Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Second, although the abolition of slavery was not an official British war objective..."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?
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.The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.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.
I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.
"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.
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?
You must be really speechless when you read the Supreme Court ruling:That is an interpretation, not a fact.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
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.
“ 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.
You must be really speechless when you read the Supreme Court ruling:That is an interpretation, not a fact.When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
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.
“ 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.
Have you ever noticed that the left worships the Supreme Court and its decisions . . . except for the ones they don't like? They utterly ignore the ones stating that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right rather than to the National Guard, for example.
Now, it's true that the right also agrees with some and disagrees with others, but we don't ever tout Supreme Court decisions like writs of gospel.
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.The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.
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.
I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.
Answering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
"Second, although the abolition of slavery was not an official British war objective..."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?
Full stop. The abolition of slavery was not in any way a British war objective during the American Revolution.
Your comparisons, as usual, are ridiculous.
An illustration about as accurate about a cricket as these arguments about the Articles of Conferderation and the Constitution.
I suggest you go look back again and read what was postedIt 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.The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.
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.
I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.
Answering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
You to stupid to know how the Constitution was ratified so I very much doubt you can predict shit. Clean your momma basement before she starts charging you rentIt 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.The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.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.
I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.
Answering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
I predict the following response:
You to stupid to know how the Constitution was ratified so I very much doubt you can predict shit. Clean your momma basement before she starts charging you rentIt 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.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.
Answering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
I predict the following response:
Learn to read, inbred I did.You to stupid to know how the Constitution was ratified so I very much doubt you can predict shit. Clean your momma basement before she starts charging you rentIt 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.I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.
Answering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
I predict the following response:
You still haven't answered the question.
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
Eminent Domain has nothing to do with whether a state can secede.Some on left merely sympathize because public policy should constitute public use sufficient for eminent domain.
You didn't answer the question, numskullLearn to read, inbred I did.You to stupid to know how the Constitution was ratified so I very much doubt you can predict shit. Clean your momma basement before she starts charging you rentIt 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.
Answering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
I predict the following response:
You still haven't answered the question.
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
If you can't read don't post you ignorant inbredYou didn't answer the question, numskullLearn to read, inbred I did.You to stupid to know how the Constitution was ratified so I very much doubt you can predict shit. Clean your momma basement before she starts charging you rentAnswering a question that wasn't asked or addressing points that weren't made while refusing to apply yourself to those that were is a dodge. And you very well know it.
I'll say it one more time. Does might make right, or not? Does winning make the cause you fight for righteous?
I predict the following response:
You still haven't answered the question.
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
There may have been no Civil War and we could have come out in a better position economically from the Industrial Revolution if the South had "harassed a Judge" with more vigor for their Cause than they actually did.Eminent Domain has nothing to do with whether a state can secede.Some on left merely sympathize because public policy should constitute public use sufficient for eminent domain.
They started the war. dont blame judges for them attacking because they feared not being able to spread slavery to the new territories.There may have been no Civil War and we could have come out in a better position economically from the Industrial Revolution if the South had "harassed a Judge" with more vigor for their Cause than they actually did.Eminent Domain has nothing to do with whether a state can secede.Some on left merely sympathize because public policy should constitute public use sufficient for eminent domain.
