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

[Quantrill]

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.

I doubt if they have read it or understood what it means to have a case argued before the Supreme Court. I simply asked who the parties represented were, and they all balked like that was stupid....but wouldn't answer. They are link knowledge children. They can send you to a link but they can't answer the questions, because they don't know shit.

Texas vs White has been a scam used by the North to somehow vindicate their response in that War. And most choose to believe it. I say 'choose' because if any did any research they would see it is all bullshit.

But then, who cares about the truth when you got emojis.

By the way, I obtained the book 'Dark Union' and am presently reading it. It is extremely interesting. I also obtained Otto Eisenschiml's book, but chose to read 'Dark Union' first. I have a third on the way.

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.

^^^

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Again, Mikey rationalizing GENOCIDE when it isn't white people. Why am I not surprised?

My great-grandmother was Cherokee. No, it was a genocide.

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.

Okay, they overthrew the Kaiser in the middle of a war and agreed to a humiliating peace where Germany starved for a year and was economically wiped out. You keep whining that I say this, but you never really can refute it.

My grandparents immigrated from Germany in 1925. My dad fought in the US Army in WWII. You should have heard my dad go on about the "Jews". Not because they were "Nazis", they left before Nazis were even a thing. But because they were damned angry about what had been done to their country.

"Anti-Semitism" (a stupid word) was integrated into German culture long before Hitler came along, and everything they did during the Weimar Shit-Show(TM) just made things worse.

But we all pretend none of that happened because we feel bad about the Holocaust. Kind of like Christians are all shocked when Mel Gibson accurately portrays the Crucifixion. (By accurate, I mean how it is portrayed in the Bible, not that I think Jesus ever existed.)

 

[JoeB131]

ell us again why living under Hamas's tyranny in Gaza is better than living in Israel.

You mean where Israel is genociding people in Gaza?

Tell us again why Mao's Red China was a better place to live than Free China.

That's an easy one. If you lived in "Free" China, if you weren't being raped by maurading Japanese soldiers that Peanut couldn't be bothered to do anything about, you were often at the mercy of warlords who happily took everything you worked for.

Here's how you know Mao was better than Chiang. Mao won and is still revered in China today. Chiang lost, and even Taiwan treats him like kind of an embarrassment.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Getting back to Texas v. White for a moment, if you have not read Chief Justice Chase's majority opinion, you probably do not know that Chase’s entire argument against secession was contained in a single paragraph in which he claimed the Union was perpetual:

4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

This was Chase’s entire argument against secession, a single paragraph that simply claimed the Union was perpetual, without citing a single source to establish this claim. Are you kidding me?

Legal scholar James Ostrowski answers Chase’s specious argument in a chapter in the book Secession, State, and Liberty:

Significantly, the exhortation of perpetuity from the Articles--which was repeated five times--was dropped by the new Constitution. . . . Their omission is especially significant since the term "perpetuity" was part of the full name of the Articles: "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." Thus, the Framers could not have missed the term.

More importantly, a comparison of the two texts reveals, contrary to popular thought, that much copying was done by the Framers of the Constitution. Entire clauses from the Articles were imported virtually word for word into the Constitution. Examples include the following clauses: privileges and immunities, extradition, full faith and credit, congressional immunity while in session, ban on state treaties, and ban on state imposts and duties. The Framers were clearly conversant with the text of the Articles, yet no mention of perpetuity appears in the Constitution. (p. 163)

These were not the only facts that Chase simply ignored. He said nothing about the fact that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison endorsed the right of secession. He said nothing about the fact that the two greatest legal giants of the founding era, William Rawle and George Tucker, both said secession was constitutional. He said nothing about the Northern politicians and authorities who had advocated Northern secession as a legal option. He said nothing about the fact that the Constitution’s framers, along with other Patriot leaders, believed the Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England, and that England’s attempt to deny the Colonies independence was immoral and unnatural. Chase said nothing about any of these facts.

