Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[bripat9643]

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

You're in ******* lala land,.


The CSA fired on ships, seized federal property, forts--even before Lincoln was President. For christ sakes man. You're insane to make such declarations.

Those ships were intruding on Southern territory. Ft Sumter is within the borders of South Carolina. All the other Forts were within the borders of the states that evicted them. I'll have to look at the history of the other Forts, but I don't believe any shots were fired.

 

[-S-]

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

You're in ******* lala land,.


The CSA fired on ships, seized federal property, forts--even before Lincoln was President. For christ sakes man. You're insane to make such declarations.

Those ships were intruding on Southern territory. Ft Sumter is within the borders of South Carolina. All the other Forts were within the borders of the states that evicted them. I'll have to look at the history of the other Forts, but I don't believe any shots were fired.

You're still arguing this?

My God, what is wrong with you?

The Confederacy fired on the United States of America. They're at fault.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

 

[-S-]

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

Civil War Facts


Was secession legal?

No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

 

[Skylar]

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory?

How many times do I have to explain to you that you claiming that the Union didn't have authority to post troops in its OWN base doesn't actually make it so. Show me the law that says this. Show me the court ruling.

But you typing the accusation is meaningless. As you citing you is meaningless.

Don't tell me. Show me.

I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

I'm going to ask you to back your claims with more than your ability to type them. And you're just gonna keep failing spectacularly. As you're offering us your personal opinion that the Union couldn't keep troops at Ft. Sumter.

Not the actual law. And your opinion is irrelevant. As you define nothing.

Worse, I've already disproven your claim that the southern states had the right to secede. With James Madison utterly obliterating the claim, stating unambiguously that the constitution is adopted in toto and forever.

But you know better than James Madison?

Um, no. What else have you got?

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You merely typing a claim isn't proving anything. Its expressing your opinion. And your nobody. You define no legal term, you establish no legal principle. Its just you...citing you.

Um, Brit....that's not evidence. That's just you typing shit.

You're immune to facts and logic.

You quoting you on a topic you know nothing about is neither facts nor logic. But unsupported personal opinion.

Try again. This time with actual evidence

 

[Skylar]

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

Civil War Facts


Was secession legal?

No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Its unlikely to matter much. Brit's already ignored James Madison on the constitution. And the USSC on the the sovereign status of states changing after joining the constitution.

You can't use evidence to convince Brit, as he has no use for it. His is an entirely opinion based perspective.

Which is why his source is always himself.

 

[-S-]

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

Civil War Facts


Was secession legal?

No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Its unlikely to matter much. Brit's already ignored James Madison on the constitution. And the USSC on the the sovereign status of states changing after joining the constitution.

You can't use evidence to convince Brit, as he has no use for it. His is an entirely opinion based perspective.

Which is why his source is always himself.

Daaaayum, I didn't know he ignored the words of a founding father.. He's pretty far gone, in all seriousness.

Well heck, if he's too big of a coward to admit defeat, then what exactly is the point of him being here debating us

It doesn't get more end-all-be-all than the facts. If that isn't enough for him, nothing will ever be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

 

[-S-]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

 

[Skylar]

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

Civil War Facts


Was secession legal?

No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Its unlikely to matter much. Brit's already ignored James Madison on the constitution. And the USSC on the the sovereign status of states changing after joining the constitution.

You can't use evidence to convince Brit, as he has no use for it. His is an entirely opinion based perspective.

Which is why his source is always himself.

Daaaayum, I didn't know he ignored the words of a founding father.. He's pretty far gone, in all seriousness.

Well heck, if he's too big of a coward to admit defeat, then what exactly is the point of him being here debating us

It doesn't get more end-all-be-all than the facts. If that isn't enough for him, nothing will ever be.

And the funny part? Madison is one of his sources on this VERY issue:

"Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President."

Bripat9643
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, is completely horse shit. Madison did no such thing and explicitly rejected secession. Both generally during the ratification process and specifically when discussing the nullification crisis.

But Bripats being completely full of shit isn't really the point of quoting him here. Its the fact that Bripat considers Madison an authoritative source if and only if Bripat thinks Madison agrees with him.

The moment its proven that Madison explicitly rejected secession not just once, but over and over across decades, Bripat completely ignores his own source. There is nothing he won't ignore to cling to his batshit narrative. Even his own sources.

