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

[Zincwarrior]

Sorry dumbass. We are talking about the legality. Not the military victory. If you just want to depend on the military victory, that is fine, you have your victory.

But don't call us the traitor unless you prove the legality of your military victory. Which you can't. Which shows you damnYankees are the traitors.

How does it feel....traitor. Glory, glory, hallelujah....

Quantrill

You didn't read it. Literally everyone on the nation laughs at your revisionist cracker ass.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I agree, but my point is that Davis should have begun pushing for emancipation much earlier instead of waiting until late 1864.


You again show your racist colors.

Regarding the Trail of Tears, you might want to do a bit more reading on the subject, starting with Dr. Jeff Fynn-Paul's book Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World. BTW, are you aware that many of the Indians went voluntarily, that the U.S. Government spent years giving the Indians various offers to get them to leave voluntarily, that the death rate in the Trail of Tears forced marches was not that much higher than the death rate among some white handcart companies that crossed the plains in the 1850s, and that the Cherokee took several thousand black slaves with them to Oklahoma (then designated as Indian territory)?

I agree that the Trail of Tears forced marches were unjust and badly timed, but the woke narrative about them is exaggerated and selective.

Trail of Crybabies

The American version of Hamas, and of the same humanoid species.

 

[Quantrill]

the decision is in the case RETARD, read it.

I have read it. I see no Supreme Court decision on the legality or illegality of Secession. Seems like if it was there, you and others would be willing to present it. If you can't present it, you're just full of shit.

And, secession is proven legal by Article 7 and Article 10 of the Constitution of 1787. See my post #(75). The Union of 1787 was based upon secession.

Here it is as I know your to lazy to go back and read it.

Zincwarrior

And to enlarge upon the points I made in post #(73), in your post #(71) you said the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. Well, not now they are not. But they were at one time.

And our Union at that time was based upon that Constitution, and the States needed to ratify that Constitution in order to be part of that Union. Unanimity was required by all 13 States. And, unanimity was required to 'amend' any article in that Union. "...and the union shall be perpetual: nor shall any alteration at any time herafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." (Articles Of Confederation, #(XIII)) That was 1781.

Now, supposedly, that was what this group in Philadelphia, in 1787, were wanting to do, revise the Articles. But Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation wouldn't let them. Why? Because every state had to agree. Unanimity. That Union, that perpetual Union, would not allow it unless all agreed. And they knew that wasn't going to happen.

What was the answer? Secession. Come out of that Union into a new one we are creating. (Article VII) of our Constitution of 1787. "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

They only needed nine states to secede from our first union and create a new union.

"Article Seven assaults the established revisionary process...First, it invited secession, rejecting the Articles assertion that 'the Union shall be perpetual' and authorizing a walkout of nine states. As we shall see, this threat of secession was crucial in pushing states like New York and Virginia to give the Constitution their reluctant endorsement." (We The People, Bruce Ackerman, The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 34)

The Union of 1787, and the Constitution it created, is based upon secession from our first perpetual union.

Quantrill

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

You didn't read it. Literally everyone on the nation laughs at your revisionist cracker ass.

Yes I did. Oh gee, everyone laughs. Just makes me want to cry. Not!

At least I can present what I say and prove what I say instead of just giving an opinion, as you and others do. See again post #(75).

You haven't proven shit. And you're scared to present it. All yall can do is chirp, Texas vs. White, Texas vs white.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Show me where you have ever used the word "emoji." You have never posted "emoji."

^

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes I did. Oh gee, everyone laughs. Just makes me want to cry. Not!

At least I can present what I say and prove what I say instead of just giving an opinion, as you and others do. See again post #(75).

You haven't proven shit. And you're scared to present it. All yall can do is chirp, Texas vs. White, Texas vs white.

Quantrill

God you are stupid and keep proving it in thread after thread.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Trail of Crybabies

I wouldn't say that. Many Indians were subjected to abuse and cruelty during the Trail of Tears, but the number and scale of the mistreatment has been exaggerated, and traditional narratives rarely mention the fact that many of the Indians left voluntarily and that the government spent years making good offers to try to persuade the Indians to relocate.

