If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

[Boss]

And so it remains a profound Constitutional question that has yet to be answered.

No, it doesn't. The matter was settled by Texas v. White and no court since has put the matter into question. The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again.. . Texas v. White ruled that the State of Texas hadn't legally seceded. The opinion leaves the overarching question of whether a state CAN secede unanswered. The language indicates it IS possible "through revolution, or through consent of the States."

Also, just because the SCOTUS rules, it does not mean the Constitutional issue is settled forever. There have been MANY SCOTUS rulings rendered meaningless over the years.

The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged before the SCOTUS because we ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which made the EP irrelevant. My argument was, the EP couldn't be Constitutional unless the South was an enemy at war with the Union. The President does not have the authority to do what the EP did unless it is an action taken against an enemy of state at time of war. It was a very precarious position Lincoln took and he admitted that.

 

[Boss]

You're suggesting that the USA wasn't a nation until 1778?

His argument is actually WORSE! If the British had defeated us in the War of 1812, then the US was never a legitimate nation. We could have erased 36 years of history and pretended it never existed.

 

[Unkotare]

You're suggesting that the USA wasn't a nation until 1778?

If the British had defeated us in the War of 1812, then the US was never a legitimate nation. ..

That makes even less sense than you usually do.

 

[Boss]

You're suggesting that the USA wasn't a nation until 1778?

If the British had defeated us in the War of 1812, then the US was never a legitimate nation. ..

That makes even less sense than you usually do.

Well, it doesn't make any sense but it's essentially the argument you presented. You've constructed some artificial criteria by which nations become nations... they have to be recognized by other nations... they have to prevail in wars over enemy nations... the SCOTUS has to rule they are a nation... they have to be considered "legal" by the nation they broke away from... It's just sheer stupidity.

 

[Boss]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war. It could only be Constitutional as such and this is precisely why it did not free slaves in West Virginia, Delaware or other slaves states in the North. The president simply does not have the authority to violate your 4th Amendment rights to property, it doesn't matter if his intentions are pure or he thinks it's best, or even if most of the people think it's best. This power has never rested with a president.

 

[Unkotare]

You're suggesting that the USA wasn't a nation until 1778?

If the British had defeated us in the War of 1812, then the US was never a legitimate nation. ..

That makes even less sense than you usually do.

Well, it doesn't make any sense but it's essentially the argument you presented.....

No, you dishonest fuck, it isn't. Stop fabricating positions just because you can't respond to any that are actually being put forth.

 

[Unkotare]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

 

[Unkotare]

There have been MANY SCOTUS rulings rendered meaningless over the years.....

But not that one.

 

[Unkotare]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged before the SCOTUS because we ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which made the EP irrelevant. ....

NO, it was never challenged because there was never any basis upon which to challenge it. Boy, you are as stupid as the day is long.

 

[Unkotare]

And so it remains a profound Constitutional question that has yet to be answered.

No, it doesn't. The matter was settled by Texas v. White and no court since has put the matter into question. The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again.. . Texas v. White ruled that the State of Texas hadn't legally seceded. ....

You have no idea how legal precedent works, do you lamebrain?

 

[Boss]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

Well it is impossible the South was BOTH a nation at war with the US and ALSO not a legitimate nation. If they weren't a legitimate nation, the president didn't have authority to seize their property. That was only permissible as an action of the Commander in Chief at a time of war against an enemy of the state. That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states.

Lincoln knew this and spoke about it extensively. It was indeed a dilemma. He realized he could do this under powers of war against an enemy at war with the US. The same way FDR interned Japanese and Bush detained enemy combatants at Gitmo. But in doing so, he also has to acknowledge the South as an enemy at war and not citizens of the US protected by Constitutional rights. Also, we're talking about a period of time when Southern states of the Confederacy had NO representation in Washington. So do believe Southerners were rogue people without a nation?

 

[Boss]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged before the SCOTUS because we ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which made the EP irrelevant. ....

NO, it was never challenged because there was never any basis upon which to challenge it. Boy, you are as stupid as the day is long.

Well there certainly wasn't a basis after the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified because that made it totally obsolete. Before then, who was going to challenge it? The SCOTUS doesn't hear cases brought by countries at war with the US. So no one in the Confederacy could challenge it and slave owners in the North didn't give a shit, it didn't effect them.

 

[Unkotare]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

Well it is impossible the South was BOTH a nation at war with the US and ALSO not a legitimate nation./QUOTE]


You are the only one (very transparently) repeating the word "nation," dimwit. You fail miserably at trying to be clever, lamebrain.

 

[Boss]

You have no idea how legal precedent works, do you lamebrain?

Hmmm... How "legal precedent" works? You mean, like the legal precedent used to uphold slavery for 85 years before the Civil War? To support Dred Scott? To uphold Jim Crow and Segregation?

If "legal precedent" were empirical, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS. All we would need to do is look at the "legal precedent" and if it exists and supports something, it's alright. If not, it's not alright. Like Gay Marriage... there was no legal precedent so we should just forget about it and move on.

 

[Unkotare]

That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states....

You are obviously very proud of knowing - like everyone else who took Jr High US History - that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to those states in open rebellion against the Union. Repeating it over and over does nothing to support your untenable position, lamebrain.

 

[Boss]

That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states....

You are obviously very proud of knowing - like everyone else who took Jr High US History - that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to those states in open rebellion against the Union. Repeating it over and over does nothing to support your untenable position, lamebrain.

Well, to be completely honest, I didn't learn about any of this until well after high school. They don't go into this kind of detail in public school. Today is worse than when I grew up, I think... they probably just teach that the Civil War was the North (Abolitionists) vs. South (Slavery) and the North won, Lincoln freed the slaves and then MLK gave them Civil Rights.

The EP (as I have argued) can only Constitutionally apply to states at war against the US. That's what you rejected and now seem to be trying to claim as your own argument... but that was MY argument against you.

 

[Unkotare]

It was indeed a dilemma.

The only dilemma was over how Union states would react to declaring the war in large part a mission to end slavery. Indeed, many in the North did not care for this notion at all.

 

[Unkotare]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged before the SCOTUS because we ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which made the EP irrelevant. ....

NO, it was never challenged because there was never any basis upon which to challenge it. Boy, you are as stupid as the day is long.

Well there certainly wasn't a basis after the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified because that made it totally obsolete. ....

Unrelated

 

[Unkotare]

If "legal precedent" were empirical, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS. ....

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

 

[bripat9643]

I have proven over and over and over that Lincoln started the war. All you can do is stamp your foot and whine about it.

All you have proven is that you're mentally deranged enough that if you take a sentence and cut off the beginning and cut off the ending, you can tailor it to mean something other than what it actually means in toto.

And get this ... while you portray me as the one stamping my feet and whining about it, history recorded the events as I portrayed them -- the south started the was by attacking a federal fort.

You may not like history ... but ... who cares?

Radical northern abolitionist, primarily from New England, helped start the war...but behind the scenes wealthy northern industrialist wanted a tariff and southern agrarian farmers did not. It was all about the $$$$ and the constitutional issue of whether or nor a state could leave the Union.

Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite history. Four of the seceding states wrote why they were seceding. The tariff was not among their reasons. I'm sure you will notice the biggest reason of all...

Where did these idiotic pie charts come from? Do you actually believed the reasons can be quantified in such a manner? That's like assigning a number to the color orange. The fact that you posted this idiocy only shows what a boob and a gullible ignoramus you are.

They represent how much was mentioned by each state in their respective declarations of causes which I linked.

In other words, it's absolutely meaningless.