Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[paperview]

A few were.

Most were pardoned. Like I said - we were nice chaps.

Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Andrew Johnson Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Name one person convicted of treason and hung.

William Bruce Mumford

Guilty of Treason.

He was hung to death on the grounds of the U.S. Mint in New Orleans.

 

[paperview]

Supreme Court, in 1862

"It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations." [62 US 635, 669]

"The law of nations is also called the law of nature; it is founded on the common consent, as well as the common sense, of the world. It contains no such anomalous doctrine as that which this Court are now for the first time desired to pronounce, to-wit, that insurgents who have risen in rebellion against their sovereign, expelled her Courts, established a revolutionary government, organized armies, and commenced hostilities are not enemies because they are traitors, and a war levied on the Government by traitors, in order to dismember and destroy it, is not a war because it is an 'insurrection.'

"Whether the President, in fulfilling his duties as Commander-in-chief in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents is a question to be decided by him, and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted. 'He must determine what degree of force the crisis demands.' The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case." [62 US 635, 670]

"All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are nonetheless enemies because they are traitors." [62 US 635, 674]

The Southern Law Review

 

[paperview]

If they were not traitors, they would not have had to be pardoned for treason.

 

[bripat9643]

A few were.

Most were pardoned. Like I said - we were nice chaps.

Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Andrew Johnson Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Name one person convicted of treason and hung.

William Bruce Mumford

Guilty of Treason.

He was hung to death on the grounds of the U.S. Mint in New Orleans.

He was tried during the war by a military tribunal in New Orleans which was under Marshal Law. Lincoln had plenty of citizens executed without even so much as the kangaroo court that convicted this guy.

Name someone convicted by a civilian jury after the war. War executions don't count. The union army killed 50,000 civilians. The fig leaf of a military court doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[paperview]

LOLOLOL

The biggest goal post mover at USMB does it again.

"Name one person convicted of treason and hung."

Paperview names a man tried, convicted and hung - for treason.

Obviously meeting the bar requested.

Nuh Uh, wails the little bird flipping toddler.

 

[bripat9643]

LOLOLOL

The biggest goal post mover at USMB does it again.

"Name one person convicted of treason and hung."

Paperview names a man tried, convicted and hung - for treason.

Obviously meeting the bar requested.

Nuh Uh, wails the little bird flipping toddler.

Oh puhleeze. You're a loser and you know it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

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

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

Funny, "paperview", that these odd little fellows protest so much about repetition when it is all they practice. Never once has any evidence been shown of when the Perpetual Union vanished and somehow, mysteriously , the union of states remained. Date, document, reference all lacking. No authority for the statement except single-minded determination not to face the fact.
It is entertaining to bait and torment them, though.

 

[kaz]

... I'm not irrelevant, my voice is my voice. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself. I actually am

Voice all you want.

Your opinion, however, is wrong.

You said internet posters are irrelevant. What is the point in your view if you think you are irrelevant? I don't think you or I are irrelevant, we are citizens. Our views do matter. But if you think your voice is irrelevant, than it is, but only because you made it so yourself

 

[kaz]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

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

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

You're quoting the Texas v. White decision authored by Samual P. Chase, a Lincoln appointed hack. That alone is sufficient to laugh it out of the forum.

Notice that he never refers to the actual text of the Constitution to support his decision. Chase also makes some astounding claims such as his assertion that Texas was a state of the union during the Civil War. States have representation in the House and the Senate, so that claim is utterly preposterous.

Heard it a thousand times from you bub.

You don't accept the Rule of Law in the Country and our system of government.

Ho hum.

"It is intended for perpetual union" - Robert E.Lee

So you think Robert E. Lee's said is a basis of law in this country? Maybe you are irrelevant.

So just so we're clear on the standard, you accept what Robert E Lee said you disagree with as fact as well?

 

[kaz]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

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

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

Funny, "paperview", that these odd little fellows protest so much about repetition when it is all they practice. Never once has any evidence been shown of when the Perpetual Union vanished and somehow, mysteriously , the union of states remained. Date, document, reference all lacking. No authority for the statement except single-minded determination not to face the fact.
It is entertaining to bait and torment them, though.

