Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

You referenced one of the causes of secession, not of the war. Lincoln was the cause of the war because war is what he wanted and war is what he got.

If secession was illegal, then name the law it violated. On the other hand, Lincoln's invasion of Virginia was an act of treason as clearly enunciated in the Constitution.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason."​

Note: it says "against them." That's plural. Which means levying war against any state is treason.

Lincoln was a traitor.

The South didn't subject themselves to the rule of law, they just opened fire. Another fact that you just ignore because it doesn't fit the world view you invented in your head.

Lincoln was the President of the Union, which still legally included the south. He didn't invade anyone.

Yeah, the rule of law says you can invade the territory of another nation. When they Germans invaded Poland, they were subjecting themselves to the rule of law, right?

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Secession was a rebellion as established by them attacking the Union, not attempting to establish their secession legally but through force, and their own words when they seceded which leave no room for doubt that their leaving was going to be done with or without the laws say because they didn't need the rule of law just like the founding fathers didn't.

Yes it matters why the South left. It was their actions more than anyone one else's that lead to war. Their secession, their military action, their claims on the property of the Union, their raising of arms to resist the law, their fears of abolitionism, their desire to maintain slavery, their disregard for the lives of Union soldiers, their disregard for the bonds they created.

I am glad you finally recognize that one cannot invade itself. Lincoln was President of the Union and can't invade a state of the union. He can move troops within the union to put down a rebellion though.

Claiming territory with military force has started plenty of wars. Making a DOI like document can start wars.

Thank you for organizing your delusions so well. It is clear they all stem from the fact that you just ignore reality when it doesn't suit you and then use poor logic to come to silly conclusions.

Here is some reading for you straight from your heroes.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I refer you to responses #1, #2, #3 and #4.

You just keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Here's one more.

#5. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

Oh, and here's another.

#6. The OP contains the evidence that unilateral secession was perfectly legal. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bombur]

The South didn't subject themselves to the rule of law, they just opened fire. Another fact that you just ignore because it doesn't fit the world view you invented in your head.

Lincoln was the President of the Union, which still legally included the south. He didn't invade anyone.

Yeah, the rule of law says you can invade the territory of another nation. When they Germans invaded Poland, they were subjecting themselves to the rule of law, right?

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Secession was a rebellion as established by them attacking the Union, not attempting to establish their secession legally but through force, and their own words when they seceded which leave no room for doubt that their leaving was going to be done with or without the laws say because they didn't need the rule of law just like the founding fathers didn't.

Yes it matters why the South left. It was their actions more than anyone one else's that lead to war. Their secession, their military action, their claims on the property of the Union, their raising of arms to resist the law, their fears of abolitionism, their desire to maintain slavery, their disregard for the lives of Union soldiers, their disregard for the bonds they created.

I am glad you finally recognize that one cannot invade itself. Lincoln was President of the Union and can't invade a state of the union. He can move troops within the union to put down a rebellion though.

Claiming territory with military force has started plenty of wars. Making a DOI like document can start wars.

Thank you for organizing your delusions so well. It is clear they all stem from the fact that you just ignore reality when it doesn't suit you and then use poor logic to come to silly conclusions.

Here is some reading for you straight from your heroes.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I refer you to responses #1, #2, #3 and #4.

You just keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Here's one more.

#5. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

Oh, and here's another.

#6. The OP contains the evidence that unilateral secession was perfectly legal. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Just because you number your stupid and repeat it over and over that doesn't make it true.

The legality of secession was never established because the southern states didn't subject it to the legal process. To argue that if they did subject their secession to the courts they would have won is pure speculation and not even grounded in reality. In reality they instead chose to raise an army used force to claim territory. That is not an act of peaceful secession but open rebellion.

The facts are not on your side. You are hardly the first person to be in denial about legal matters even after they are settled. The problem with even taking the legal approach is that the South didn't. They took the path that pitted their military might against that of the north and lost.

Now you want to back track and have fantasies about a world that never existed. One where secession was established as legal, the South didn't fire on the north first, that the South wasn't motivated by slavery, and all the other blatant attempts to re-paint reality.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. .

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

 

[Faun]

The South didn't subject themselves to the rule of law, they just opened fire. Another fact that you just ignore because it doesn't fit the world view you invented in your head.

Lincoln was the President of the Union, which still legally included the south. He didn't invade anyone.

