would occur, did they?

Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?

kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.

Accept the fact that it is a legal reality? Certainly. Accept that they're correct? Absolutely not.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.

Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?

kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.

Accept the fact that it is a legal reality? Certainly. Accept that they're correct? Absolutely not.

Finally, you get it....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.

Accept the fact that it is a legal reality? Certainly. Accept that they're correct? Absolutely not.

Finally, you get it....

I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.

War is the penalty for treason?

FYI
Under the constitution the only way to commit treason is to go to war with the United States. Secession is not treason. Maybe you should discuss the subtleties of this with your professors, you certainly are missing out on them here.

 

[jillian]

Accept the fact that it is a legal reality? Certainly. Accept that they're correct? Absolutely not.

Finally, you get it....

I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.

that didn't come across in your posts.

can you understand it was the only possible decision the Court could have made?

 

[Dr Grump]

Accept the fact that it is a legal reality? Certainly. Accept that they're correct? Absolutely not.

Finally, you get it....

I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.

Jill's talking about the law of the land as it stands. You're talking about how you would like it to be. Nowhere has Jillian stated that she liked or disliked the law, just what it is (although one could argue that her line on treason has her bending a certain way on the issue). She didn't make the law, she just knows its practicalities....and so do you it seems.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Finally, you get it....

I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.

that didn't come across in your posts.

can you understand it was the only possible decision the Court could have made?

I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.

No. They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.