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

[G.T.]

If sarah palin was pro slavery and it was civil war era i'd catch her, put a collar on the bitch and make her make me a mooseburger while the freed black persons around me chopped some lettuce to feed her, out on the barn.

 

[ogibillm]

[

on the contrary. adherence to the constitution is american. making sure the seceding states adhered to the government they agreed upon is also american.

Right up to the point that government became something that wasn't agreed upon.

Preserving America was un-American....got it.

The country was founded on the concept that a free people have the right to govern themselves, when you abandon those ideas you abandon America, and when America abandons those ideas it is no longer America. Any top down, dictatorial, central government is un-American.

Preserving America was un-American....got it.
and now....
Holding hundreds of thousands of black folks in bondage was not "dictatorial".

You keep digging...I'll keep handing you shovels.

Tell me, what laws were they violating by keeping slaves?

None, but Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until it became necessary to wage total war to keep them from seceding.

In fact Lincoln had no problem with slaves, then he wanted to send them all back to Africa at the end of the war. He was no freaking hero.

i thought you were a moral relativist?

and lincoln did have a problem with slavery. he found it morally wrong, anti-american, and wished its end.

 

[ogibillm]

Just saying it doesn't make it fact.

case law does. it is illegal under the constitution of the united states for a state to unilaterally secede.

 

[bendog]

If only bripat was around the confederacy woulda probably won easily. Easily.

If Bripat were around the confederacy would have invaded Mexico to oppose Northern tyranny.

The north invaded the south. You fail

there was no invasion.you cannot invade your own country.

It wasn't Lincoln's country, asshole. They seceded. Do you know what "seceded" means" Look it up.

good lord you're dumb. sure, they said they seceded. i could say i'm king of the andals and the first men, lord of the Seven kingdoms, and protector of the realm. doesn't mean i get to plant my ass on the iron throne.

the secession was illegal. they never left the united states, they just played at it.

Well, you can argue secession or no secession, imo. I'm of the "not" camp because the "for" argument makes no sense to me. When the southern states finally agreed to ratify the constitution, after securing the BOR to spell out limits on federal power, it doesn't make sense to me to say they could essentially de-ratify. The states gave up some sovereignty in exchange for the protections of a national government. If they retained a right to de-ratify, they would be killing the national government. It seems illogical to me that anyone at the time of ratification could logically think that was how it was supposed to work out.

But, if you want to argue that the national govt we have today, with the new deal expansion of the general welfare clause, is NOT the same fed govt that was ratified ...I'd agree.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, that's fascism. The states didn't agree to remain in the union no matter what. Read the Constitution. You might learn something.

there are no provisions for secession in the constitution.

See the 10th Amendment.

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

 

[G.T.]

there are no provisions for secession in the constitution.

See the 10th Amendment.

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

Wow

 

[OKTexas]

[

Right up to the point that government became something that wasn't agreed upon.

The country was founded on the concept that a free people have the right to govern themselves, when you abandon those ideas you abandon America, and when America abandons those ideas it is no longer America. Any top down, dictatorial, central government is un-American.

Preserving America was un-American....got it.
and now....
Holding hundreds of thousands of black folks in bondage was not "dictatorial".

You keep digging...I'll keep handing you shovels.

Tell me, what laws were they violating by keeping slaves?

None, but Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until it became necessary to wage total war to keep them from seceding.

In fact Lincoln had no problem with slaves, then he wanted to send them all back to Africa at the end of the war. He was no freaking hero.

i thought you were a moral relativist?

and lincoln did have a problem with slavery. he found it morally wrong, anti-american, and wished its end.

Then why did he offer to let it continue?

 

[natstew]

Geeze, this is just too damn silly! Look folks, it's not about a flag, hell it's not even about some mistreatment some generations ago. It's a RACE WAR being perpetrated against whites by blacks. Nothing will satisfy them except the total annihilation of the white race by whatever means it takes.

 

[ogibillm]

there are no provisions for secession in the constitution.

See the 10th Amendment.

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

no, it doesn't supersede the constitution. caselaw clarifies the constitution. caselaw says that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede, and until and unless that caselaw is overturned by another decision or an amendment, that's the law of the land.

 

[there4eyeM]

The South tried to leave the Union because it knew slavery's days were numbered. Laws would have been passed, and a choice was made to try to break away before justice arrived.

 

[OKTexas]

See the 10th Amendment.

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

no, it doesn't supersede the constitution. caselaw clarifies the constitution. caselaw says that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede, and until and unless that caselaw is overturned by another decision or an amendment, that's the law of the land.

Right, case law that didn't exist until after the war, so you would agree that at the time the south seceded it was Constitutional, right?

 

[there4eyeM]

'Perpetual Union'.

 

[bendog]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

 

[bendog]

[

Preserving America was un-American....got it.
and now....
Holding hundreds of thousands of black folks in bondage was not "dictatorial".

You keep digging...I'll keep handing you shovels.

Tell me, what laws were they violating by keeping slaves?

None, but Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until it became necessary to wage total war to keep them from seceding.

In fact Lincoln had no problem with slaves, then he wanted to send them all back to Africa at the end of the war. He was no freaking hero.

i thought you were a moral relativist?

and lincoln did have a problem with slavery. he found it morally wrong, anti-american, and wished its end.

Then why did he offer to let it continue?

Several reasons. The largest, to not give the South an arguable reason to leave over an unconstitutional taking of private property.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

The original documents that created the nation, the Articles of Confederation, used the term. The Constitution continued the Union with modifications to the government.

 

[there4eyeM]

Lincoln probably also reasoned that a war would be disastrous and if it could be avoided until the laws and public opinion caught up with humanity, war could be unnecessary. The secession movement made it necessary.

 

[ogibillm]

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

no, it doesn't supersede the constitution. caselaw clarifies the constitution. caselaw says that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede, and until and unless that caselaw is overturned by another decision or an amendment, that's the law of the land.

Right, case law that didn't exist until after the war, so you would agree that at the time the south seceded it was Constitutional, right?

no. case law clarifies, but it does not make a thing constitutional or not. if it was ruled unconstitutional after the fact, it was not somehow constitutional before. the constitution did not change.

 

[Boss]

If only bripat was around the confederacy woulda probably won easily. Easily.

If Bripat were around the confederacy would have invaded Mexico to oppose Northern tyranny.

The north invaded the south. You fail

there was no invasion.you cannot invade your own country.

It wasn't Lincoln's country, asshole. They seceded. Do you know what "seceded" means" Look it up.

good lord you're dumb. sure, they said they seceded. i could say i'm king of the andals and the first men, lord of the Seven kingdoms, and protector of the realm. doesn't mean i get to plant my ass on the iron throne.

the secession was illegal. they never left the united states, they just played at it.

The ONLY WAY Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation could be Constitutional was IF the CSA was it's own sovereign country. As states of the United States, he did not have such authority under the Constitution. It was ONLY because the CSA was an "foreign enemy of state" that he could render the proclamation legally.

Just an FYI.

 

[OKTexas]

'Perpetual Union'.

A figment of your imagination, not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Except as pointed out by the left so many times, the preamble is not part of the actual Constitution, otherwise, the feds would be promoting the general welfare instead of providing for it.