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

[Cecilie1200]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

So true. Note how the members of the Lincoln cult believe that nothing is too extreme or cruel to inflict on Southern states because they seceded. Killing 850,000 people is a light sentence, in their view. But the archangel Lincoln can repeal habeas corpus, trash the First Amendment by arresting newspaper editors and shutting down over 300 news paper, throw citizens in concentrations camps without a trial, arrest the entire state legislature of Maryland and attempt to arrest a justice of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't even cause the faintest ripple in their composure.

Well, in fairness to those people who aren't outright leftist mouthbreathers, all of us have lived our entire lives in a cohesive nation with a strong federal government and strong national identity. It is virtually impossible for most people to put themselves into the mindset of those living in the antebellum era and truly understand how they thought and felt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution doesn't mention secession, so how can anyone claim it isn't permitted? The theory that everything not expressly permitted is denied is the logic of morons.

You can say it isn't permitted because it is called rebellion and that is treason and yes before you spout out more stupidity our founding fathers were traitors to the crown. .

It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.

The Major difference being the founders won their rebellion. They won it because they were worthy. Not just strength won the revolutionary war but ideals of liberty and freedom because it garnered the Frenches help which without them we wouldn't have a country today. The confederates didn't have that morel ground to stand on. You cant scream you are for freedom and then rebel to expand slave economics. The founders one great weakness was allowing the slavery to exist after we were founded. Lincoln fixed that with the cray baby help of the south. They started a war and gave him the opportunity to emancipate them......

So winning makes it right? It's hard to believe that an adult is stupid and unscrupulous to utter such nonsense. The Founders were no more "worth" than the leaders of the Confederacy. Their ideals were virtually identical. The French helped because England was Frances enemy. That doesn't provide the slightest sliver of "moral ground."

Bottom line: You're an ignominious weasel.

So by that logic, if the South HAD won, Thanatos would be in here today telling us how legal and virtuous secession is, based simply on the fact that it worked.

The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.

We would have all been better off if the South had won. The most important reason is that the idea that the almighty state is something to worship would have been utterly defeated. Big government would have had its testicles removed, and that's always a good thing.

I honestly can't say if I agree entirely, but I will say I think whether or not it would have been a good thing is irrelevant to whether or not the states had the right to do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

The Supreme Court did rule after the war that a state does not have the right to succeed. My opinion is that the ruling was driven by politics rather than a correct interpretation of the constitution. Of course it's the ruling of the court that carries weight. My little humble opinion has no power of law.

The court was not about to overturn the union's victory over the south by a constitutional rulling, the wording of the constitution be damned!

The Supreme Court has said a lot of stupid things over its history. I am extremely skeptical the dispassionate objectivity of any ruling about secession made after the war ended.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Secession is not rebellion, moron. It's illegal for the federal government to invade any of the states of the Union. It says so right in the Constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.

Well, aren't you just a font of nothing? What led you to erroneously believe this was a contribution to something?

 

[Cecilie1200]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

All right, who went down to the school for the mentally-challenged and bookmarked the message board on their library computer? 'Fess up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

...and the Court doubtless got this from the 'perpetual Union' part of the origin arrangement creating the United States.

There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?

 

[Cecilie1200]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

Oh, crap. Another "The Supreme Court makes law" bobblehead. Aren't we already over quota for those?

 

[Cecilie1200]

A marriage, for example, is a legal union. It can be ended if both parties agree. If that is not the case, authorities are addressed to adjudicate. If one party becomes violent, he/she can be arrested. One of them declaring that the other must leave the house does not mean the other must leave the house. If one shoots at the other to try to make him/her leave, consequences can be grave.

I'm honestly bewildered as to what point you think you've made here. Are you arguing in favor of secession because parties to the legal contract of marriage can leave the contract? Or are you trying to tell us that Lincoln's war was really just him "arresting" people?

If you really want to explore this analogy, then what Lincoln did was equivalent to me telling my husband I want a divorce and to keep the house, and him responding by holding a gun to my head and keeping me prisoner because - to borrow Thanatos' phrase - I "have to keep my word".

 

[Skylar]

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

Amazingly enough, telling us you have "lots and lots of evidence" does not in itself constitute evidence. Your telling us that something is true barely constitutes evidence that you have a computer with a keyboard, from my viewpoint.

If typing the words 'lots and lots of evidence' were the extent of my presentation, you'd be right. Alas, it isn't and you're not.

I've cited James Madison rejecting the idea of secession. Twice. Once in response to the NY ratification document's proposed inclusion of a reservation of the right to secede. And once in reference to the nullification crisis in which Madison again rejected secession. I've cited the NY ratification document with all mention of the right to secession removed. I've even posted a link to the whole doc.

I've cited the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which make no mention of secession. I've cited the leading advocates of secession among the founders being exclusively Anti-Federalists. And I've cited the fact that the Anti-Federalists lost. While the Federalists who rejected the idea of secession won. With the leading Federalist being the primary author of the constitution.

I've cited the USSC in Gibbons v. Ogden recognizing that the State's status of sovereignty had changed when they joined together under a constitution. This, 30 years before the civil war. I've cited the Constitution's explicit mention of both rebellions and invasion.......but never once secession. I've cited the USSC rejecting the right to secesion after the civil war. And the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the constitution by design. With Federalist Paper 78 laying out t his intent and authority in detail.

Amazingly enough, all of which you'd know if you'd been following the conversation. Which you clearly haven't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

He isn't your source NOW. As I've quoted him contradicting you. And of course, any source that ignores you you immediately ignore. As you have no standard but your own opinion. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your opinion. Even your own sources.

Would you like me to quote you citing Madison BEFORE, on the very topic of secession?

I'd be glad to.

Why the **** are you asking, instead of just doing it, Sparky? I've been waiting for four posts now for you to actually provide this evidence you keep saying you have, instead of you just telling us that it exists.

Is there some particular reason you expect us to drag your debate points out of you with a chainfall?

 

[g5000]

Them dimocrat slavers were awesome patriots because they dared to defend their rights!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

Its you vs. the USSC. Yeah, those sources aren't equal, Brip.

Good thing people didn't take that attitude toward Dred Scott, huh?

 

[Skylar]

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

The Supreme Court did rule after the war that a state does not have the right to succeed. My opinion is that the ruling was driven by politics rather than a correct interpretation of the constitution. Of course it's the ruling of the court that carries weight. My little humble opinion has no power of law.

The court was not about to overturn the union's victory over the south by a constitutional rulling, the wording of the constitution be damned!

The Supreme Court has said a lot of stupid things over its history. I am extremely skeptical the dispassionate objectivity of any ruling about secession made after the war ended.

Yeah, but the court's authority to rule isn't based on your skepticism. Or your personal opinion. But its authority to rule on all issues that arise under the constitution.

Its clearly ruled on the matter. And given the choice you're offering us is your skepticism v. the court's constitutional authority to adjudicate, I'm gonna have to with the Supreme Court on this one.

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

Its you vs. the USSC. Yeah, those sources aren't equal, Brip.

Good thing people didn't take that attitude toward Dred Scott, huh?

The choice you're giving us is you or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutional significance. Given those two options the court is a firmer constitutional foundation.

 

[Skylar]

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

He isn't your source NOW. As I've quoted him contradicting you. And of course, any source that ignores you you immediately ignore. As you have no standard but your own opinion. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your opinion. Even your own sources.

Would you like me to quote you citing Madison BEFORE, on the very topic of secession?

I'd be glad to.

Why the **** are you asking, instead of just doing it, Sparky?

I did. Remember, Champ.....you aren't actually following the conversation. You're reacting to individual posts out of context.

Which doesn't amount to much.

I've been waiting for four posts now for you to actually provide this evidence you keep saying you have, instead of you just telling us that it exists.

And if you'd followed just a little bit longer, you'd see the very quotes you're demanding. Alas, you didn't. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Read through the debate until you do. Then comment. Doing it the other way around will result in more hapless blunders like the one you just made.

 

[there4eyeM]

(a response to Cecelie above)
Perhaps you are trying to make things too complex.
The analogy was to Fort Sumter and South Carolina's claim to divorce from the Union. That had not been decided in an adjudicated manner. The divorce had not taken place just because one side said it had.
Before a peaceful solution was found, violence was unleashed. Authorities intervened and things became worse.
It is an analogy, remember, not a recreation of the historical tale.
If your estranged husband starts to shoot at you to make you leave your common dwelling before the courts have even decided that a divorce is in effect, it would be no surprise to have guardians of order arrive to subdue him.
It is just a simple tale, not meant to resolve all the questions raised in this very long and repetitive thread, merely to illustrate a facet of the legal situation.
Secession was not clearly decided to be either permitted or not.
This poster sees it as not, by the continuation inferred in the New Constitution of the original documents establishing the Perpetual Union and nation. This poster recognizes, nonetheless, that an honest point of vagueness could be argued on that point. This poster further feels that the destruction of the US in order to exercise secession, even if 'legal', was not justified. Further still, the inseparable fact that secession meant the continuation of an intolerable, inhuman and un-American institution, slavery, is an overarching argument against the Confederacy and the 'cause' of the South.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

Amazingly enough, telling us you have "lots and lots of evidence" does not in itself constitute evidence. Your telling us that something is true barely constitutes evidence that you have a computer with a keyboard, from my viewpoint.