If you reject the right of secession, then you are saying (1) that the British had every right to use force to try to keep the American Colonies under England's control, (2) that the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders were wrong when they argued the Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England, and (3) that the founding fathers gave the federal government the very right that they emphatically said the British government did not have--the right to use force to keep member states from seceding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Getting back to Texas v. White for a moment, if you have not read Chief Justice Chase's majority opinion, you probably do not know that Chase’s entire argument against secession was contained in a single paragraph in which he claimed the Union was perpetual:

4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

This was Chase’s entire argument against secession, a single paragraph that simply claimed the Union was perpetual, without citing a single source to establish this claim. Are you kidding me?

Legal scholar James Ostrowski answers Chase’s specious argument in a chapter in the book Secession, State, and Liberty:

Significantly, the exhortation of perpetuity from the Articles--which was repeated five times--was dropped by the new Constitution. . . . Their omission is especially significant since the term "perpetuity" was part of the full name of the Articles: "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." Thus, the Framers could not have missed the term.

More importantly, a comparison of the two texts reveals, contrary to popular thought, that much copying was done by the Framers of the Constitution. Entire clauses from the Articles were imported virtually word for word into the Constitution. Examples include the following clauses: privileges and immunities, extradition, full faith and credit, congressional immunity while in session, ban on state treaties, and ban on state imposts and duties. The Framers were clearly conversant with the text of the Articles, yet no mention of perpetuity appears in the Constitution. (p. 163)

These were not the only facts that Chase simply ignored. He said nothing about the fact that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison endorsed the right of secession. He said nothing about the fact that the two greatest legal giants of the founding era, William Rawle and George Tucker, both said secession was constitutional. He said nothing about the Northern politicians and authorities who had advocated Northern secession as a legal option. He said nothing about the fact that the Constitution’s framers, along with other Patriot leaders, believed the Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England, and that England’s attempt to deny the Colonies independence was immoral and unnatural. Chase said nothing about any of these facts.

If you reject the right of secession, then you are saying (1) that the British had every right to use force to try to keep the American Colonies under England's control, (2) that the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders were wrong when they argued the Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England, and (3) that the founding fathers gave the federal government the very right that they emphatically said the British government did not have--the right to use force to keep member states from seceding.

he said you CAN leave dumb ass; you just need the permission of the other states.

 

[mikegriffith1]

he said you CAN leave dumb ass; you just need the permission of the other states.

Oh, come on. That's absurd. That's the same argument the British used. The British said, "Oh, you can have independence, when we agree to give it to you, but not until then." So you're siding with the British and saying they had every right to send armies to the Colonies to try to keep the Colonies under their control.

The whole point of the right of secession is that you do not need the permission of the other states. Otherwise, it is a meaningless right. No state was bound by another state's ratification of the Constitution, so it logically follows that no state that wanted to revoke its ratification needed the permission of the other states to do so. There is not one word in the Constitution that says a state cannot revoke its ratification and resume the full powers of government, and several states specified in their ratification ordinances that the states retained this vital right.

Either the British and the Republicans were right and the founding fathers, other Patriot leaders, and the Confederates were wrong, or the founders, other Patriots, and Confederates were right and the British and the Republicans were wrong.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Either the British and the Republicans were right and the founding fathers, other Patriot leaders, and the Confederates were wrong, or the founders, other Patriots, and Confederates were right and the British and the Republicans were wrong.

The British were right, until they lost.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The British were right, until they lost.

That makes no sense. They were either right or they were wrong, regardless of whether they won or lost. If the British were right while they were trying to force the Colonies to remain under their control, how did they suddenly become wrong just because their attempt at coercion failed? The founding fathers said the British were wrong for even trying to force the Colonies to stay under their control, long before they knew whether they could defeat the British.

Let me just repeat the fact that even Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of the Union army for much of the Civil War and later a president of the United States, admitted he believed that if any of the original 13 states had wanted to secede in the early days of the Union, it was unlikely the other states would have challenged that state’s right to do so. Grant also conceded that he believed the founding fathers would have sanctioned the right of secession rather than see a war “between brothers.” Said Grant,

If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. . . .

If they [the founding fathers] had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers. (The Personal Memoirs Of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint of original edition, pp. 130-131)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, come on. That's absurd. That's the same argument the British used. The British said, "Oh, you can have independence, when we agree to give it to you, but not until then." So you're siding with the British and saying they had every right to send armies to the Colonies to try to keep the Colonies under their control.