You can't reason with a person like that. As their only standard of credibility is a sources agreement with what they already believe. Any source that doesn't -even their own- is completely ignored.

Sigh......you can't fix stupid. But you can laugh at it.

 

[-S-]

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

Civil War Facts


Was secession legal?

No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Its unlikely to matter much. Brit's already ignored James Madison on the constitution. And the USSC on the the sovereign status of states changing after joining the constitution.

You can't use evidence to convince Brit, as he has no use for it. His is an entirely opinion based perspective.

Which is why his source is always himself.

Daaaayum, I didn't know he ignored the words of a founding father.. He's pretty far gone, in all seriousness.

Well heck, if he's too big of a coward to admit defeat, then what exactly is the point of him being here debating us

It doesn't get more end-all-be-all than the facts. If that isn't enough for him, nothing will ever be.

And the funny part? Madison is one of his sources on this VERY issue:

"Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President."

Bripat9643
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, is completely horse shit. Madison did no such thing and explicitly rejected secession. Both generally during the ratification process and specifically when discussing the nullification crisis.

But Bripats being completely full of shit isn't really the point of quoting him here. Its the fact that Bripat considers Madison an authoritative source if and only if Bripat thinks Madison agrees with him.

The moment its proven that Madison explicitly rejected secession not just once, but over and over across decades, Bripat completely ignores his own source. There is nothing he won't ignore to cling to his batshit narrative. Even his own sources.

You can't reason with a person like that. As their only standard of credibility is a sources agreement with what they already believe. Any source that doesn't -even their own- is completely ignored.

Sigh......you can't fix stupid. But you can laugh at it.

I find this to be funny.

The first definition of the word 'Confederate', used as a noun





con·fed·er·ate
adjective
kənˈfed(ə)rət/

1. 1.
   joined by an agreement or treaty.

noun

1. 1.
   a person one works with, especially in something secret or illegal; an accomplice.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

How many times do I have to explain the difference between property and territory? I know the number is infinity because you just don't care. You have your talking points that you will repeat ad nauseum. That's why it's pointless to argue with you. You're incapable of committing logic. You're apparently nothing more than a bot.

Again, I know you'll repeat this until doomsday no matter how many times and how irrefutably it's been proven to be irrelevant.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It is doin' the best it can.

Civil War Facts


Was secession legal?

No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Its unlikely to matter much. Brit's already ignored James Madison on the constitution. And the USSC on the the sovereign status of states changing after joining the constitution.

You can't use evidence to convince Brit, as he has no use for it. His is an entirely opinion based perspective.

Which is why his source is always himself.

Daaaayum, I didn't know he ignored the words of a founding father.. He's pretty far gone, in all seriousness.

Well heck, if he's too big of a coward to admit defeat, then what exactly is the point of him being here debating us

It doesn't get more end-all-be-all than the facts. If that isn't enough for him, nothing will ever be.

And the funny part? Madison is one of his sources on this VERY issue:

"Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President."

Bripat9643
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, is completely horse shit. Madison did no such thing and explicitly rejected secession. Both generally during the ratification process and specifically when discussing the nullification crisis.

But Bripats being completely full of shit isn't really the point of quoting him here. Its the fact that Bripat considers Madison an authoritative source if and only if Bripat thinks Madison agrees with him.

The moment its proven that Madison explicitly rejected secession not just once, but over and over across decades, Bripat completely ignores his own source. There is nothing he won't ignore to cling to his batshit narrative. Even his own sources.

You can't reason with a person like that. As their only standard of credibility is a sources agreement with what they already believe. Any source that doesn't -even their own- is completely ignored.

Sigh......you can't fix stupid. But you can laugh at it.

I find this to be funny.

The first definition of the word 'Confederate', used as a noun





con·fed·er·ate
adjective
kənˈfed(ə)rət/

1. 1.
   joined by an agreement or treaty.

noun

1. 1.
   a person one works with, especially in something secret or illegal; an accomplice.

LOL! Hey, what could be more entertaining than advancing untethered definitions? Personally disembodied points are my thing, but thy can be hysterical... (in every sense of the word).

 

[Correll]

And again the Might Makes Right argument.

Which is what the South used for as its basis of maintaining its entire economy and system of governance. Slavery wasn't enforced through stern looks and fingerwagging. But amputation, execution, castration and simply brutal beatings.

And if there had been a slave rebellion in the south, the south would have put it down with force. Just ask Nate Turner.