If typing the words 'lots and lots of evidence' were the extent of my presentation, you'd be right. Alas, it isn't and you're not.

Well, I would have to take your word for that, since so far, it HAS been the extent of your presentation. I still wait in vain for you to show, rather than tell.

I've cited James Madison rejecting the idea of secession. Twice. Once in response to the NY ratification document's proposed inclusion of a reservation of the right to secede. And once in reference to the nullification crisis in which Madison again rejected secession. I've cited the NY ratification document with all mention of the right to secession removed. I've even posted a link to the whole doc.

Sorry, but I haven't seen you cite Madison at all. I've seen you TELL us "Madison was against secession", but to my recollection, there has not been any actual quotation from him.

Furthermore, James Madison's opinion does not constitute evidence that secession is Unconstitutional. It just constitutes evidence that James Madison didn't agree with it.[/QUOTE]

I've cited the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which make no mention of secession. I've cited the leading advocates of secession among the founders being exclusively Anti-Federalists. And I've cited the fact that the Anti-Federalists lost. While the Federalists who rejected the idea of secession won. With the leading Federalist being the primary author of the constitution.

Again, to the best of my recollection, you have simply stated that those resolutions made no mention of secession. But even if you had quoted them directly, that is only proof that those two documents don't explicitly mention secession. Doesn't prove a damned thing about the legality or Constitutionality of secession.

I'm not even sure what "exclusively anti-Federalist" has to do with the topic at hand either way. Would it surprise you to know that Constitutionality is based on - stay with me here - what's actually in the Constitution? And unless said document has sprouted some new "emanations from penumbras", or whatever the hell it is you lefties think it does, in the last few minutes, it doesn't say a single explicit word on the topic, one way or another.

I've cited the USSC in Gibbons v. Ogden recognizing that the State's status of sovereignty had changed when they joined together under a constitution. This, 30 years before the civil war. I've cited the Constitution's explicit mention of both rebellions and invasion.......but never once secession. I've cited the USSC rejecting the right to secesion after the civil war. And the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the constitution by design. With Federalist Paper 78 laying out t his intent and authority in detail.

I think you're going to have to actually give me the number of the post in which the first case was cited. I think you can probably guess how sanguine I am about a Supreme Court verdict in the aftermath of the war. You'd have to be more brain-damaged than I generally assume you to be to not know my feelings on the subject of the Supreme Court's divine infallibility.

Amazingly enough, all of which you'd know if you'd been following the conversation. Which you clearly haven't.

Actually, I have. And I believe the problem here is that you don't understand the meanings of the words you use. You think telling us something was said or done or believed is the same as actually providing the quote or citation or source. You also appear to believe that appeals to authority - aka "name-dropping" - is definitive.

I invite you to clarify, if such is possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

(a response to Cecelie above)
Perhaps you are trying to make things too complex.
The analogy was to Fort Sumter and South Carolina's claim to divorce from the Union. That had not been decided in an adjudicated manner. The divorce had not taken place just because one side said it had.
Before a peaceful solution was found, violence was unleashed. Authorities intervened and things became worse.
It is an analogy, remember, not a recreation of the historical tale.
If your estranged husband starts to shoot at you to make you leave your common dwelling before the courts have even decided that a divorce is in effect, it would be no surprise to have guardians of order arrive to subdue him.
It is just a simple tale, not meant to resolve all the questions raised in this very long and repetitive thread, merely to illustrate a facet of the legal situation.
Secession was not clearly decided to be either permitted or not.
This poster sees it as not, by the continuation inferred in the New Constitution of the original documents establishing the Perpetual Union and nation. This poster recognizes, nonetheless, that an honest point of vagueness could be argued on that point. This poster further feels that the destruction of the US in order to exercise secession, even if 'legal', was not justified. Further still, the inseparable fact that secession meant the continuation of an intolerable, inhuman and un-American institution, slavery, is an overarching argument against the Confederacy and the 'cause' of the South.

Is your quote function not working? Because I think you might be talking to me, but I really can't be sure.

 

[there4eyeM]

"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.

 

[Skylar]

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

Amazingly enough, telling us you have "lots and lots of evidence" does not in itself constitute evidence. Your telling us that something is true barely constitutes evidence that you have a computer with a keyboard, from my viewpoint.

If typing the words 'lots and lots of evidence' were the extent of my presentation, you'd be right. Alas, it isn't and you're not.

Well, I would have to take your word for that, since so far, it HAS been the extent of your presentation. I still wait in vain for you to show, rather than tell.

Just because you are late to the conversation doesn't mean I'm obligated to re-present my evidence. Everything I've cited is right here in the thread.

Shown, not told. Look at it if you wish. Or don't. Your participation isn't vital to my argument.