Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[NYcarbineer]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

Germans were proud to be Germans right up until the last couple of years of WW II. THey named schools, roads and building after Adolph Hitler.

You're a cultist because you deliberately propagate the myth even after being shown repeatedly that Lincoln was a monster. The rest of America is just ignorant and naive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

Germans were proud to be Germans right up until the last couple of years of WW II. THey named schools, roads and building after Adolph Hitler.

You're a cultist because you deliberately propagate the myth even after being shown repeatedly that Lincoln was a monster. The rest of America is just ignorant and naive.

So the GOP is not the party of Lincoln, it's the party of the Monster.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

 

[bripat9643]

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

Germans were proud to be Germans right up until the last couple of years of WW II. THey named schools, roads and building after Adolph Hitler.

You're a cultist because you deliberately propagate the myth even after being shown repeatedly that Lincoln was a monster. The rest of America is just ignorant and naive.

So the GOP is not the party of Lincoln, it's the party of the Monster.

Unfortunately that's pretty much true.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

This is the "anything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" argument. It's obvious horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

 

[mikegriffith1]

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

Myth is myth even when you repeat it a thousand times. If you care about fact, you might be interested to know that by early 1865 the Confederacy began the process of gradual emancipation, but Lee surrendered a few weeks later and so the process never had a chance to play out. But in February and March 1865 the Confederate Congress passed, and Jefferson Davis signed, a bill that opened the door for the emancipation of slaves who volunteered to serve as soldiers in the Confederate army. And, by the way, some slaves, even at that late hour, *did* volunteer, and thousands were already serving as combat soldiers even though the national government did not allow for or recognize their service.

Finally, which government, the U.S. or the CSA, *added* a slave state during the war--and after the Emancipation Proclamation was announced? Guess. You ready? The U.S.! The U.S. Congress and Lincoln allowed the newly created (stolen) "state" of West Virginia to join the Union--as a slave state. And that was after the Emancipation Proclamation had been announced!

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, it's enforced by killing people. What happens when the National Guard gives me some illegal command and I give them the middle finger salute?

It responds to violence with violence. If you are given a legal command and you refuse you will be arrested and jailed until charges can be investigated and brought.

It responds to people who refuse to comply with government orders by shooting them.

You're an idiot if you don't know that.

Well that's the chance you will take isn't it?

Thanks for admitting that you endorse sending federal troops in to kill people who want to secede.

I support that fully.
You morons killed 600 thousand the last time around. I'll be damned if I let you fools make the same dumbassed mistake at the expense of millions of lives this time. We'll cut you down before you even start.

You're just another bloodthirsty cult member who admires a mass murdering dictator.

Lincoln started the war, asshole.

 

[Skylar]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

 

[Skylar]

It responds to violence with violence. If you are given a legal command and you refuse you will be arrested and jailed until charges can be investigated and brought.

It responds to people who refuse to comply with government orders by shooting them.

You're an idiot if you don't know that.

Well that's the chance you will take isn't it?

Thanks for admitting that you endorse sending federal troops in to kill people who want to secede.

I support that fully.
You morons killed 600 thousand the last time around. I'll be damned if I let you fools make the same dumbassed mistake at the expense of millions of lives this time. We'll cut you down before you even start.

You're just another bloodthirsty cult member who admires a mass murdering dictator.

Lincoln started the war, asshole.

Nope. The South did by attacking Fort. Sumpter. Remember your imaginary distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized by the constitution, US law, or any court decision. Nor can you back it with anything but you citing you. Which is legally meaningless.

Instead, federal jurisdiction extends to all of the States. As recognized by the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause, as recognized by James Madison, as recognized by the Longborough v. Blake decision by the USSC in 1820. And backing your 'federal property v federal territory' gibberish?

Exactly jack shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

Germans were proud to be Germans right up until the last couple of years of WW II. THey named schools, roads and building after Adolph Hitler.

You're a cultist because you deliberately propagate the myth even after being shown repeatedly that Lincoln was a monster. The rest of America is just ignorant and naive.

So the GOP is not the party of Lincoln, it's the party of the Monster.

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

States cannot secede because in order to secede they would HAVE to break federal laws, which would violate the Supremacy Clause.

btw, federal laws are constitutional until they are struck down by the Supreme Court. That is the LEGAL process for determining unconstitutionality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

Myth is myth even when you repeat it a thousand times. If you care about fact, you might be interested to know that by early 1865 the Confederacy began the process of gradual emancipation, but Lee surrendered a few weeks later and so the process never had a chance to play out. But in February and March 1865 the Confederate Congress passed, and Jefferson Davis signed, a bill that opened the door for the emancipation of slaves who volunteered to serve as soldiers in the Confederate army. And, by the way, some slaves, even at that late hour, *did* volunteer, and thousands were already serving as combat soldiers even though the national government did not allow for or recognize their service.

