If I Had Been President of the Confederacy. . . .

[Quantrill]

Feels good...loser~

Feels good to you, the military victor. How does it feel to be the traitor to America. Does that 'feel good' also?

If it does, so be it. Own it. You are the traitor, and it feels good.

Glory, glory..hallelujah,

Quantrill

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Feels good to you, the military victor. How does it feel to be the traitor to America. Does that 'feel good' also?

If it does, so be it. Own it. You are the traitor, and it feels good.

Glory, glory..hallelujah,

Quantrill

Must suck for you--always being on the wrong side of history~

 

[Quantrill]

Must suck for you--always being on the wrong side of history~

What does that mean, 'being on the wrong side of history'?

It's you sucking on that cigar (dick). How does it taste?

Quantrill

 

[jacksonlamb]

Says you. Yet you have offered nothing but bullshit. I showed you proof. You showed me shit.

How does it feel...traitor?

Quantrill

You have offered a subjective narrow propaganda tale of... nothing.

 

[jacksonlamb]

What does that mean, 'being on the wrong side of history'?

It's you sucking on that cigar (dick). How does it taste?

Quantrill

Why so ugly? You are wrong. You will get over it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Feels good to you, the military victor. How does it feel to be the traitor to America. Does that 'feel good' also?

If it does, so be it. Own it. You are the traitor, and it feels good.

Glory, glory..hallelujah,

Quantrill

Sit down, drink some water, and close your eyes. Rest.

 

[Quantrill]

You have offered a subjective narrow propaganda tale of... nothing.

Sorry. The truth hurts doesn't it.

Shame you have nothing to prove my post #(29) wrong. Here it is again.

It certainly was the law. June of 1861 a Confederate ship was captured, the Savannah. The crew were tried as 'pirates' as the U.S. did not recognize the Confederate govt. The jury refused to convict and the prosecution then refused to retry. The crew were eventually exchanged as 'prisoners of war'. Which was another acknowledgement of the Confederacy by the North.

In other words, the U.S. wanted it both ways. They wanted no recognition of the Confederacy. So they try the crew as pirates. But then in the course of the trial, the legal ramifications of the blockade would come into play, which was an acknowledgement of the Confederacy making the crew prisoners of war and not pirates. The jury saw through the legal juggling (lying) the U.S. was trying to do and would not convict. The Yankee prosecution saw the same and so refused to pursue it and the crew were later exchanged as prisoners of war.

In other words, it is not just my opinion. When put to the test by the courts, and not some military mob rule bullshit set up, it was the law.

Quantrill

If you or others have something, by all means, present it. If not, take your toys and go somewhere else and play. Your one liner statements prove nothing other than you are ignorant concerning the subject. Your opinion means nothing if you can't back it up.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Was the Confederacy ever officially recognized by the US or other countries?

England, France, Spain, and Mexico recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent, which is a status just short of formal diplomatic recognition. A belligerent entity must control territory, have a responsible authority, and adhere to the laws of war. This is why Confederate ships were able to dock at British, French, Spanish, and Mexican ports, including the crucial Mexican port of Matamoros, which enabled Confederate forces in Texas to receive an abundant amount of supplies, ammo, and weapons.

It should be noted that only one country recognized the 13 American colonies as an independent nation during the War of Independence, and that was France. After the British surrendered at Yorktown in October 1781, two more nations, the Dutch Republic and Spain, recognized America as a sovereign nation.

 

[Unkotare]

Sorry. The truth hurts doesn't it.

Shame you have nothing to prove my post #(29) wrong. Here it is again.


If you or others have something, by all means, present it. If not, take your toys and go somewhere else and play. Your one liner statements prove nothing other than you are ignorant concerning the subject. Your opinion means nothing if you can't back it up.

Quantrill

Texas v White

 

[Zincwarrior]

Texas v White

to whit:
No legal secession. No right to secession.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.<a href="Texas v. White - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a>

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.<a href="Texas v. White - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a>

 

[Quantrill]

to whit:
No legal secession. No right to secession.

Who said the 'Union' was 'perpetual', was indissoluble? You?

Quantrill

 

[Zincwarrior]

Who said the 'Union' was 'perpetual', was indissoluble? You?

Quantrill

The Supreme Court of the United States.* That's their direct opinion.

*backed by the full faith and credit of 800,000 Union Patriots at the time.

 

[Quantrill]

The Supreme Court of the United States.* That's their direct opinion.

*backed by the full faith and credit of 800,000 Union Patriots at the time.

Where was the 'Perpetual Union' argued before the Supreme Court?

Union Patriots don't prove the Union was/is perpetual?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Where was the 'Perpetual Union' argued before the Supreme Court?

…

Texas v White

 

[Zincwarrior]

Where was the 'Perpetual Union' argued before the Supreme Court?

Union Patriots don't prove the Union was/is perpetual?

Quantrill

The case of Texas vs. White that Unkatore cited

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

Texas v. White: States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

supreme.justia.com

I have now linked the actual opinion.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Texas v. White
to whit:
No legal secession. No right to secession.

Texas v. White is a partisan, shallow joke. Secession wasn't even the primary issue before the court in that case. Notice that the majority said nothing about the two earliest American legal giants who commented on the right of secession, William Rawle and George Tucker, both of whom said secession was constitutional.

