The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[James Everett]

doesn't matter one way or another now

What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?

It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.

So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?

I am suggesting it was just as illegal for the CSA to secede as it was the thirteen colonies. So it is hypocritical to condemn one but defend the other.

For something to be illegal, there must first be a law established to make an act illegal. The problem for those who state that secession was illegal, is that they are unable to cite the law that has ever been made that makes secession an illegal act. This JAKE person is is a lightweight with only a topical understanding of his government system. The questions that I posed to him were posed for a purpose. One must determine if the 1787/1789 CONstitution was ratified by the people, or the State legislatures. The answer to this question is of great importance. This JAKE person knew he was in over his head therefore afraid to answer the questions, and called for the moderators to close the thread to save him from further embarrassment.

 

[Dante]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

 

[Dante]

You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.

Your argument is over. No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.

Mods, please close the thread.

Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.

just allow jake to give you some...oh never mind. He's a little rat faced tattler

 

[James Everett]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.

 

[James Everett]

You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.

Your argument is over. No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.

Mods, please close the thread.

Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.

just allow jake to give you some...oh never mind. He's a little rat faced tattler

The funny thing is, I asked him the question that he claims to have asked me. I never answered my own question to him. He must be on crack.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.

Yup, the war settled the question. That you disagree with several hundred million since then is immaterial.

 

[James Everett]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.

Yup, the war settled the question. That you disagree with several hundred million since then is immaterial.

Not quite JAKE,
If that were the case this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Those secession petitions wouldn't have been passed around a couple of years ago, Ireland would still be occupied by England, Scotland wouldn't have held a secession vote, the Ukraine, East Germany, Poland, the Balkans, all would still be under the occupation of Russia.
The Founders' did not establish a consolidation of the colony's into a single State, each colony became an independent State, the Framers' claimed that the 1787 CONstitution was not consolidating the States into a single State. If a State cannot exit a union, then logic dictates that there has been a consolidation into a single entity. A state cannot exist unless it is a sovereign, if it is not a sovereign, then it is not a State hence falls under the dominion of a sovereign, making it a province of a sovereign. You never answered my question concerning whether the State legislatures ratified the 1787/1789 CONstitution or "we the people" ratified it. Why do you avoid answering this question?

 

[danielpalos]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.

Not at all; the war proved the soundness of our Founding Fathers wisdom regarding our Second Article of Amendment; that, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.

You are being humored only.

 

[James Everett]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.

Not at all; the war proved the soundness of our Founding Fathers wisdom regarding our Second Article of Amendment; that, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

There is a distinction between the "founding fathers" and the "framers", they are not one and the same. There was a split among the "founders" the "rats" and the "anti-rats" , ratifiers and ant-ratifiers. Among the "anti-rats was Patrick Henry, who stated that the 1787 CONstitution established a government that would not last a century. He was right as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the system of government that was established by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was destroyed, in fact federalism, and the union of States were destroyed. Most refer to "the federal government" today as if a federal system still exists, when in fact all that remains is a national system ( a national government) not a federal government. This may be understood by reading the Federalist# 39 wherein James Madison explains the system that Lincoln destroyed using his rebellion and war on the Confederacy, which was also a war on federalism and the union, facilitating a complete consolidation into a single sovereign State.
As for the militia; the militia are every able bodied man. A Well regulated militia is necessary to a free State. Which States today have a well regulated militia? The National guard is not the militia. "Well regulated" meant well funded, not controlled by the central body of government.
CSAgov.org

 

[James Everett]

We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.

You are being humored only.

Here is a suggestion JAKE.....
How bout you keep quite until you actually have some input of value to offer.
All you do is spout insult, yet never offer to cite or even actually offer anything of relevance to the discussion. My take is that you are a 18 year old kid troll with nothing better to do than argue without any valuable input to offer. You are very childish. Do you not understand that people see this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And here at the Big USMB Big Hitz radio, dedicated to James:

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.

You are being humored only.

Here is a suggestion JAKE.....
How bout you keep quite until you actually have some input of value to offer.
All you do is spout insult, yet never offer to cite or even actually offer anything of relevance to the discussion. My take is that you are a 18 year old kid troll with nothing better to do than argue without any valuable input to offer. You are very childish. Do you not understand that people see this?

My input is that you are a conspiracy theorist who has been repeatedly and competently and factually rebutted. You don't like being made fun of. Tough. Come up with something of worth.

One, whether or not secession was legal is immaterial.

Two, the CSA and its hopes were obliterated.

Three, the South came back into the Union IAW with imposed requirements. Only TN escaped the reconstruction requirements because of Johnson and the unionist government. The southern states are proud and indivisible members of the Union.

Fourth, for you to keep spamming the same old rebutted stuff is trollish.

Got it? Good.

 

[danielpalos]

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

Of course it is.

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.

Not at all; the war proved the soundness of our Founding Fathers wisdom regarding our Second Article of Amendment; that, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

There is a distinction between the "founding fathers" and the "framers", they are not one and the same. There was a split among the "founders" the "rats" and the "anti-rats" , ratifiers and ant-ratifiers. Among the "anti-rats was Patrick Henry, who stated that the 1787 CONstitution established a government that would not last a century. He was right as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the system of government that was established by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was destroyed, in fact federalism, and the union of States were destroyed. Most refer to "the federal government" today as if a federal system still exists, when in fact all that remains is a national system ( a national government) not a federal government. This may be understood by reading the Federalist# 39 wherein James Madison explains the system that Lincoln destroyed using his rebellion and war on the Confederacy, which was also a war on federalism and the union, facilitating a complete consolidation into a single sovereign State.
As for the militia; the militia are every able bodied man. A Well regulated militia is necessary to a free State. Which States today have a well regulated militia? The National guard is not the militia. "Well regulated" meant well funded, not controlled by the central body of government.
CSAgov.org

Not at all; the federalists understood their social utopia would be untenable, without additional guarantees to the People due to a lack of social morals for free; and ceded the point and the argument, to the anti-federalists by including our Bill of Rights.

I agree that there is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 and that only, well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[James Everett]

We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.

You are being humored only.

Here is a suggestion JAKE.....
How bout you keep quite until you actually have some input of value to offer.
All you do is spout insult, yet never offer to cite or even actually offer anything of relevance to the discussion. My take is that you are a 18 year old kid troll with nothing better to do than argue without any valuable input to offer. You are very childish. Do you not understand that people see this?

My input is that you are a conspiracy theorist who has been repeatedly and competently and factually rebutted. You don't like being made fun of. Tough. Come up with something of worth.

One, whether or not secession was legal is immaterial.

Two, the CSA and its hopes were obliterated.

Three, the South came back into the Union IAW with imposed requirements. Only TN escaped the reconstruction requirements because of Johnson and the unionist government. The southern states are proud and indivisible members of the Union.

Fourth, for you to keep spamming the same old rebutted stuff is trollish.

Got it? Good.

Jake,
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I did not claim Lincoln to be conspiring. You just assume such. Nothing that I have posted has been rebutted. Please by all means show me such rebuttal. As for Tennessee rejoining the union, or any other Southern Confederate State.....if ones wife divorced him, and he replaced her with another, he cannot claim her to be the same wife, or that she re/united with him. March of 1863 under occupation and martial law Lincoln's appointed governor demanded all Tennessee govt officials declare an oath to the U,S. Or be arrested, when they refused, they were arrested and replaced. Elections were ordered in which no Confederates or Confederate sympathizers were allowed to vote allowing only a small percentage suffrage, a Convention was held in which no Former confederates or Confederate sympathizers were allowed to attend and our State Constitution/government was replaced. It was not the same State that joined the union that is now part of the national State. Just as the replaced wife above is not the same as the original. This is why Tennessee remains under occupation, as the current government and constitution are not ours, but a constitution instituted under coercion force and duress, all of which is repugnant to the 1787 U.S. CONstitution.
You nor anyone else offer no rebuttal to these facts.
Everyone can see that you are the victim of your own folly, in getting in over your educational abilities, thus you act like a child tossing childish insults with no relevant factual input to the thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These are your words, not mine: "I did not claim Lincoln to be conspiring. You just assume such."

Everything you have posted as been competently and factually rebutted.

States are not wives, and the derivative analogy fails on lack of relevance. And if the divorce analogy were relevant, then the divorce was illegal. TN had no legal right to leave the Union; the war and SCOTUS later made secession irrelevant and illegal.

The TN government was 'unionized' by the legal and moral government, the USA.

Your definition of "occupation" is ridiculous.

You have you theories, but they are not authoritative.

You have your opinion, but you are not an authority.

When you are corrected, you whine and ad hom.

Tough to be you, James. As I have made so many others realize, don't dish what you can't take.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The above is my final commentary about that nonsense of yours.

Now, let's talk about you.

Where is your authority to speak for the CSA?

What authority do you have constitutionally and legally?

You need to answer these questions honestly, and you will keep getting them until you do.

 

[James Everett]

These are your words, not mine: "I did not claim Lincoln to be conspiring. You just assume such."

Everything you have posted as been competently and factually rebutted.

States are not wives, and the derivative analogy fails on lack of relevance. And if the divorce analogy were relevant, then the divorce was illegal. TN had no legal right to leave the Union; the war and SCOTUS later made secession irrelevant and illegal.

The TN government was 'unionized' by the legal and moral government, the USA.

Your definition of "occupation" is ridiculous.

You have you theories, but they are not authoritative.

You have your opinion, but you are not an authority.

When you are corrected, you whine and ad hom.

Tough to be you, James. As I have made so many others realize, don't dish what you can't take.

OK, JAKE,
Please rebut the facts that I posted beginning with......
The fact that Andrew Johnson was appointed military governor of Tennessee and that he did not threaten to have the elected officials arrested if they did not sign another of loyalty to the U.S. And when they refused had them arrested and replaced.
Next rebut the fact that our State constitution was replaced under military occupation.
Next rebut the fact that there is no law, or amendment to your CONstitution that mentions secession let alone states that it is an unlawful or illegal act; please cite that law.
JAKE, if these facts have been factually rebutted, then post them, otherwise stop making things up.
Now, you State that YOUR SCOTUS made secession illegal....
Are you aware that YOUR SCOTUS cannot make law, yet you state that YOUR SCOTUS made secession illegal? Please, PLEASE by all means cite that law that YOUR SCOTUS made making secession illegal. This is important information that you hold!
JAKE, how much longer do you plan to continue making a fool of yourself?

 

[James Everett]

The above is my final commentary about that nonsense of yours.

Now, let's talk about you.

Where is your authority to speak for the CSA?

What authority do you have constitutionally and legally?

You need to answer these questions honestly, and you will keep getting them until you do.

Well, JAKE,
Let's get your first two questions out of the way, with one answer that handles both.....It's called the 1st amendment to YOUR CONstitution.....we call it the right to redress. do you know what redress means?
Also, you just asked about my authority to speak for the CSA, but you have previously claimed it didn't not does exist, yet you acknowledge it with your question.
As for your last and final question, please refer to the first answer which is YOUR first amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James is being the fool thinking he has any relevance on or about the subject. He ad homs then whines when he gets smacked.

He can't take what he dishes.