What's "funny" is that a guy who endlessly parrots a political party has an avatar of a thinker

 

[paperview]

You said internet posters are irrelevant. What is the point in your view if you think you are irrelevant? I don't think you or I are irrelevant, we are citizens. Our views do matter. But if you think your voice is irrelevant, than it is, but only because you made it so yourself

YOU, sista, used the word irrelevant. Not me.

Do you think people can't read?

This was the exchange - try reading for comprehension:

there4eyeM said: ↑Perpetual Union; look it up.

kaz said: ↑I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

To which I replied:

paperview said: ↑: The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

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

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

I lost interest when you told me you're an internet squawker and your opinion is irrelevant. You would know, I'll take your word for that. I'm not irrelevant, my voice is my voice. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself. I actually am

You asked what it was based on, and made a conclusion.

I told you the people who were charged with making that decision say otherwise.

You, me, Sam the doughman, can all have opinions - and people are free to voice them, I told you that. Just like you can have an opinion Roe v Wade did not recognize a Right to Privacy.

But the people charged, and duly sworn to fulfill that duty with findings of merit, to decide the Constitutionality of cases brought before them with Case Law are the ones who decide and what the final arbiter is "based on." Which is the question you asked:
"What is it based on."

The Constitution and it's Case Law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh.

You may have an opinion otherwise. Your - or my opinion isn't what these laws are based on.

 

[there4eyeM]

And thanks again, 'view. Good summary.

 

[Faun]

Secessionists dictated that strong measures were necessary. Any bad results can be laid at their feet.

Lincoln cultists dictated that strong measures were necessary. Any bad results can be laid at their feet.

When those in rebellion killed US troops, they began an armed conflict. The South can hardly complain about the outcome of a fight they started.

I'm glad you still don't see the futility in repeating such an argument over and over. It preserves my impression that most Leftists are terminally stupid.

And yet, his point is correct.

 

[kaz]

YOU, sista, used the word irrelevant. Not me

Um...yeah, which is why since I paraphrased I didn't use quote marks. Bendog learned that recently when he studied up on High School English and learned why they are called quote marks.

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise

If all we are allowed to do is repeat what "the people charged with deciding these things" say, then we are truly irrelevant. All of us "internet squaker(s)," including you since that's your stated standard. So if you think your opinion is worthless, why would I tell you that you're wrong? Mine isn't, I'm a citizen while you're a subject, we each made our choices

 

[kaz]

And thanks again, 'view. Good summary.

So at the conclusion of your deep thought and careful insight, you decided that the liberal elitist establishment was right again, huh, but you concluded that independently, not because they said so

 

[thanatos144]

 

[Faun]

I bet you don't even understand how that video unwittingly condemns Republicans. Just like you don't understand John Wilkes Booth was not a Democrat.

 

[bripat9643]

I bet you don't even understand how that video unwittingly condemns Republicans. Just like you don't understand John Wilkes Booth was not a Democrat.

Yaah, we know, because Democrat of 1860 were really Republicans.

I'll be you don't understand how we know you're a ******* moron.

 

[bripat9643]

And thanks again, 'view. Good summary.

So at the conclusion of your deep thought and careful insight, you decided that the liberal elitist establishment was right again, huh, but you concluded that independently, not because they said so

It appears the Lincoln cult members have all given up and gone home. There's only so many times you can regurgitate the same talking point before people start catching on that there's nothing behind it.

 

[thanatos144]

And thanks again, 'view. Good summary.

So at the conclusion of your deep thought and careful insight, you decided that the liberal elitist establishment was right again, huh, but you concluded that independently, not because they said so

It appears the Lincoln cult members have all given up and gone home. There's only so many times you can regurgitate the same talking point before people start catching on that there's nothing behind it.

Hey dumb **** you can live in fantasy all you want in Canada because we don't need those who worships democrat traitors

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk