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

[JoeMoma]

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So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will.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.

Yes they have the authority. It is the current law of the land. Does having authority make the decision correct? Does authority take precedence over the written word of the constitution (namely the tenth admendment)?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes you do sound like a murderer. You certainly have been gloating about the murder of 850,000 people.

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

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

The legal issues were settled on the battlefield, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You believe I'm required to repost any evidence I've ever posted to this forum on the subject, so why not you? Your reputation for maintaining double standards is legion.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes they have the authority. It is the current law of the land. Does having authority make the decision correct? Does authority take precedence over the written word of the constitution (namely the tenth admendment)?

The appeal to authority is the favorite logical fallacy of the Lincoln cult.

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

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.

You keep saying that, but you haven't offered any evidence, and your logic is idiotic. It's based on the theory that anything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited. According to that theory it's illegal to have a barbeque in your backyard because there is no law saying you can.

The bottom line is that you're an idiot. Your arguments are idiotic and most of your claims are pure lies. You're so stupid you aren't worth arguing with. Some of the Lincoln cult members come up with arguments that are actually worth debating, but not you.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

Every Supreme Court decision is a political decision. Whenever it rules in accordance with the actual Constitution, it's regarded as a miracle.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You also have to include in your determination the fact that they have spent their entire childhoods in government run brainwashing mills whose sole function is to inculcate the beliefs that support the current regime.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It comes from the Articles of Confederation. Of course, Congress threw that document in the waste bin when it drafted the Constitution. Obviously that union wasn't perpetual, so I fail to understand why anyone believes the Union created by the Constitution is supposed to be perpetual.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What you are congenitally incapable of understanding is that having the authority to rule doesn't make your rulings correct. If it did, then we would never bother appealing decisions to a higher court. Your believe that the Supreme Court is infallible is charming, but we aren't required to entertain it in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, that isn't the choice. We aren't required to believe the Supreme Court is infallible. Intelligent humans are capable of entertaining the idea that courts make wrong decisions even though we are forced to comply with them.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're late to the conversation, numskull. You are hardly in a position to castigate others about the material that has already been posted.

 

[foggedinn]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

It's a cultural thing in the south.
They teach their children to revere the southern culture. Their political outlook is foreign to the constitutional arguments being presented here.
Yes. Confederate attitudes are prevalent amount southern whites.

 

[bripat9643]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

It's a cultural thing in the south.
They teach their children to revere the southern culture. Their political outlook is foreign to the constitutional arguments being presented here.
Yes. Confederate attitudes are prevalent amount southern whites.

I was born in Boston, so how does your argument account for that? There are no Constitutional arguments presented by the Lincoln cult.

All you proved is that you're a bigot.

 

[-S-]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

It's a cultural thing in the south.
They teach their children to revere the southern culture. Their political outlook is foreign to the constitutional arguments being presented here.
Yes. Confederate attitudes are prevalent amount southern whites.

I was born in Boston, so how does your argument account for that? There are no Constitutional arguments presented by the Lincoln cult.

All you proved is that you're a bigot.

And all you proved is that you're an outlier to the observation he made. You didn't disprove anything. But, then again, you haven't been able to prove or disprove anything in your favor at any point in this thread.

Just because you choose to whistle 'Dixie' doesn't mean his point is lost.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You're late to the conversation, numskull. You are hardly in a position to castigate others about the material that has already been posted.

Save of course that your quotes never were. Remember when you claimed that Kentucky and Virginia resolutions supported secession and Madison supported secession? That was a bald faced lie. Neither the Kentucky nor the Virginia even MENTION secession. Let alone advocate it. And Madison never did.

You straight up lied. And when pressed for where Madison supported secession or where in the Kentucky or Virginia resolutions secesssion is even mentioned, you said you'd already posted it.

Which was another lie. Here's the entire Virginia Resolution;

Virginia Resolution of 1798

Now how can you have offered a quote of the Virginia Resolution supporting secession, when the Virginia Resolution never even MENTIONS secession? Its a physical impossibility. Your imaginary quote never existed. And you know it never existed.

As is so common with your bullshit arguments, they rely on the ignorance of your audience. You DEPEND on your audience never having read the resolutions. You DEPEND on them taking your word for it. But you're fucked when facing someone who has read it.

But hey....here's an opportunity for you. I'll happily trade quotes for quotes. You show me where the NY Ratification document retained the right of secession and I'll offer you the quotes from Madison where he rejected secession insisting that the constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.

Deal? I don't think so. I think you're gonna offer us more chicken shit excuses.

Here's another offer. I'll happily quote where in GIbbons v. Ogden where the Supreme Court said that the States status as sovereign's changed when they came together under a constitution. You offer me the quote of Madison supporting secession.

Deal? Of course not. You have no such quote as you lied your ass off. So you'l give me another chickenshit excuse why you won't trade.

I've got my quotes right here. And you've got jack shit. Worse, you know it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

What you are congenitally incapable of understanding is that having the authority to rule doesn't make your rulings correct. If it did, then we would never bother appealing decisions to a higher court. Your believe that the Supreme Court is infallible is charming, but we aren't required to entertain it in this forum.

The authority to rule makes rulings enforcible and precedent under our constitution. Your disagreement doesn't make you right AND it doesn't make your personal opinons enforcible. You've got jack shit to do with interpreting the constitution.

Yet you keep trying to offer us your personal opinion as superior to the Supreme Court in both 'correctness' and in authority. And you're nobody. You define no legal term. No court ruling cites you for anything. And the dichotomy you keep offering us is whatever bullshit you make up vs the USSC.

And in that contest you lose every time. You citing you means jack shit. And that's all you have.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes they have the authority. It is the current law of the land. Does having authority make the decision correct? Does authority take precedence over the written word of the constitution (namely the tenth admendment)?

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

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

The legal issues were settled on the battlefield, moron.

The British gave up their claim to the colonies in the Treaty of Paris. Resolving the issue to even British law. Which was the standard we were discussing. WHY they gave up their claim to the colonies is a different story entirely.

Remember, Brip...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

It's a cultural thing in the south.
They teach their children to revere the southern culture. Their political outlook is foreign to the constitutional arguments being presented here.
Yes. Confederate attitudes are prevalent amount southern whites.

I was born in Boston, so how does your argument account for that? There are no Constitutional arguments presented by the Lincoln cult.

All you proved is that you're a bigot.

You're in naked denial. The constitutional argument has been offered a dozen times. Yet as you're wot to do, you ignore it and then insist that because you ignored it it doesn't exist. You can't teach that kind of delusion.

Lincoln put down a rebellion. Which is absolutely within his authority. As there is no constitutional authority to secede. You have never factually established the power to unilaterally secede from the union, offering us nothing but your personal opinion on the matter.

And your opinion means jack shit. Again, you're laboring under the delusion that you merely TYPING a claim is evidence. Um, no it isn't. As you citing yourself isn't evidence of anything. Which is why you fail.

Well, one of the many reasons. As your argument is quite awful.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes they have the authority. It is the current law of the land. Does having authority make the decision correct? Does authority take precedence over the written word of the constitution (namely the tenth admendment)?

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

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

The legal issues were settled on the battlefield, moron.

The British gave up their claim to the colonies in the Treaty of Paris. Resolving the issue to even British law. Which was the standard we were discussing. WHY they gave up their claim to the colonies is a different story entirely.

Remember, Brip...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about.

They gave up their claims because they were defeated on the battlefield, shitstain. It's amazing how many times you can repeat the same exploded delusions over and over.