Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[James Everett]

It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.

You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.

Oh, thats simply not true and you know it. All alyone need do is schroll through this thread to see that you are not telling the truth.
I have cited YOUR CONstitution, The CONstitutional debated #32, 39, and 62, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, I have cited the law: You? well lets face it, the best you could do is cite Texas v White, and attempted to use it as a case on secession rather than what the case actually was about. Clearly you don't understand DICTA.
You are at the same lower level as JAKE STARKEY when it comes to knowledge and understanding.

 

[Unkotare]

It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.

You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.

Oh, thats simply not true and you know it. ....

It is obviously true, and anyone can read this thread to see it for themselves. You have done nothing but make a futile fool of yourself.


Guess who's job it is to interpret the US Constitution? Guess what that court has had to say about secession, dopey? You don't have to guess, I have quoted it for you many times on this thread.

 

[James Everett]

It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.

You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.

Oh, thats simply not true and you know it. ....

It is obviously true, and anyone can read this thread to see it for themselves. You have done nothing but make a futile fool of yourself.


Guess who's job it is to interpret the US Constitution? Guess what that court has had to say about secession, dopey? You don't have to guess, I have quoted it for you many times on this thread.

Ever hear of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200
I suppose you agree with that SCOTUS interpretation of YOUR CONstitution as well?
The court held that, Ms. Buck was in fact forcibly sterilized, as were tens of thousands of other people across the nation after Buck v. Bell was decided.
YOUR SCOTUS opinion....
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
It was this opinion that legalized the Eugenics programs in YOUR U.S. and the model that Nazi Germany used for its Master Race program.
Sorry, but YOUR SCOTUS opinions on YOUR CONstitution, are well known to be tainted by racism, and political bias. What could one expect from political appointees who interpret such to fit the political desires of the political body which appoint them.
Again concerning Texas v White....
It was not a case concerning secession, I have shown you that, as well as the flaws in that opinion, and the fact that Texas v White would not have any bearing on a case concerning secession.
In fact when a State secedes YOUR SCOTUS at the point of secession has lost Jurisdiction to hear a case on the subject.
This is the reason that the Secessions of the Southern States have never been brought before the SCOTUS, and why Scalia referred to the war as settling the issue, because the SCOTUS could never hear the case as it has no jurisdiction. What you have is a fictional opinion on secession, and a coverup of the fact that YOUR SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in such case.
Lincoln appointees dominated the court

Chief Justice S.P. Chase of Ohio, a Lincoln appointee, delivered the opinion. Other associate justices and appointing presidents were Samuel Nelson, New York (Tyler); R.C. Grier, Pennsylvania (Polk); N. Clifford, Maine (Buchanan); N.H. Swayne, Ohio (Lincoln); S.F. Miller, Iowa (Lincoln); David Davis, Illinois (Lincoln) and S. J. Field, California (Lincoln).

The heavily dominated Lincoln court heard the case, with Chase delivering the opinion.
It is your choice to accept fiction, NOT mine.

 

[Liminal]

CSA was a treasonous governing entity. It was executed by the North. I can never be resurrected.

Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE? Never say Never.

Poland was legitimate, the CSA never. Study the fallacy of false comparison. You are so easy to do deal with. A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany. They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with.
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty? When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.

 

[Liminal]

I do understand what I post....

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.

 

[Liminal]

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.

How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war? The question remains in some people's minds. Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means. Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession? Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession? If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.

 

[James Everett]

CSA was a treasonous governing entity. It was executed by the North. I can never be resurrected.

Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE? Never say Never.

Poland was legitimate, the CSA never. Study the fallacy of false comparison. You are so easy to do deal with. A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany. They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with.
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty? When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.

Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
One of the self evident truths is that.....
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
Do you deny this self evident truth?
In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....
Joseph Goebbels, once said....
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
You may find more truth at......
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
CSAgov.org
News Articles and events...
"How to turn a cow into a goat"

 

[Liminal]

CSA was a treasonous governing entity. It was executed by the North. I can never be resurrected.

Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE? Never say Never.

Poland was legitimate, the CSA never. Study the fallacy of false comparison. You are so easy to do deal with. A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany. They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with.
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty? When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.

Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
One of the self evident truths is that.....
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
Do you deny this self evident truth?
In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....
Joseph Goebbels, once said....
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
You may find more truth at......
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
CSAgov.org
News Articles and events...
"How to turn a cow into a goat"

Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.