Rawle said a state had the right to secede. Rawle was a contemporary of founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and was appointed by George Washington as the first U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania. Rawle's book A View of the Constitution of the United States was used as a legal textbook at a number of universities, including West Point, Dartmouth, and Harvard. To this day, scholars who debate legal issues relating to the First and Second Amendments refer to Rawle's work. On the issue of secession, Rawle said,

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. . . . (A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2nd Edition, 1829, Vol. 4, p. 571)

Like Rawle, Tucker was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and corresponded with the former. Tucker came to be known as the "American Blackstone." Tucker was a professor of law at the University of William and Mary. He served as the chief justice of the Virginia supreme court and was appointed as a federal district court judge by President James Madison. Tucker's 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, which he annotated to American law, was widely used for the teaching of law in the United States for years. On the issue of secession, Tucker wrote that the states' participation in the Union was voluntary and that each state had the right to resume to "the most unlimited extent" the functions that it had delegated to the federal government:

The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the situation require, to resume the exercise of its functions as such in the most unlimited extent. (Tucker, editor, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, Volume 1, Philadelphia: William Birch and Abraham Small, 1803, Appendix: Note D, Section 3:IV)

Also, compare the hollow, superficial arguments made in Texas v. White with the facts presented in my two articles on the subject:

Proof That the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation: The Founding Principle of Secession

You're expressing the same view on secession that the British expressed when the American Colonies attempted to secede. Thankfully, the Colonies were able to defeat the British and win their independence; but, as I document in my second article, the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders bitterly resented England's attempt to force the Colonies to remain under British control--they said it was immoral and unnatural (contrary to natural law). You, like the British, say it was just fine and dandy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Texas v. White is a partisan, shallow joke. Secession wasn't even the primary issue before the court in that case. Notice that the majority said nothing about the two earliest American legal giants who commented on the right of secession, William Rawle and George Tucker, both of whom said secession was constitutional.

Were either on SCOTUS? Apparently not. Their opinions mattered apparently not either.

Now back to the topic. I'd rather think about what I would do instead of Lincoln. Forget Virginia. Invade through Tennessee!
Look at this incredibly detailed and well thought out battle plan!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Texas v. White is a partisan, shallow joke. Secession wasn't even the primary issue before the court in that case. Notice that the majority said nothing about the two earliest American legal giants who commented on the right of secession, William Rawle and George Tucker, both of whom said secession was constitutional.

Rawle said a state had the right to secede. Rawle was a contemporary of founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and was appointed by George Washington as the first U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania. Rawle's book A View of the Constitution of the United States was used as a legal textbook at a number of universities, including West Point, Dartmouth, and Harvard. To this day, scholars who debate legal issues relating to the First and Second Amendments refer to Rawle's work. On the issue of secession, Rawle said,

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. . . . (A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2nd Edition, 1829, Vol. 4, p. 571)

Like Rawle, Tucker was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and corresponded with the former. Tucker came to be known as the "American Blackstone." Tucker was a professor of law at the University of William and Mary. He served as the chief justice of the Virginia supreme court and was appointed as a federal district court judge by President James Madison. Tucker's 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, which he annotated to American law, was widely used for the teaching of law in the United States for years. On the issue of secession, Tucker wrote that the states' participation in the Union was voluntary and that each state had the right to resume to "the most unlimited extent" the functions that it had delegated to the federal government:

The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the situation require, to resume the exercise of its functions as such in the most unlimited extent. (Tucker, editor, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, Volume 1, Philadelphia: William Birch and Abraham Small, 1803, Appendix: Note D, Section 3:IV)

Also, compare the hollow, superficial arguments made in Texas v. White with the facts presented in my two articles on the subject:

Proof That the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation: The Founding Principle of Secession

You're expressing the same view on secession that the British expressed when the American Colonies attempted to secede. Thankfully, the Colonies were able to defeat the British and win their independence; but, as I document in my second article, the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders bitterly resented England's attempt to force the Colonies to remain under British control--they said it was immoral and unnatural (contrary to natural law). You, like the British, say it was just fine and dandy.

What a steaming pile of shyte.

The ruling is what matters...and it’s all that matters.

Your attempt to argue it away amuses~

 

[mikegriffith1]

What a steaming pile of shyte. The ruling is what matters...and it’s all that matters. Your attempt to argue it away amuses~

Oh, really? That's what the Democrats said about the Supreme Court's Dred Scott v. Sandford decision! As I hope you know, in that case the court's majority ruled that slaves were not U.S. citizens, that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, and that slaves were not entitled to any of the protections that the Constitution gave to American citizens.

Well, gee, if "the ruling is what matters and is all that matters" then all the arguments against the Dred Scott decision were just steaming piles of dung and were merely amusing, right?

Do you really believe that the partisan hack majority in Texas v. White knew the Constitution and constitutional history better than Rawle and Tucker?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Oh, really? That's what the Democrats said about the Supreme Court's Dred Scott v. Sandford decision! As I hope you know, in that case the court's majority ruled that slaves were not U.S. citizens, that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, and that slaves were not entitled to any of the protections that the Constitution gave to American citizens.

Well, gee, if "the ruling is what matters and is all that matters" then all the arguments against the Dred Scott decision were just steaming piles of dung and were merely amusing, right?

Kind of. It took the post ACW Amendments to change it, unfortunately.

Do you really believe that the partisan hack majority in Texas v. White knew the Constitution and constitutional history better than Rawle and Tucker?

They were SCOTUS. Of course they did. Your cites were irrelevant.
Further, they decided the case AFTER the war. Thats what mattered.

Now back to the topic. Lets talk about why the Union didn't focus on Tennessee instead of Virginia? OK it was a definite focus, but not THE Focus.