When using a system of violence to enforce your laws, you can't rightly call a foul when violence is used to enforce the law against you. You can't have it both ways.

Pick one.

NOt at all.

Pre Civil War South, indeed, slave holding America in general had moral rationalizations for their slavery, weak though they sound to the modern ear.

Only the most crude of brutes use being the strongest as a moral argument.

Which is why it is so interesting that you libs keep playing that card in this discussion.

Supposedly you have, or at least believe you have the moral high ground in this discussion, and yet when challenged seriously, you keep reaching for that ancient argument, Might Makes Right.

All laws use a "system of violence" to be enforced. It is part of the definition of enforcement.

 

[Correll]

Even the founders admitted that they were simply committing treason when they rebelled.

Remember the line about hanging together or hanging separately?

Acknowledging the danger of losing is not the same as agreeing that that punishment is just.

If you believe, as it stated in the Declaration of Independence, and for that matter, lib, in the UN Declaration of Human RIghts, that government legitimacy flows from the consent of the governed, then rebelling against a tyrant that has lost that consent is morally justified as the government has lost it's legitimacy.

 

[Correll]

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

Nonsense.

The Free Industrial North was outpacing the Slave holding, Agricultural South in all aspects. If the slavery issue was tabled once again, it would only have been a matter of time until the Free States could revisit the issue, with an even stronger hand.

 

[Correll]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.

The garrison commander was given every opportunity to surrender and bring his troops out of harms way. Considering they were suddenly in a foreign nation, it was an expected courtesy. He knew that Fort Sumter was not fully fortified and lacked exploding shells needed to sustain a defense.

It sounds more like suicide when the details come out.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Um, buddy....That's a letter to the editor from a low level real estate consultant.

Dennis doesn't provide anything to back any claims he's made. Not a single document, not a single quote, nothing. A Letter to the Editor isn't evidence. Especially from a guy whose experience is in marketing and advertising.

That's it? That's the basis of your entire argument.

Holy shit, dude.

It seems to me you can't understand it. Maybe I was wrong about your intellect.

You genuinely didn't know you were offering us a letter to the editor from a real estate consultant as your primary source?

Really?

You may want to dig a bit deeper next time. It took me about 30 seconds to figure it out. It wasn't particularly hard either. And checking your own sources is your responsibility.

But here's a site where you can read the Ordinances of Secession from every one of the eleven states, many of them making quite clear what issues were at stake. I love this one from Kentucky:

President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will;

Ordinances of Secession

And where is your evidence of the 'crushing tarriffs'? Your evidence backing anything Dennis the real estate consultant said?

Because so far your 'grand coincidence theory' of the Secessions happening the month after Lincoln's election is laughable inadequate. I mean, really....think of the odds!

Dipshit, either you can contest the argument or you cannot. Trying to attack who is making the argument in the link I supplied you is a strong indicator that you are not equipped to refute it. Put up, or STFU.

 

[-S-]

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Um, buddy....That's a letter to the editor from a low level real estate consultant.

Dennis doesn't provide anything to back any claims he's made. Not a single document, not a single quote, nothing. A Letter to the Editor isn't evidence. Especially from a guy whose experience is in marketing and advertising.

That's it? That's the basis of your entire argument.

Holy shit, dude.

It seems to me you can't understand it. Maybe I was wrong about your intellect.

You genuinely didn't know you were offering us a letter to the editor from a real estate consultant as your primary source?

Really?

You may want to dig a bit deeper next time. It took me about 30 seconds to figure it out. It wasn't particularly hard either. And checking your own sources is your responsibility.

But here's a site where you can read the Ordinances of Secession from every one of the eleven states, many of them making quite clear what issues were at stake. I love this one from Kentucky:

President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will;

Ordinances of Secession

And where is your evidence of the 'crushing tarriffs'? Your evidence backing anything Dennis the real estate consultant said?

Because so far your 'grand coincidence theory' of the Secessions happening the month after Lincoln's election is laughable inadequate. I mean, really....think of the odds!

Dipshit, either you can contest the argument or you cannot. Trying to attack who is making the argument in the link I supplied you is a strong indicator that you are not equipped to refute it. Put up, or STFU.

Does that random guy's opinion have any more value than yours, "Saint Michael"?

(Also, watch the language. You're already disrespecting the name by using it, don't disrespect it any further with your outbursts over being found out.)