Yeah, the rule of law says you can invade the territory of another nation. When they Germans invaded Poland, they were subjecting themselves to the rule of law, right?

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Secession was a rebellion as established by them attacking the Union, not attempting to establish their secession legally but through force, and their own words when they seceded which leave no room for doubt that their leaving was going to be done with or without the laws say because they didn't need the rule of law just like the founding fathers didn't.

Yes it matters why the South left. It was their actions more than anyone one else's that lead to war. Their secession, their military action, their claims on the property of the Union, their raising of arms to resist the law, their fears of abolitionism, their desire to maintain slavery, their disregard for the lives of Union soldiers, their disregard for the bonds they created.

I am glad you finally recognize that one cannot invade itself. Lincoln was President of the Union and can't invade a state of the union. He can move troops within the union to put down a rebellion though.

Claiming territory with military force has started plenty of wars. Making a DOI like document can start wars.

Thank you for organizing your delusions so well. It is clear they all stem from the fact that you just ignore reality when it doesn't suit you and then use poor logic to come to silly conclusions.

Here is some reading for you straight from your heroes.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I refer you to responses #1, #2, #3 and #4.

You just keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Here's one more.

#5. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

Oh, and here's another.

#6. The OP contains the evidence that unilateral secession was perfectly legal. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The federal government wasn't trespassing. They were on federal territory in a federal fort.

The U.S. Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ......

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;​

South Carolina Committee on Federal Relations:

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded​

 

[Syriusly]

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, the rule of law says you can invade the territory of another nation. When they Germans invaded Poland, they were subjecting themselves to the rule of law, right?

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Secession was a rebellion as established by them attacking the Union, not attempting to establish their secession legally but through force, and their own words when they seceded which leave no room for doubt that their leaving was going to be done with or without the laws say because they didn't need the rule of law just like the founding fathers didn't.

Yes it matters why the South left. It was their actions more than anyone one else's that lead to war. Their secession, their military action, their claims on the property of the Union, their raising of arms to resist the law, their fears of abolitionism, their desire to maintain slavery, their disregard for the lives of Union soldiers, their disregard for the bonds they created.

I am glad you finally recognize that one cannot invade itself. Lincoln was President of the Union and can't invade a state of the union. He can move troops within the union to put down a rebellion though.

Claiming territory with military force has started plenty of wars. Making a DOI like document can start wars.

Thank you for organizing your delusions so well. It is clear they all stem from the fact that you just ignore reality when it doesn't suit you and then use poor logic to come to silly conclusions.

Here is some reading for you straight from your heroes.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I refer you to responses #1, #2, #3 and #4.

You just keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Here's one more.

#5. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

Oh, and here's another.

#6. The OP contains the evidence that unilateral secession was perfectly legal. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The federal government wasn't trespassing. They were on federal territory in a federal fort.

The U.S. Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ......

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;​

South Carolina Committee on Federal Relations:

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded​

Maybe South Carolina thought they could have a 'do over'?

 

[there4eyeM]

Still no answer for when the Perpetual Union supposedly ended. Obviously, with all the repetitive verbosity trying to obfuscate that the Union was indissoluble, no clear proof is to be found. Thus, the strong argument that secession was inherently illegal, sedition and rebellion and treason stands. The Union was preserved by putting down an insurrection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

 

[Redfish]

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

 

[bripat9643]

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

How does an act that was entirely legal justify an invasion and killing 830,000 people?

 

[bripat9643]

Still no answer for when the Perpetual Union supposedly ended. Obviously, with all the repetitive verbosity trying to obfuscate that the Union was indissoluble, no clear proof is to be found. Thus, the strong argument that secession was inherently illegal, sedition and rebellion and treason stands. The Union was preserved by putting down an insurrection.

It ended when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, the rule of law says you can invade the territory of another nation. When they Germans invaded Poland, they were subjecting themselves to the rule of law, right?

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Secession was a rebellion as established by them attacking the Union, not attempting to establish their secession legally but through force, and their own words when they seceded which leave no room for doubt that their leaving was going to be done with or without the laws say because they didn't need the rule of law just like the founding fathers didn't.

Yes it matters why the South left. It was their actions more than anyone one else's that lead to war. Their secession, their military action, their claims on the property of the Union, their raising of arms to resist the law, their fears of abolitionism, their desire to maintain slavery, their disregard for the lives of Union soldiers, their disregard for the bonds they created.

