Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[paperview]

"Remember, Brip...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about."



So true,

 

[there4eyeM]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

 

[bripat9643]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

 

[bripat9643]

"Remember, Brip...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about."



So true,

Remember that you're a brainwashed moron who is incapable of logical thought.

 

[there4eyeM]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

That is an interpretation, not a fact.
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.

 

[bripat9643]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

That is an interpretation, not a fact.
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.

No it's not an interpretation of fact. Are the terms in the Articles of Confederation still in effect? Clearly not. That means the agreement was tossed into the waste basket.

There was no procedure described in the Articles of Confederation to draft a Constitution.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim the Articles of Confederation are still in effect even though no one abides by them.

I love the way you Lincoln cult members just make stuff up and act like it's some kind of credible evidence.

 

[there4eyeM]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

That is an interpretation, not a fact.
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.

No it's not an interpretation of fact. Are the terms in the Articles of Confederation still in effect? Clearly not. That means the agreement was tossed into the waste basket.

There was no procedure described in the Articles of Confederation to draft a Constitution.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim the Articles of Confederation are still in effect even though no one abides by them.

I love the way you Lincoln cult members just make stuff up and act like it's some kind of credible evidence.

You 'Davis cult members' ought to get a grip. When you are treated respectfully in posts and then descend into school-yard speech to respond, you sound childish. This poster has made no suggestions of worship of anyone, let alone Lincoln, so stop with that!
As for wanting cake, the argument presented is logical and substantiated by your own previous posts. In a way, it supports what you've said. The Constitution was not approved in the manner described by the Articles, isn't that correct?

 

[paperview]

24 December 1860:

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about.

War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it; Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make.

You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth -- right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war.

In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

-William T. Sherman.

Boy, was he right.

 

[there4eyeM]

We would be getting into a whole other topic, but Sherman definitely was right. It has seemed to this poster for a long time the the Civil War was fought all wrong, especially by the Union. Frontally attacking should have been left to the overly audacious Lee. Logistics denial and isolation of troop concentrations would have meant lower casualty rates and more rapid success for the US forces.

 

[thanatos144]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since succession is not addressed by the constitution, then it should be up to individual states to decide.

And, yes I know that the USSC has ruled differently since the civil war. But that's proof that sometimes the Supreme Court makes stuff up that is not in the constitution.

Also, if a state decides to succeed, why should they care what the Supreme Court thinks anymore. That state is declaring itself free from the U.S. and no longer bound by its laws or court rulings.

The Term NOT delegated to the US dummy that means you would still have to be part of the US for the constitutional protections you are demanding....You can not have you cake and eat it to

And they WERE part of the US . . . at the time they issued their declaration of secession. Otherwise, there'd have been nothing for them to secede FROM.

This argument is like saying that in order to get divorced, you have to be in a marriage . . . but the second you get divorced, you're not married anymore, and so you don't qualify for the divorce.

Nice Catch-22, but not gonna work.

First you would have to prove it is legal to secede which after the civil war it was proved not to be and second if it took all of the states to ratify why wouldn't it take all the states to allow a state to leave? In business there are penalties for leaving a contract like that.... It is fraud.

Now all of that out of the way the confederates lost ALL moral high ground when they started a war. Which they had by firing on US troops both before and after they tried to fraudulently sever the contract they agreed to. Whether they believe they had the right to separate or not is moot since they fucking started a war and lost. Bri like to call Lincoln a traitor and murderer yet Did he put all the confederates on trial and have them hung for treason which by all rights he could have?

 

[thanatos144]

The Constitution doesn't mention secession, so how can anyone claim it isn't permitted? The theory that everything not expressly permitted is denied is the logic of morons.

You can say it isn't permitted because it is called rebellion and that is treason and yes before you spout out more stupidity our founding fathers were traitors to the crown. .

It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.

The Major difference being the founders won their rebellion. They won it because they were worthy. Not just strength won the revolutionary war but ideals of liberty and freedom because it garnered the Frenches help which without them we wouldn't have a country today. The confederates didn't have that morel ground to stand on. You cant scream you are for freedom and then rebel to expand slave economics. The founders one great weakness was allowing the slavery to exist after we were founded. Lincoln fixed that with the cray baby help of the south. They started a war and gave him the opportunity to emancipate them......

So winning makes it right? It's hard to believe that an adult is stupid and unscrupulous to utter such nonsense. The Founders were no more "worth" than the leaders of the Confederacy. Their ideals were virtually identical. The French helped because England was Frances enemy. That doesn't provide the slightest sliver of "moral ground."

Bottom line: You're an ignominious weasel.

So by that logic, if the South HAD won, Thanatos would be in here today telling us how legal and virtuous secession is, based simply on the fact that it worked.

The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.

I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.

It isnt a dodge.....No way would this country or theirs have stood if the confederates would have won the war. First more states would have severed ties because now the safety in numbers no longer applies leaving a shit load of little countries now fighting each other for resources. Then we would be easy picking for Britain to come in and retake us and they would have as well as Spain and Mexico and France. With in a decade the USA would have been a memory and in less time the confederate states would have been one as well and STILL history would herald them as traitors that destroyed their own free nation.

 

[thanatos144]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

OMG you are so fucking stupid! Please stop saying you are conservative because you are a embarrassment to the philosophy! Each state ratified the constitution dummy! That means the articles of confederation were not willy nilly thrown away!

 

[danielpalos]

In the First place (and Only place) in a two sovereign "race"; is the legal Fact which must be proved more than legal fiction if contested; is that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Thus why, the Union even had a moral obligation to uphold our organic and fundamental, Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

Amazingly enough, telling us you have "lots and lots of evidence" does not in itself constitute evidence. Your telling us that something is true barely constitutes evidence that you have a computer with a keyboard, from my viewpoint.

If typing the words 'lots and lots of evidence' were the extent of my presentation, you'd be right. Alas, it isn't and you're not.

Well, I would have to take your word for that, since so far, it HAS been the extent of your presentation. I still wait in vain for you to show, rather than tell.

Just because you are late to the conversation doesn't mean I'm obligated to re-present my evidence. Everything I've cited is right here in the thread.

Shown, not told. Look at it if you wish. Or don't. Your participation isn't vital to my argument.

In other words, you have shit. That wasn't even a graceful retreat, although I admire your white flag. Thanks. We're done here until the next time you make me point out that you're telling, not showing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

So true. Note how the members of the Lincoln cult believe that nothing is too extreme or cruel to inflict on Southern states because they seceded. Killing 850,000 people is a light sentence, in their view. But the archangel Lincoln can repeal habeas corpus, trash the First Amendment by arresting newspaper editors and shutting down over 300 news paper, throw citizens in concentrations camps without a trial, arrest the entire state legislature of Maryland and attempt to arrest a justice of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't even cause the faintest ripple in their composure.

Well, in fairness to those people who aren't outright leftist mouthbreathers, all of us have lived our entire lives in a cohesive nation with a strong federal government and strong national identity. It is virtually impossible for most people to put themselves into the mindset of those living in the antebellum era and truly understand how they thought and felt.

You also have to include in your determination the fact that they have spent their entire childhoods in government run brainwashing mills whose sole function is to inculcate the beliefs that support the current regime.

Also true, but even people who managed to get a good education are still subject to tunnel vision where "the way the world has been during my life" becomes "the way the world has always been".

 

[Cecilie1200]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Common sense proves that the union isn't perpetual, because NOTHING is perpetual. Nations rise and fall, political alliances form and break apart, and everything that begins has an end. Even if the Founding Fathers had said "perpetual" - and I certainly can't get this dimwit to tell us WHERE they ever said that word - it doesn't take a Mensa membership to realize it was more for effect than any sort of real expectation or irrevocable obligation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

That is an interpretation, not a fact.
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.

Excuse me, what? It's a matter of opinion that the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation? You actually think that the Articles of Confederation apply as valid, currently-applicable law? Really?

I'm speechless. In the face of this much towering idiocy, I am literally without words.

 

[g5000]

It isnt a dodge.....No way would this country or theirs have stood if the confederates would have won the war. First more states would have severed ties because now the safety in numbers no longer applies leaving a shit load of little countries now fighting each other for resources.

This is exactly right. Once the secession precedent had been set, more and more pieces would have broken off.

"They've done gone and elected a banker! Let's secede from the Confederate States of America!"

"They voted to give women the vote! Let's secede from the United States of Freedom!"

"They outlawed liquor! Let's secede from Patriotica!"

"They put Elvis on a stamp! Let's secede from the Memphis Federation!"

 

[paperview]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?

When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null

That is an interpretation, not a fact.
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.

Excuse me, what? It's a matter of opinion that the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation? You actually think that the Articles of Confederation apply as valid, currently-applicable law? Really?

I'm speechless. In the face of this much towering idiocy, I am literally without words.

You must be really speechless when you read the Supreme Court ruling:

“ The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.

By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas' relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body. From the decision:

“ When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.

All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." - Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

 

[there4eyeM]

"Common sense proves that the union isn't perpetual, because NOTHING is perpetual. Nations rise and fall, political alliances form and break apart, and everything that begins has an end. Even if the Founding Fathers had said "perpetual" - and I certainly can't get this dimwit to tell us WHERE they ever said that word - it doesn't take a Mensa membership to realize it was more for effect than any sort of real expectation or irrevocable obligation."

Even a 'dimwit' can find, easily and quickly, where 'Perpetual' is found in the Articles of Confederation, as you were politely told previously. You might even have noticed that others accepted and used the term in this thread. So, if a 'dimwit' can find and use it, what does it say for you?

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
Between The States of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.