Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[thanatos144]

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I do? Which ones?

Confederates of course. You worship racist evil democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Despising Lincoln doesn't equate to "worshipping" Confederates, moron. There was nothing admirable about Lincoln's war on his own countrymen. Nothing.`

Dummy we all read what you write slobbering all over the confederates. You hate the country and worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I do? Which ones?

Confederates of course. You worship racist evil democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Despising Lincoln doesn't equate to "worshipping" Confederates, moron. There was nothing admirable about Lincoln's war on his own countrymen. Nothing.`

Dummy we all read what you write slobbering all over the confederates. You hate the country and worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Then you should have no trouble quoting me "slobbering" over Confederates.

 

[thanatos144]

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I do? Which ones?

Confederates of course. You worship racist evil democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Despising Lincoln doesn't equate to "worshipping" Confederates, moron. There was nothing admirable about Lincoln's war on his own countrymen. Nothing.`

Dummy we all read what you write slobbering all over the confederates. You hate the country and worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Then you should have no trouble quoting me "slobbering" over Confederates.

Why when we only need to wait till you ignorantly start attacking one of our greatest presidents.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Contumacious]

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

.

The DOI is not part of the constitution and has no more legal authority than the bible. THINK

THAT IS CORRECT.


JEFFERSON WROTE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THE NATURAL RIGHTS THAT THE MEXICANS, CANADIANS AND OTHERS IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY HAVE EXCEPT , OF COURSE, THE USA BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO SCOTUS, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FORGOT TO INCLUDE A NINTH AMENDMENT.


SHIT HAPPENS

 

[Little-Acorn]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

You know you are a liberal if:

You believe that leaving the Union (an act neither forbidden nor even mentioned in the Constitution) is "treason"...

...but making laws restricting people's right to own and carry guns, an act that IS mentioned and forbidden by the Constitution, is not.

 

[Bombur]

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

Almost everything you say is either ignorant or illogical or both. You are right on one point, it doesn't matter what some other scrap of paper says. The principles laid out in the DOI are simply a recognition of reality and different than legal authority where the written law is the source of the authority.

You can claim it's "reality" all you like, and I can claim it's meaningless propaganda. However, the one thing we both agree on is that it's not the law, and if government doesn't follow the law then you have lawless government, which means you have a tyranny. That's what you're arguing for: tyranny.

Slavery was evil and the south waged war against their fellow countrymen who fought to end their tyranny and their blatant violation of the rights of people. There are few nations more worthy of scorn than the American south and few righteous men more worthy of praise for defending the rights of people than Abraham Lincoln. To hear you cry about tyranny is a dose of ignorant irony that is fascinating to see, even if it demonstrates a severe deficiency in our educational system.

It is a bizarre world where the slave owners and their defenders think they are the victim.

Wrong. The Yankees weren't fighting to end slavery. They didn't give a damn about the slaves. Some were fighting only because they were drafted. Some were fighting to impose oppressive tariffs on the Confederate states. Some were fighting simply because they thought it was an adventure. Some were even fighting because they believed Lincoln's bullshit about "saving" the union. The one thing none of them were fighting for was to end slavery.

The rights of people are not meaningless propaganda. I am not surprised someone defending the civil war south would think that but I am shocked you admitted it.

This absolute devotion to the law is a rather comical position to take for an American considering how the nation was founded.

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Not surprising that a fucked up Rightie Racist homosexual hating jail shower soap dropping idiot would start a thread like this.

Talk of secession or the attempt at secession IS treason, dipshit.

 

[Contumacious]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

 

[Bombur]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

 

[Contumacious]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.


AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?





.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

 

[Contumacious]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?

 

[bripat9643]

I do? Which ones?

Confederates of course. You worship racist evil democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Despising Lincoln doesn't equate to "worshipping" Confederates, moron. There was nothing admirable about Lincoln's war on his own countrymen. Nothing.`

Dummy we all read what you write slobbering all over the confederates. You hate the country and worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Then you should have no trouble quoting me "slobbering" over Confederates.

Why when we only need to wait till you ignorantly start attacking one of our greatest presidents.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I don't attack Lincoln "ignorantly." I attack him because I know the truth about him. In fact, what you call an "attack" is simply posting facts about Lincoln. Name one thing I have posted about Lincoln that isn't a fact.

Lincoln was our "greatest" president only in the sense that Stalin was the greatest Soviet mass murderer.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

Almost everything you say is either ignorant or illogical or both. You are right on one point, it doesn't matter what some other scrap of paper says. The principles laid out in the DOI are simply a recognition of reality and different than legal authority where the written law is the source of the authority.

You can claim it's "reality" all you like, and I can claim it's meaningless propaganda. However, the one thing we both agree on is that it's not the law, and if government doesn't follow the law then you have lawless government, which means you have a tyranny. That's what you're arguing for: tyranny.

Slavery was evil and the south waged war against their fellow countrymen who fought to end their tyranny and their blatant violation of the rights of people. There are few nations more worthy of scorn than the American south and few righteous men more worthy of praise for defending the rights of people than Abraham Lincoln. To hear you cry about tyranny is a dose of ignorant irony that is fascinating to see, even if it demonstrates a severe deficiency in our educational system.

It is a bizarre world where the slave owners and their defenders think they are the victim.

Wrong. The Yankees weren't fighting to end slavery. They didn't give a damn about the slaves. Some were fighting only because they were drafted. Some were fighting to impose oppressive tariffs on the Confederate states. Some were fighting simply because they thought it was an adventure. Some were even fighting because they believed Lincoln's bullshit about "saving" the union. The one thing none of them were fighting for was to end slavery.

The rights of people are not meaningless propaganda. I am not surprised someone defending the civil war south would think that but I am shocked you admitted it.

This absolute devotion to the law is a rather comical position to take for an American considering how the nation was founded.

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

I didn't say it was meaningless propaganda, I said I could claim that.

Whether I have an "obsession" with the law is one issue. However, one thing I'm adamant about is that governments should follow the laws they make, otherwise they are nothing but pure tyrannies. Whether people should follow those laws is another matter. What you're saying is that you support tyranny.

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.

Bottom line: you're a thug who supports tyrannical government.

 

[there4eyeM]

The south had to export, not import. The north, being industrial, was trying to develop its markets and did not want competition from England and others. It had internal markets. The south did not. Slaves can't buy anything.

 

[there4eyeM]

Lincoln has almost nothing to do with it all. The confrontation was inevitable. The south could not give up its slaves and continue its economic system, which really was like what Americans like to think communism is; the many working for the few.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln has almost nothing to do with it all. The confrontation was inevitable. The south could not give up its slaves and continue its economic system, which really was like what Americans like to think communism is; the many working for the few.

Puhleeze. Lincoln ordered the ships to attempt a resupply of Ft Sumter and thereby precipitated the attack on it. Lincoln also ordered the army to invade Virginia. The Civil War would never have happened without Lincoln orchestrating it and ordering it.

 

[bripat9643]

The south had to export, not import. The north, being industrial, was trying to develop its markets and did not want competition from England and others. It had internal markets. The south did not. Slaves can't buy anything.

The South had to both import and export, numskull. The South was also the North's internal market, and the North wanted to force the South to deal only with Northern manufacturers.

Almost everything you know about history is propaganda.

 

[there4eyeM]

Apparently, from what we get from your posts and opinions, propaganda depends upon what one chooses to believe.

Almost everything you know about what I know is nothing.

The balance of trade on the part of the south was favorable to it, but not its trading partners.
The south was agrarian and self sufficient. The north was less agrarian and highly industrial, so did not 'need' goods from Europe. Obviously, Europe was buying its own products as well. So, international trade was not necessary to the north, as it most definitely was to the south.
This was an economic situation that could not continue.
Slavery is not a viable economic system.
Does its similarity to the preconceptions about communism disturb?

 

[Bombur]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?

No one argued that they only did it for one reason.

 

[Bombur]

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

Almost everything you say is either ignorant or illogical or both. You are right on one point, it doesn't matter what some other scrap of paper says. The principles laid out in the DOI are simply a recognition of reality and different than legal authority where the written law is the source of the authority.

You can claim it's "reality" all you like, and I can claim it's meaningless propaganda. However, the one thing we both agree on is that it's not the law, and if government doesn't follow the law then you have lawless government, which means you have a tyranny. That's what you're arguing for: tyranny.

Slavery was evil and the south waged war against their fellow countrymen who fought to end their tyranny and their blatant violation of the rights of people. There are few nations more worthy of scorn than the American south and few righteous men more worthy of praise for defending the rights of people than Abraham Lincoln. To hear you cry about tyranny is a dose of ignorant irony that is fascinating to see, even if it demonstrates a severe deficiency in our educational system.

It is a bizarre world where the slave owners and their defenders think they are the victim.

Wrong. The Yankees weren't fighting to end slavery. They didn't give a damn about the slaves. Some were fighting only because they were drafted. Some were fighting to impose oppressive tariffs on the Confederate states. Some were fighting simply because they thought it was an adventure. Some were even fighting because they believed Lincoln's bullshit about "saving" the union. The one thing none of them were fighting for was to end slavery.

The rights of people are not meaningless propaganda. I am not surprised someone defending the civil war south would think that but I am shocked you admitted it.

This absolute devotion to the law is a rather comical position to take for an American considering how the nation was founded.

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

I didn't say it was meaningless propaganda, I said I could claim that.

Whether I have an "obsession" with the law is one issue. However, one thing I'm adamant about is that governments should follow the laws they make, otherwise they are nothing but pure tyrannies. Whether people should follow those laws is another matter. What you're saying is that you support tyranny.

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.

Bottom line: you're a thug who supports tyrannical government.

The south did wage war on the North but the North would have been justified in pretty much any action they took because the government of the South was in such blatant violation of their duty to protect the rights of people and democratic action failed.

The real tyranny is the treatment of the slaves. It is not tyranny for any people or any government to defend the rights of people with force and abolish the government that seeks to continue these sins against their fellow people. The union created a bond between the north and those subject to the evil of slavery.

It is now July 4th, the day this nation was created in recognition of a truth that doesn't need to be written down to hold more power and authority than any law in the world. You may not like the rights of people and neither did the south, that is why they waged war to continue their evil.