Asclepias
Diamond Member
Go to sleep dumb ass. Youre out of your league.Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?You see it wrong.I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.WRONG.All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.Which was?All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.So, what was the property of the United States?No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:Section 3.My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.
Article IV Section 3
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.
"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."
If you want to secede you have to get off US property.
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."
"...or other property belonging to the United States;"
Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.
If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!
SO, WHICH IS IT???
Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.
There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.
Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.
Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%