I am glad you finally recognize that one cannot invade itself. Lincoln was President of the Union and can't invade a state of the union. He can move troops within the union to put down a rebellion though.

Claiming territory with military force has started plenty of wars. Making a DOI like document can start wars.

Thank you for organizing your delusions so well. It is clear they all stem from the fact that you just ignore reality when it doesn't suit you and then use poor logic to come to silly conclusions.

Here is some reading for you straight from your heroes.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I refer you to responses #1, #2, #3 and #4.

You just keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Here's one more.

#5. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

Oh, and here's another.

#6. The OP contains the evidence that unilateral secession was perfectly legal. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The federal government wasn't trespassing. They were on federal territory in a federal fort.

The U.S. Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ......

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;​

South Carolina Committee on Federal Relations:

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded​

We've already been over this 1000 times. South Carolina gave the property rights to Ft Sumter to the federal government. It maintained their legal control over the area. The document you quoted even says so.

What part of

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; ​

don't you understand?

One civil process they retained is the right to kick out Yankee trespassers.

 

[bripat9643]

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

 

[Redfish]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Stating facts to liberals is like trying to teach an armadillo to sing. Its a waste of time.

 

[there4eyeM]

Still no answer for when the Perpetual Union supposedly ended. Obviously, with all the repetitive verbosity trying to obfuscate that the Union was indissoluble, no clear proof is to be found. Thus, the strong argument that secession was inherently illegal, sedition and rebellion and treason stands. The Union was preserved by putting down an insurrection.

It ended when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin, numskull.

Unsupported statement from an impolite, opinionated, repetitive individual who certainly does not deserve a response. This is merely directed at those readers who can think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

How does an act that was entirely legal justify an invasion and killing 830,000 people?

It wasn't legal because the states entered the Union agreeing to the laws of the Constitution which included the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The states voluntarily gave up full sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

How does an act that was entirely legal justify an invasion and killing 830,000 people?

It wasn't legal because the states entered the Union agreeing to the laws of the Constitution which included the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The states voluntarily gave up full sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't say states can't leave, so you claim doesn't prove jack. The Supremacy clause only applies to the laws Congress passes. Congress has never passed a law saying a state can't secede. Amendments to the Constitution prohibiting secession were submitted to Congress and voted down.

Every way you look at it, there is nothing illegal about secession.

 

[bripat9643]

Still no answer for when the Perpetual Union supposedly ended. Obviously, with all the repetitive verbosity trying to obfuscate that the Union was indissoluble, no clear proof is to be found. Thus, the strong argument that secession was inherently illegal, sedition and rebellion and treason stands. The Union was preserved by putting down an insurrection.

It ended when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin, numskull.

Unsupported statement from an impolite, opinionated, repetitive individual who certainly does not deserve a response. This is merely directed at those readers who can think.

How is it "unsupported?" Are the Articles of Confederation still in force? If not, then they weren't perpetual, were they?

 

[thanatos144]

THE MOTHERFUCKERS WILL NOT ADMIT THAT APE LINCOLN SLAUGHTERED 650,000 OVER TAXATION AND REAL STATE.

HE DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWN HISTORY LANE AS THE PRESIDENT WHO CAUSED 11 STATES TO LEAVE THE UNION.


.

BINGO!

I am glad you two idiots share the same delusion.

Back in reality Lincoln preserved the union, ended slavery, and fought against the states that had such a warped view of reality that they openly went to war against their fellow countrymen because people wouldn't return their slaves when they ran away.

OK BACK TO REALITY, LINCOLN DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE PRESIDENT WHO LOST 11 STATES, AS PROMISED IN 1828 , SC LEFT THE UNION BECAUSE OF THE NORTH INCREASED TARIFFS FROM 15 to 37%, SLAVERY AS AN INSTITUTION WAS ON ITS WAY OUT.


.

Actually your wrong. It was because Lincoln made it clear if made president he wouldn't allow the slave trade in the new territories.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Bennett is also incensed by the fact that Lincoln never opposed Southern slavery but only its extension into the territories. Indeed, in his first inaugural address he pledged his everlasting support for Southern slavery by making it explicitly constitutional with the "Corwin Amendment," that had already passed the U.S. House and Senate.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[1][17]


I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Why do you democrats always twist what he said? He said he would save the union any way he could because you ignoramus it was his job. That doesn't mean h supported slavery. Those lies are pathetic.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk