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

[g5000]

"How much is that Hershey bar?"

"63 Memphis Federation quadloons, or 49 US cents, or 2749 Palins."

 

[g5000]

"All our telephone customer support jobs have been outsourced to Patriotica! They don't even speak good American."

 

[bripat9643]

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

The Supreme Court ruling is the product of a gang of political hacks hand picked by Abraham Lincoln himself. The belief that it has any connection with the truth rather than political expedience is the sure sign of congenital gullibility.

 

[bripat9643]

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!"

So?

 

[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!"

So?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should ask the Eurozone why that is a bad thing...

 

[bripat9643]

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!"

So?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should ask the Eurozone why that is a bad thing...

They're a gang of socialist hacks, so why would any intelligent person ask them? They functioned a lot better as entirely separate economies than they do as part of the EU. Under the current scheme, a few irresponsible countries can drag the who gang down with them.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, the Constitution was set in place, a continuation of the Articles of Confederation, and everyone participated in the game. The Union that had been formed was continued. The government continued. No states tried to leave the Union. All here accept that now. That leaves 'Perpetual' in place.
BUT, if the Constitution is not regarded as extending the Union that had been formed, that can only be because the Constitution was not approved in the manner prescribed in the Articles. That would have to mean there was no Union under the Constitution, but it in no way ends the Perpetual Union established under the Articles.
Even a dimwit can easily and logically work this out. Only perversity can argue otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

So, the Constitution was set in place, a continuation of the Articles of Confederation, and everyone participated in the game. The Union that had been formed was continued. The government continued. No states tried to leave the Union. All here accept that now. That leaves 'Perpetual' in place.
BUT, if the Constitution is not regarded as extending the Union that had been formed, that can only be because the Constitution was not approved in the manner prescribed in the Articles. That would have to mean there was no Union under the Constitution, but it in no way ends the Perpetual Union established under the Articles.
Even a dimwit can easily and logically work this out. Only perversity can argue otherwise.

Who said the Constitution was a "continuation" of the Articles of Confederation? What does that even mean?

Again, you guys are just making stuff up because the facts on the table don't support your claims.

 

[there4eyeM]

I do believe it is hopeless! Or, have I made the mistake that I am speaking English and 'they' are not?

 

[bripat9643]

I do believe it is hopeless! Or, have I made the mistake that I am speaking English and 'they' are not?

Yes, it is hopeless. So long as there are people in the world that expect actual facts and logic, your theories will forever be ridiculed.

 

[there4eyeM]

If we were talking about 'my theories', that comment might apply.

 

[bripat9643]

If we were talking about 'my theories', that comment might apply.

Of course we are. We're talking about your theory that the Constitution is a "continuation" of the Articles of Confederation.

 

[there4eyeM]

That isn't a theory.

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't a theory.

Yes it is.

The founders didn't amend the Articles of Confederation. They wrote an entirely new document

 

[danielpalos]

That isn't a theory.

The "position" on the Articles was "closed" after ratification of our federal Constitution.

 

[paperview]

That isn't a theory.

Just a lil factoid:

When the CSA wrote their Constitution -- it called for a "'permanent federal government."

 

[thanatos144]

That isn't a theory.

Just a lil factoid:

When the CSA wrote their Constitution -- it called for a "'permanent federal government."

They also said they were a nation built on slavery and will remain a slavery state....Then it went on to say that all freed slaves were no longer free and would be recaptured.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"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.

Listen, skid mark, the very fact that the states could ratify the Articles, rescind it, and then ratify the Constitution proves beyond all doubt that the original source of power was, is, and always has been the states. And that's why they can also voluntary extricate themselves from the union by the same original power that cannot be granted or abridged by the Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, that's your theory.

 

[mikegriffith1]

That's a lot of maybes. First off, the British didn't fight the colonists to abolish slavery. Or to protect it. But to secure their territory. The abolition movement didn't begin among the British until after the Revolutionary War was already over. Making any issue of slavery irrelevant to the issues of the war even hypothetically without a silver Delorian or a blue police box.

Immediately invalidating your argument.

LOL! First off, the British anti-slavery movement began years before the war. Heard of the Somerset case? Google it. I know you didn't read the Blumrosen book yet, which I cited in my post. Before you challenge an argument, it's a good idea to read the evidence cited in behalf of the argument.

Second, although the abolition of slavery was not an official British war objective, the British soon offered freedom to all slaves who would fight for the king, and many thousands more slaves were freed by the British than were freed by the Patriots.

Similarly, the North did not invade the South to abolish slavery, but after about a year and a half the abolition of Southern slavery became a secondary Union war objective.

You know, why don't you guys ever do some balanced research before you get on here and repeat PC myths?