The whole point of the right of secession is that you do not need the permission of the other states. Otherwise, it is a meaningless right. No state was bound by another state's ratification of the Constitution, so it logically follows that no state that wanted to revoke its ratification needed the permission of the other states to do so. There is not one word in the Constitution that says a state cannot revoke its ratification and resume the full powers of government, and several states specified in their ratification ordinances that the states retained this vital right.

Either the British and the Republicans were right and the founding fathers, other Patriot leaders, and the Confederates were wrong, or the founders, other Patriots, and Confederates were right and the British and the Republicans were wrong.

Of course, the British, as a sovereign nation had the right to oppose the separation of the colonies. They lost though and we won. The South had no right to leave unless they petitioned the Congress. The US had every right to oppose them and again we won so you lost.

 

[mikegriffith1]

he said you CAN leave dumb ass; you just need the permission of the other states.

That's like joining what you believe is a voluntary association and then being told you can't leave the association without the permission of the other association members. That's no "right" at all. That's authoritarianism and bondage.

It's like a wife who wants a divorce being told she can't leave the marriage unless her husband agrees to let her go. She has no right to leave in that case.

If something is a right, you don't need someone else's permission to exercise it. Chase's statist, authoritarian logic is the same attitude that the British had toward American independence and the same position that the Soviet Union took toward the Baltic states when they wanted to be free of Soviet control. True story: When Bush Sr. urged the Soviets to let the Baltic states, the Soviets cited the example of the U.S. Government's refusal to allow the Southern states to leave the Union.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That makes no sense.

Sure it does. If you win, you were right.

Of course, the British, as a sovereign nation had the right to oppose the separation of the colonies. They lost though and we won. The South had no right to leave unless they petitioned the Congress. The US had every right to oppose them and again we won so you lost.

What RGS said!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Getting back to Texas v. White for a moment, if you have not read Chief Justice Chase's majority opinion, you probably do not know that Chase’s entire argument against secession was contained in a single paragraph in which he claimed the Union was perpetual:

4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

This was Chase’s entire argument against secession, a single paragraph that simply claimed the Union was perpetual, without citing a single source to establish this claim. Are you kidding me?

Legal scholar James Ostrowski answers Chase’s specious argument in a chapter in the book Secession, State, and Liberty:

Significantly, the exhortation of perpetuity from the Articles--which was repeated five times--was dropped by the new Constitution. . . . Their omission is especially significant since the term "perpetuity" was part of the full name of the Articles: "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." Thus, the Framers could not have missed the term.

More importantly, a comparison of the two texts reveals, contrary to popular thought, that much copying was done by the Framers of the Constitution. Entire clauses from the Articles were imported virtually word for word into the Constitution. Examples include the following clauses: privileges and immunities, extradition, full faith and credit, congressional immunity while in session, ban on state treaties, and ban on state imposts and duties. The Framers were clearly conversant with the text of the Articles, yet no mention of perpetuity appears in the Constitution. (p. 163)

These were not the only facts that Chase simply ignored. He said nothing about the fact that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison endorsed the right of secession. He said nothing about the fact that the two greatest legal giants of the founding era, William Rawle and George Tucker, both said secession was constitutional. He said nothing about the Northern politicians and authorities who had advocated Northern secession as a legal option. He said nothing about the fact that the Constitution’s framers, along with other Patriot leaders, believed the Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England, and that England’s attempt to deny the Colonies independence was immoral and unnatural. Chase said nothing about any of these facts.

If you reject the right of secession, then you are saying (1) that the British had every right to use force to try to keep the American Colonies under England's control, (2) that the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders were wrong when they argued the Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England, and (3) that the founding fathers gave the federal government the very right that they emphatically said the British government did not have--the right to use force to keep member states from seceding.

The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops. The North Had No Moral Superiority.

The Founding Fodder violated the Preamble by not even trying to form a "more perfect union." The fact that it had to be created by war shows how ineffective the Constitution was in meeting its declared goals. Gouverneur Morris set the tone by self-righteously butting in on what should have been no concern of the North, practically calling the South's delegates "Satanic."