The American version of Hamas, and of the same humanoid species.

I would say that's true of the Sioux, the Comanche, the Apache, some of the Cherokee tribes, some of the Iroquois tribes, and the Blackfoot. Far, far, far more Indians were killed by other Indians than were ever killed by whites. It's not even a close call.

The Crow, the Pawnee, the Navajo, and the Oneida largely cooperated with the U.S. Army and relatively rarely attacked white settlers. The Crow, for example, were eager to help the U.S. Army crush the Sioux because the Sioux had brutalized the Crow.

 

[Quantrill]

God you are stupid and keep proving it in thread after thread.

Who were the two parties represented in Texas vs. White?

Quantrill

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I wouldn't say that. Many Indians were subjected to abuse and cruelty during the Trail of Tears, but the number and scale of the mistreatment has been exaggerated, and traditional narratives rarely mention the fact that many of the Indians left voluntarily and that the government spent years making good offers to try to persuade the Indians to relocate.


I would say that's true of the Sioux, the Comanche, the Apache, some of the Cherokee tribes, some of the Iroquois tribes, and the Blackfoot. Far, far, far more Indians were killed by other Indians than were ever killed by whites. It's not even a close call.

The Crow, the Pawnee, the Navajo, and the Oneida largely cooperated with the U.S. Army and relatively rarely attacked white settlers. The Crow, for example, were eager to help the U.S. Army crush the Sioux because the Sioux had brutalized the Crow.

Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

It was a matter of opportunities available to revert to their inner man-killing beast. For example, the Comanche were originally a weak and frightened mountain tribe until they discovered horses. Then they went on a thrill-killing rampage, like their relative, Genghis Khan.

 

[Unkotare]

Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

It was a matter of opportunities available to revert to their inner man-killing beast. For example, the Comanche were originally a weak and frightened mountain tribe until they discovered horses. Then they went on a thrill-killing rampage, like their relative, Genghis Khan.

“Discovered”?

 

[Unkotare]

Who were the two parties represented in Texas vs. White?

Quantrill

Seriously?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Who were the two parties represented in Texas vs. White?

Quantrill

You should look it up and find out.

I am much more interested in the cases of Lee vs. Grant and Hood vs. Thomas.

 

[Quantrill]

So I asked, 'who were the two parties represented in 'Texas vs. White'? And what do I get in response? Nothing from the 'gunny'. Expected.

Then, from the canary emoji queen I get:

Seriously?

Then from the idiot in central Texas I get this:

You should look it up and find out.

I am much more interested in the cases of Lee vs. Grant and Hood vs. Thomas.

Why are all these afraid to answer the simple question?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So I asked, 'who were the two parties represented in 'Texas vs. White'? ...

You still don't get it. Hilarious.

 

[Zincwarrior]

So I asked, 'who were the two parties represented in 'Texas vs. White'? And what do I get in response? Nothing from the 'gunny'. Expected.

Then, from the canary emoji queen I get:



Then from the idiot in central Texas I get this:



Why are all these afraid to answer the simple question?

Quantrill

Because its stupid and irrelevant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So I asked, 'who were the two parties represented in 'Texas vs. White'? And what do I get in response? Nothing from the 'gunny'. Expected.

Then, from the canary emoji queen I get:



Then from the idiot in central Texas I get this:



Why are all these afraid to answer the simple question?

Quantrill

look retard it is in the decision, read it.

 

[JoeB131]

I wouldn't say that. Many Indians were subjected to abuse and cruelty during the Trail of Tears, but the number and scale of the mistreatment has been exaggerated, and traditional narratives rarely mention the fact that many of the Indians left voluntarily and that the government spent years making good offers to try to persuade the Indians to relocate.


I would say that's true of the Sioux, the Comanche, the Apache, some of the Cherokee tribes, some of the Iroquois tribes, and the Blackfoot. Far, far, far more Indians were killed by other Indians than were ever killed by whites. It's not even a close call.