 

[James Everett]

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

The men who "wrote" Your CONstitution, were not the founders, they were the framers. There was a spit among the founders' over that 1787/1789 CONstitution, Many were federalist's who wished to retain the wholly federal system under the ARticles of Confederation, others were NATIONALISTS (Rats/Ratifiers) who wanted to establish a wholly national government. Because of the federalist, the Nationalists were forced to comprimise, giving YOU the cobbled together system that became YOUR CONstitution, however as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the federal portion was removed fullfilling the Nationalists dream of a destruction of the union of States under a wholly national government system.
Ask yourself these questions....
What say do the State governments have in legislation today?
What department do the State governments have within the collective of States that they established as a central body between themselves?
Who within that central governing body represent the State governments that make up the fictional United States that is said to exist today?
Can a union of States exist without those State governments being party to that union?
A State is defined as a mode of government, NOT a body of people within a geographical area with defined boundaries: Such is a territory, or a province.

 

[James Everett]

Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE? Never say Never.

Poland was legitimate, the CSA never. Study the fallacy of false comparison. You are so easy to do deal with. A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany. They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with.
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty? When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.

Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
One of the self evident truths is that.....
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
Do you deny this self evident truth?
In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....
Joseph Goebbels, once said....
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
You may find more truth at......
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
CSAgov.org
News Articles and events...
"How to turn a cow into a goat"

Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.

Your indoctrination stands in your way, as you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Each State had diplomatic recognition within the Confederacy, in the form of appointed State representatives called Senators, just as each member State within the United Nations has an appointed diplomat within that union/confederacy of States.
One could view our Southern Confederacy as a united nations.
You must free yourself of the indoctrination.
CSAgov.org

 

[Unkotare]

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. .

The Point of view of a buffoon who thinks ignorance and insistence can alter reality.

 

[Unkotare]

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.

How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war? The question remains in some people's minds. Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means. Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession? Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession? If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.

The Supreme court has not been vague on the matter.

 

[James Everett]

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.

How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war? The question remains in some people's minds. Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means. Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession? Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession? If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.

This is why the restoration cause exists, as it is a legal means to return to the Articles of Confederation in order that we may once again have a union/confederacy of States under a wholly federal system. The Articles were fine for the purpose of a union of States, the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution sought to create the national system that exists today wherein it hold not only an authority over the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things. In other words a tyranny.

 

[Liminal]

Poland was legitimate, the CSA never. Study the fallacy of false comparison. You are so easy to do deal with. A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany. They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with.
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty? When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.

Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
One of the self evident truths is that.....
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
Do you deny this self evident truth?
In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....
Joseph Goebbels, once said....
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
You may find more truth at......
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
CSAgov.org
News Articles and events...
"How to turn a cow into a goat"

Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.

Your indoctrination stands in your way, as you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Each State had diplomatic recognition within the Confederacy, in the form of appointed State representatives called Senators, just as each member State within the United Nations has an appointed diplomat within that union/confederacy of States.
One could view our Southern Confederacy as a united nations.
You must free yourself of the indoctrination.
CSAgov.org

Oh I see, well then since I've been so thoroughly indoctrinated there's probably no basis for discussion. My closed mind won't allow it.

 

[James Everett]

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. .

The Point of view of a buffoon who thinks ignorance and insistence can alter reality.

Liminal is not a buffoon, Liminal has one thing correct, and that is that YOUR U.S. CONstitution is an abysmal failure. Liminal just need to escape the indoctrination, just as do you.

 

[Unkotare]

We are not a confederacy, we are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

 

[James Everett]

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with.
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty? When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.

Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
One of the self evident truths is that.....
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
Do you deny this self evident truth?
In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....
Joseph Goebbels, once said....
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
You may find more truth at......
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
CSAgov.org
News Articles and events...
"How to turn a cow into a goat"

Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.

Your indoctrination stands in your way, as you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Each State had diplomatic recognition within the Confederacy, in the form of appointed State representatives called Senators, just as each member State within the United Nations has an appointed diplomat within that union/confederacy of States.
One could view our Southern Confederacy as a united nations.
You must free yourself of the indoctrination.
CSAgov.org

Oh I see, well then since I've been so thoroughly indoctrinated there's probably no basis for discussion. My closed mind won't allow it.

A closed mind is like a closed door: It can be reopened.
I am not picking on anyone here, I am simply trying to expose the truth.
Some simply deny the truth no matter the facts presented. It is no different that the divide and conquer strategy in place via the Repug, and dimwitacrat parties established to act like any sport contention wherein the spectators choose sides. No matter what the facts are the one who knows he is wrong and the facts prove such, he will still defend the position of his team to the point of making a loud mouth fool of himself.

 

[Unkotare]

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. .

The Point of view of a buffoon who thinks ignorance and insistence can alter reality.

Liminal is not a buffoon, .

I was referring to YOU, moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

No, he presents a point of view. And what does that tell you about our Constitution? It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.

Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.

How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war? The question remains in some people's minds. Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means. Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession? Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession? If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.

Because the law said so in statute and the war said so in fact.

There are no moral questions that change that.

There are no emotional feelings that change that.

This thread is merely an intellectual game play, nothing more. Mental masturbation, just like physical, is sterile in the result.