Finally, which government, the U.S. or the CSA, *added* a slave state during the war--and after the Emancipation Proclamation was announced? Guess. You ready? The U.S.! The U.S. Congress and Lincoln allowed the newly created (stolen) "state" of West Virginia to join the Union--as a slave state. And that was after the Emancipation Proclamation had been announced!

None of which changes the irrefutable fact that the south seceded to preserve slavery.

 

[paperview]

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

 

[kaz]

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

Right, it's South Carolina ... land ... moron. South Carolina did not declare ownership of the possessions of the Fort, they told the Union to leave. And it was ... four months ... before they attempted to remove them. How stupid are you?

^ kaz.

Too stupid for words, and always, always wrong.

You made shit up and then just kept saying I was wrong. I'd say you're a rhetorical genius, but that's just too much sarcasm for me, I might pull a muscle. You claimed that Kentucky could claim the contents of Fort Knox, not just kick the feds off the land. So, show that South Carolina claimed the contents of Fort Knox, they didn't just tell the Feds to leave

^ Swear to dog, she writes and thinks like a seven year old.

Just wow.

It is a airhead. What is wrong with you, you said because South Carolina told the union troops to leave that Kentucky could take the gold in Fort Knox. You can't back it up, so you're diverting, there we are

 

[bripat9643]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

It's in their ratification documents, bub. They were voted on and approved. These states were then accepted into the union. All you have is the opinion of a bunch of bootlicking statist blowhards.

 

[paperview]

Myth is myth even when you repeat it a thousand times. If you care about fact, you might be interested to know that by early 1865 the Confederacy began the process of gradual emancipation, but Lee surrendered a few weeks later and so the process never had a chance to play out. But in February and March 1865 the Confederate Congress passed, and Jefferson Davis signed, a bill that opened the door for the emancipation of slaves who volunteered to serve as soldiers in the Confederate army.

Mike is back, and as always, pushing the same false Lost Cause lies.

Leave something out, did you?

"On February 10, 1865, with support from the Davis administration, Congressman Ethelbert Barksdale of Mississippi introduced a bill granting Davis the power to accept black men as soldiers, but only with their masters' permission. Masters were also permitted, but not required, to emancipate slaves who completed terms of service in the Confederate army. After strenuous debate, and with the endorsement of General Robert E. Lee, the House of Representatives narrowly passed this bill on February 20 and sent it to the Senate. That body had already defeated a bill calling for the involuntary enlistment of 200,000 black men, and would likely have defeated the Barksdale bill had not Virginia's two senators, R. M. T. Hunter and Allen T. Caperton, changed their votes due to instructions from the General Assembly. The Senate, by a one-vote margin, approved a slightly amended version of the Barksdale bill on March 8; Davis signed it into law on March 13, 1865. In the intervening days, the General Assembly passed a law explicitly allowing black men to carry rifles, which state law previously had prohibited. North Carolina's elected officials, by contrast, published their objections to the measure in a series of legislative resolutions.

The War Department, however, acted quickly upon the new legislation, and General Orders No. 14 authorized the enlistment of free blacks as well as slaves whose masters signaled their approval by manumitting them before enlistment. No men still enslaved would be accepted as Confederate soldiers. Newspapers throughout the Confederacy immediately reported the widespread enlistment of thousands of black soldiers, but the actual results were far more modest. Only two units were ever created, both in Richmond. The first enrolled approximately sixty orderlies and nurses from Winder and Jackson Hospitals; the second, created at a formal recruiting center, never numbered more than ten recruits. The first company was hastily put into the trenches outside Richmond for a day in mid-March, but the unit canceled a parade scheduled for the end of the month due to the fact that the men lacked uniforms and rifles. Based on this, it is unclear how much fighting they could have done. The second unit was housed in a former prison and carefully watched by military police, suggesting that white Confederate officers did not trust these new black soldiers."

Black Confederates

And, by the way, some slaves, even at that late hour, *did* volunteer, and thousands were already serving as combat soldiers even though the national government did not allow for or recognize their service.

Heaping, yooooomungous piles of bullshit. We've been through this before, Mike. A few hundred random ones, at best.

No, there were not "thousands serving as combat soldiers."

The myth of the Black Confederate soldier has been blown to bits.

Finally, which government, the U.S. or the CSA, *added* a slave state during the war--and after the Emancipation Proclamation was announced? Guess. You ready? The U.S.! The U.S. Congress and Lincoln allowed the newly created (stolen) "state" of West Virginia to join the Union--as a slave state. And that was after the Emancipation Proclamation had been announced!

When Congress approved WV into the Union, it did so on the condition that slavery must be abolished.

See how Mike deceives and lies?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.