Civil War Facts

[Bezukhov]

Nothing says you can break up the United States
Nothing says you can come and go as you please

Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.

If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided

The constitution is a scrap of paper. It doesn't have intentions. If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.' That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.

There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave. That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.

“In order to form a more perfect union”

Nothing about coming and going as you wish

If it says nothing about leaving, then it's perfectly OK to do so.

Can a slave leave his owner?

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.

If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided

The constitution is a scrap of paper. It doesn't have intentions. If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.' That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.

There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave. That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.

“In order to form a more perfect union”

Nothing about coming and going as you wish

If it says nothing about leaving, then it's perfectly OK to do so.

Can a slave leave his owner?

Are you claiming we are all slaves?

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone keeping slaves deserves anything that might happen to him.

I feel the same about anyone who votes for Democrats. The difference is that the Constitution condoned slavery.

You don't care what the Constitution says, do you, shit for brains?

 

[Unkotare]

Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.

The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp. The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.

Try not to be so deliberately stupid.

Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.

Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.

Taking up arms against it is, idiot.

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp. The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.

Try not to be so deliberately stupid.

Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.

Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.

Taking up arms against it is, idiot.

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

That was the case.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.

Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.

Taking up arms against it is, idiot.

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

That was the case.

If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.

 

[there4eyeM]

Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.

Taking up arms against it is, idiot.

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

That was the case.

If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.

The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.

 

[Unkotare]

The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.

Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.

Nothing says you can break up the United States
Nothing says you can come and go as you please

Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.

You're the only one here who openly hates America. GTFO, scumbag.

 

[Unkotare]

SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.

Really? Says who?....

The Supreme Court.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Wrong. Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory. ......

Which is in the United States of America. Check a map.

 

[Unkotare]

....

They weren't criminals. .......

They were absolutely criminals. They were armed criminals committing murder and attempted murder.

 

[Unkotare]

Scumbag traitors like bripunk got a fraction of what they deserved as filthy, traitorous dogs.

.

 

[rightwinger]

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

 

[bripat9643]

Taking up arms against it is, idiot.

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

That was the case.

If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.

The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.

The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved. The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin. Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law. Only bootlicking statists make such claims.

I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum. They are not just wrong, they are absurd. There is no theory of law that supports them. Not national law, nor international law.

You believe in a fantasy. You're a fool.

 

[bripat9643]

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

 

[Unkotare]

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

That was the case.

If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.

The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.

The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved. The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin. Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law. Only bootlicking statists make such claims.

I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum. They are not just wrong, they are absurd. There is no theory of law that supports them. Not national law, nor international law.

You believe in a fantasy. You're a fool.

Texas v. White | law case

 

[Unkotare]

Taking up arms against it is, idiot.

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.

That was not the case.

That was the case.

If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.

The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.

And not universally supported by the people living in those states.

 

[there4eyeM]

All the deaths in the Civil War fall on the shoulders of those who refused to confront the problem of slavery at the beginnings of the nation and all those who sought to renege on their oath of Perpetual Union and insist on inhuman slavery. That is many shoulders, and not merely Southern, yet the final cost was their 'cause'.

 

[bripat9643]

All the deaths in the Civil War fall on the shoulders of those who refused to confront the problem of slavery at the beginnings of the nation and all those who sought to renege on their oath of Perpetual Union and insist on inhuman slavery. That is many shoulders, and not merely Southern, yet the final cost was their 'cause'.

Wrong, douchebag. The people who refused to confront slavery when the Constitution was passed were all dead by the time of the Civil War. No one made an oath to the perpetual union, especially not anyone alive at the time of the Civil War.

Almost everything you post on this subject is based on pure fantasy.

 

[bripat9643]

That was not the case.

That was the case.

If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.

The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.

The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved. The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin. Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law. Only bootlicking statists make such claims.

I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum. They are not just wrong, they are absurd. There is no theory of law that supports them. Not national law, nor international law.

You believe in a fantasy. You're a fool.

Texas v. White | law case

I've already addressed this fraudulent case. At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks. It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union. A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate. Texas had none at the time.