Any government that really felt its primary duty was to save the union could have done so by taking all the islands in the Caribbean, which was the original Monroe Doctrine, avoiding the clash over Kansas and other western territories. Also, counting the slaves as 100% dependents. The same people who feel that Illegal aliens are "undocumented citizens" now are of the ilk that sent Americans off to kill their fellow Americans on behalf of Africans.

 

[JoeB131]

That's like joining what you believe is a voluntary association and then being told you can't leave the association without the permission of the other association members. That's no "right" at all. That's authoritarianism and bondage.

Funny, that's probably what black people thought.

It's like a wife who wants a divorce being told she can't leave the marriage unless her husband agrees to let her go. She has no right to leave in that case.

Sounds like your analogy is straining. Also, don't you believe in Eternal Marriage?

If something is a right, you don't need someone else's permission to exercise it. Chase's statist, authoritarian logic is the same attitude that the British had toward American independence and the same position that the Soviet Union took toward the Baltic states when they wanted to be free of Soviet control. True story: When Bush Sr. urged the Soviets to let the Baltic states, the Soviets cited the example of the U.S. Government's refusal to allow the Southern states to leave the Union.

Given what a cluster-screw the breakup of the USSR turned out to be, they probably had a point.

 

[Quantrill]

You mean where Israel is genociding people in Gaza?

Yeah, that's the one. Is that a problem?

he said you CAN leave dumb ass; you just need the permission of the other states.

But who says the South needed the permission of other states?

Funny, that's probably what black people thought.

Ever wonder what those black people thought about them Northern Black Codes before the War? When did those end by the way?

Again, Mikey rationalizing GENOCIDE when it isn't white people. Why am I not surprised?

When fighting the Indians, genocide was the method of combat by both sides.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, that's the one. Is that a problem?

Yes, it is. Some day, white people are going to get a taste of our own medicine, and we won't like it.

Ever wonder what those black people thought about them Northern Black Codes before the War? When did those end by the way?

Nope, I don't wonder that at all, because it's not relevant.

When fighting the Indians, genocide was the method of combat by both sides.

Except the Natives were defending their land, just like the Palestinians.

 

[Quantrill]

Yes, it is. Some day, white people are going to get a taste of our own medicine, and we won't like it.



Nope, I don't wonder that at all, because it's not relevant.


Except the Natives were defending their land, just like the Palestinians.

Oh, and who is going to do that?

Gee, why not. You're always b#####n about the Jim Crow South being racist and all. Yet we find the Yankee North was full of Black Codes before the War. The North didn't want slaves, because the North didn't want blacks living among them. Better create an underground railroad to get the blacks....to Canada! What a bunch of white supremacists the Yankees were.

Still genocide. You wouldn't have any problem with the North committing genocide with the Southern white people...would you? Here's another chance for you to lie to me.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, it is. Some day, white people are going to get a taste of our own medicine, and we won't like it.



Nope, I don't wonder that at all, because it's not relevant.


Except the Natives were defending their land, just like the Palestinians.

Indians did not believe in land ownership dumb ass.

 

[mikegriffith1]

JoeB131 said:

Yes, it is. Some day, white people are going to get a taste of our own medicine, and we won't like it.

Except the Natives were defending their land. . . .

RetiredGySgt said:

Indians did not believe in land ownership dumb ass.

Not only that, but Indian lands frequently changed hands because one tribe would attack another tribe and either expel them from the land or, more commonly, kill many/most of them and take the rest as slaves. Another problem in dealing with the Indians over land was that one group of Indian leaders would sign a treaty with the U.S. but then that group would be deposed by another group from the same tribe and the new group of leaders would refuse to honor the treaty or would demand unreasonable changes to the treaty.

JoeB131 said:

. . . just like the Palestinians.

Of course "Hitler wasn't the problem" JoeB131 would repeat this neo-Nazi/Jihadist talking point. He's also repeatedly argued that the Nazis, along with all other Germans, had valid reasons for hating the Jews after WWI because the Jews supposedly wrecked Germany after the war (another long-debunked Nazi/neo-Nazi/Jihadist talking point that JoeB131 regularly repeats).

Ah, yes, the "Palestinians"--read: the Arabs living in Israel (renamed Palestine by the Romans and then the British). Those Arabs did not even begin to identify as Palestinians until the late 1960s. During WWII, those "Palestinians" cheered Hitler, and their leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al-Husseini, admired Hitler and offered to raise an Arab brigade to help the Nazi cause.

When the UN approved the partition plan for Israel in 1947 to give Jews a small homeland in Israel, the Arabs rejected the partition plan, even though the plan gave them the majority of the best land. Why? Because their Arab buddies in the five surrounding Arab nations promised them they could easily "drive the Jews into the sea" and then the "Palestinians" could take possession of all the vacated Jewish property and have all the land to themselves. Many "Palestinians" vacated their homes so as not to be caught in the crossfire while their Arab buddies assaulted the Jews.

But, uh-oh, against all odds, the five Arab armies were defeated. Naturally, after this, the Jews were understandably in no mood to allow back into their homes and lands the same "Palestinians" who had invited the Arab armies into Israel to slaughter/expel them and to steal Jewish homes and property.

If those "Palestinians" had simply accepted the UN partition plan, they would have had their "homeland," but instead they rejected the plan because they were certain their Arab buddies could make short work of the Jews and drive the survivors into the sea.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee, why not. You're always b#####n about the Jim Crow South being racist and all. Yet we find the Yankee North was full of Black Codes before the War. The North didn't want slaves, because the North didn't want blacks living among them. Better create an underground railroad to get the blacks....to Canada! What a bunch of white supremacists the Yankees were.

Because you southern inbreds are still racist today.

Indians did not believe in land ownership dumb ass.

You mean they didn't share our values, it didn't make genocide okay.

Not only that, but Indian lands frequently changed hands because one tribe would attack another tribe and either expel them from the land or, more commonly, kill many/most of them and take the rest as slaves. Another problem in dealing with the Indians over land was that one group of Indian leaders would sign a treaty with the U.S. but then that group would be deposed by another group from the same tribe and the new group of leaders would refuse to honor the treaty or would demand unreasonable changes to the treaty.

Wow, White Privilige much, Mikey? So genocide is okay if you think the people are sufficently "inferior", eh?

Of course "Hitler wasn't the problem" JoeB131 would repeat this neo-Nazi/Jihadist talking point.

Reality isn't a talking point.

Ah, yes, the "Palestinians"--read: the Arabs living in Israel (renamed Palestine by the Romans and then the British). Those Arabs did not even begin to identify as Palestinians until the late 1960s. During WWII, those "Palestinians" cheered Hitler, and their leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al-Husseini, admired Hitler and offered to raise an Arab brigade to help the Nazi cause.

Okay, a couple of points here. The Grand Mufti was one guy. Thousands of Palestinians volunteered to fight for the Commonwealth, even AFTER the British screwed them after WWI

When the UN approved the partition plan for Israel in 1947 to give Jews a small homeland in Israel, the Arabs rejected the partition plan,

The UN had no business partitioning Palestine because it felt guilty about what Hitler did.

If I take over your house, and then let you sleep in the unheated garage, are you going to feel "thankful"? I doubt it.

But, uh-oh, against all odds, the five Arab armies were defeated. Naturally, after this, the Jews were understandably in no mood to allow back into their homes and lands the same "Palestinians" who had invited the Arab armies into Israel to slaughter/expel them and to steal Jewish homes and property.

What do you mean 'against all odds", the Jews were armed with British and Americans weapons to the hilt.

Israel is the last vestige of European Colonialism in the Middle East. When it goes, the world will be better off.

If those "Palestinians" had simply accepted the UN partition plan, they would have had their "homeland," but instead they rejected the plan because they were certain their Arab buddies could make short work of the Jews and drive the survivors into the sea.

Um, the Zionists were stealing Arab land long before the 1948 war. The idea that "Oh, we won't steal anymore land" is a bit silly.

How many times does someone have to screw you before you stop putting up with it?

My limit is "one".