Civil War Facts

[bripat9643]

It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....

Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.

Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates. All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.

The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.

We've been over this ground already. At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.

You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.

And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual.
link: Definition of perpetual | Dictionary.com
perpetual
[ per-pech-oo-uhl ]
adjective
continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.

 

[Unkotare]

Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.

Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates. All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.

The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.

We've been over this ground already. At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.

You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.

And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid ****.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates. All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.

The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.

We've been over this ground already. At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.

You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.

And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid ****.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

 

[Unkotare]

The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.

We've been over this ground already. At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.

You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.

And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid ****.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.

 

[bripat9643]

We've been over this ground already. At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.

You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.

And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid ****.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.

You're the one who keeps doing it, but I'm the one who doesn't understand it?

 

[Unkotare]

And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid ****.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.

.... I'm the one who doesn't understand it?

That is correct.

 

[bripat9643]

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid ****.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.

.... I'm the one who doesn't understand it?

That is correct.

So tell us again, dumbass, how is your theory that secession is illegal proven?

 

[Unkotare]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

Yes it is, moron. What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?

 

[Unkotare]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

Yes it is, moron. What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?

I knew you had no idea what it means. Idiot

 

[bripat9643]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

Yes it is, moron. What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?

I knew you had no idea what it means. Idiot

Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy. No one is infallible, moron. You believe the SC can't be wrong. The truth is that yes it can. The SC has been wrong numerous times.

 

[Unkotare]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

Yes it is, moron. What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?

I knew you had no idea what it means. Idiot

Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy. No one is infallible, moron. You believe the SC can't be wrong. The truth is that yes it can. The SC has been wrong numerous times.

Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.

 

[bripat9643]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

Yes it is, moron. What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?

I knew you had no idea what it means. Idiot

Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy. No one is infallible, moron. You believe the SC can't be wrong. The truth is that yes it can. The SC has been wrong numerous times.

Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.

wrong, idiot. You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.

 

[Unkotare]

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.

Yes it is, moron. What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?

I knew you had no idea what it means. Idiot

Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy. No one is infallible, moron. You believe the SC can't be wrong. The truth is that yes it can. The SC has been wrong numerous times.

Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.

wrong, idiot. You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.

Your straw man, brainless.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Texas v. White was a very biased, pre-determined, uncritical, and superficial decision made by a Republican-controlled Supreme Court at a time when feelings were still very raw over the Civil War. The court simply ignored the mass of evidence that the Union was supposed to be voluntary, that ratification was not mandated as permanent, and that the Constitution does not even describe the Union as perpetual/permanent. The decision also ignored the writings of two of early America's greatest legal giants: William Rawle and George Tucker, both of whom said that secession was an implied and understood constitutional right and that to deny that right would be to reject America's founding principles.

Secession is a lot like divorce. Sometimes the right of divorce is used for invalid/petty/immoral reasons, but no one suggests that we force the couple to stay together, even if one of the spouses opposes the separation.

As unnecessary, foolish, and unjustified as the Deep South's secession was, if the Republicans had not reacted so combatively and had respected the Deep South's right to leave, secession would have been limited to seven states, and those states might well have decided to rejoin the Union once tempers cooled down and Deep South leaders saw that Lincoln was not their enemy.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Constitution describes an attempt to make the Perpetual Union "more perfect". There was no negation stated of the original, permanent status.
That argument is more linguistically valid than the refutations so far submitted. In any case, the difference became of opinions, then degenerated into arms, unfortunately and unnecessarily. It was those attempting to leave the Union who precipitated this catastrophe. It was their attachment to the inhuman institute of slavery that led them to the attempt. They lost, and deservedly so.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Constitution describes an attempt to make the Perpetual Union "more perfect". There was no negation stated of the original, permanent status.

"More perfect" does not equal permanent. The framers of the Articles of Confederation constitution specified several times therein that the union it was forming was perpetual. The framers of the federal constitution did not so specify, precisely because they regarded it as an experiment that might fall apart through de-ratification.

Furthermore, I again point out that the federal framers made it clear that the federal union was *not* to be maintained by force. This subject came up in the constitutional debates, and the idea of a union maintained by force was expressly rejected.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

In any case, the difference became of opinions, then degenerated into arms, unfortunately and unnecessarily. It was those attempting to leave the Union who precipitated this catastrophe. It was their attachment to the inhuman institute of slavery that led them to the attempt. They lost, and deservedly so.

I pretty much agree with you here, but we need to be careful to point out that four of the 11 Confederate states did not secede over concerns about slavery. When the four Upper South states voted on secession the first time, when it was expressly mainly over slavery (and secondarily the tariff), they rejected secession by wide margins. Those four states only joined in April, after the Republicans made it clear that they were going to invade the seceded states (and would therefore have to march through the Upper South states).

I agree that the Deep Southern pro-slavery hotheads, such as Rhett and Wigfall, pushed the Deep South states to secede, partly by grossly distorting Lincoln's views and intentions and conjuring up non-existent Northern plans to carry out more John Brown raids. The irony is that Rhett and many of his associates honestly believed the slaves were better off in bondage than free. These guys had a moral blindspot that kept them from seeing that no matter how humanely slavery was administered in most cases, the fact that at least 5% of slaves were brutalized meant that, at the bare minimum, 175,000 slaves were enduring cruelty, which was a human catastrophe and justified the extinction of slavery as soon as possible.

 

[there4eyeM]

The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution describes an attempt to make the Perpetual Union "more perfect". There was no negation stated of the original, permanent status.
That argument is more linguistically valid than the refutations so far submitted. In any case, the difference became of opinions, then degenerated into arms, unfortunately and unnecessarily. It was those attempting to leave the Union who precipitated this catastrophe. It was their attachment to the inhuman institute of slavery that led them to the attempt. They lost, and deservedly so.

Man, you are so ******* desperate it's hilarious. None of what you claim has any basis in reality. The Articles of Confederate became waste paper the minute the Constitution was approved.

Lincoln started the war. Nothing in the Constitution bars secession. Those facts are indisputable.