The Crow, the Pawnee, the Navajo, and the Oneida largely cooperated with the U.S. Army and relatively rarely attacked white settlers. The Crow, for example, were eager to help the U.S. Army crush the Sioux because the Sioux had brutalized the Crow.

Wow, Mikey rationalizing Genocide. Who's surprised here.

 

[Quantrill]

You still don't get it. Hilarious.

Because its stupid and irrelevant.

look retard it is in the decision, read it.

So, the turd trio, says it's not important. Thus they refuse to answer...though my question was very simple. Who were the parties represented in Texas vs. White?

I will help. The Reconstructed era State of Texas was represented by George Paschal and R. T. Merrick who were the plaintiffs.

The defendants were Geroge W. White, and John Chiles.

The issue was: Can the state recover U.S. bonds sold by the Confederate government.

Note here that the U.S. government is not represented here. Only the State of Texas, under reconstruction, and White and Chiles. And it concerns, not the legality of secession, but the recovery of U.S. bonds.

Only Congress has the power to determine and identify 'statehood'. Not the Supreme Court. The legality of 'secession' can be brought before the Supreme Court, but it never was. It had the opportunity to do so in the U.S. vs Jeff Davis. But it balked out of fear that the North would be seen guilty of treason and not Jeff Davis.

In the Reconstruction Act of 1867 Congress declared that no State governments existed in the former Confederate States. Thus they were put under military districts. But now in Texas vs. White, Chase puts forth 'his opinion' that these Southern States were always states making secession illegal. But that is just his opinion. And he can base his judgement on his opinion all he wants, but the right of secession was not argued. He just gave his opinion. And his opinion is contrary to the Reconstruction Act of Congress in 1867.

Which means, when the right of secession is argued before the Supreme Court, it will be argued by the U.S. government and whoever disagrees with them. Meaning the U.S. government must be a party and whoever disagrees must be a party. And in Texas vs. White, the U.S. government was not party to. But in the case of treason against Jeff Davis it was perfect, for secession would dictate if Davis was a traitor or not.

Texas vs. White, which was just about 3 months after Davis was freed, was just Chase's effort to create some sort of legality that he and the North all thought they had with the Davis trial, for the war that they started and won. It was typical Yankee bullshit. Doing what it wanted even though the law was against them. But then, the law was just a tool to the Yankee to do what he wanted.

Now the turd trio will respond since I gave them information. Because they were too scared to respond before because they don't know shit.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

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]

Wow, Mikey rationalizing Genocide. Who's surprised here.

LOL! You call the Trail of Tears "genocide"?! The death rate was not much higher than the death rate of some white handcart companies that traveled to the western territories. Plus, I'm sure you don't know that a sizable part of the Indians who moved from GA, NC, AL, and TN went voluntarily and were not involved in the Trail of Tears.

Tell us again, Joe, why "Hitler wasn't the problem" and why the Nazis and all other Germans had valid reasons for hating the Jews after WWI. Tell us again how Jews wrecked Germany after WWI. Tell us again why living under Hamas's tyranny in Gaza is better than living in Israel. Tell us again why Mao's Red China was a better place to live than Free China. And on and on and on we could go.

Quantrill said:

Texas vs. White, which was just about 3 months after Davis was freed, was just Chase's effort to create some sort of legality that he and the North all thought they had with the Davis trial, . . .

Texas v. White is a total joke. I wonder if those who keep citing it have actually read it. Chase didn't even mention any of the early American legal giants who said secession was constitutional, much less address their arguments. Nor could he point to any sentence in the Constitution that expressly prohibited a state from revoking its ratification. Nor could he point to any sentence in the Constitution that said the Union was "perpetual," even though the Articles of Confederation had contained this verbiage. Nor did Chase address the clear implications of Article IV, Section 4, which prohibits the federal government from sending troops into a state without the permission of the governor or the legislature on the pretext of protecting the state from invasion or domestic violence. And on and on we could go.

Heck, even Ulysses S. Grant admitted that the founding fathers did not intend for the federal government to use force to keep states from leaving the Union.

This is not to mention that the Chase court that produced Texas v. White was the poster child for a packed court. If ever a court could be accused of being packed, the Chase court was it.