The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[Rogue 9]

This has been a very interesting thread. Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post. I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way. You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar. He does not; he is an obvious ideologue. You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread. He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.

James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor. I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however). You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue. Which of the following is more likely?

A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.

Which is it? Are you the smartest person out of 317 million? Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?

My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.

you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.

Not Southerners; just you.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.

Cannon fire is peaceful? Also, Lincoln didn't invade Charleston (at least, not that early in the war); what the hell are you talking about?

Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.

And more volunteers than the Army could process, too.

The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.

[citation needed]

 

[James Everett]

This has been a very interesting thread. Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post. I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way. You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar. He does not; he is an obvious ideologue. You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread. He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.

James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor. I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however). You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue. Which of the following is more likely?

A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.

Which is it? Are you the smartest person out of 317 million? Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?

My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.

you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.

Not Southerners; just you.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.

Cannon fire is peaceful? Also, Lincoln didn't invade Charleston (at least, not that early in the war); what the hell are you talking about?

Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.

And more volunteers than the Army could process, too.

The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.

[citation needed]

First, Rogue9, and twobeers....
What makes you think that I am not calm? I simply posted an example of Paperviews childish insults, and then explained what I had just done. It is always the Yankee who when seeing defeat, begins the childish mud slinging, and accusations of "Racism" such as you have just accused. I love my fellow man, Black Red, yellow Brown and White. It is not I who distinguish between the differing colors of my fellow man, that would be YOU and your Yankee brethren. I never once mentioned Race, YOU however have at every opportunity.
Now, twobeers, or whoever,
you have made this statement followed by two questions....
You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue. Which of the following is more likely?

A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
Lets look at the evidence, of which you ignore....
First, there are many thousands of Southern Confederates, as well as Southern Nationalists who share the same view as I.
You as a Yankee, are out of the loop here, you seem to be under the belief that Any Southerner who defends our Confederacy is a racist, this is evidence of your lack of knowledge concerning our people.
Rogue9, You Know nothing of Tennessee, the State wherein I was born, have lived all my life, my ancestors where here when Tennessee was still part of North Carolina, and the the lost State of Franklin, and you make statements concerning Tennessee without backing them up with factual evidence. Therefore allow me to ask....Have you ever lived in Tennessee? I would quiz you on Tennessee history,however you would simply research and supply the answers. Except perhaps if I posed some that you could not find so easily on the internet. ..I will give that some thought later.
The secession ordinance was ratified by popular vote on June 8, and on June 24, 1861, Governor Harris proclaimed that Tennessee's ties with the United Sates were dissolved.
You may claim fraud all you wish, but please post the facts backed by evidence!
You know nothing about our cause, because just as every Yankee, YOU have not done your research, therefore YOU are practising Occam's Razor theory...You have made assumptions, and accusations to promote your positions dishonestly and without research.
The purpose of the Restoration effort is not even to restore the CSA government as our governmental institution, as it contains the same Nationalist flaw as does YOUR USA. Our effort is to use the FACT that the CSA government was never surrendered, or a peace treaty concluded between the USA and our CSA as a legal avenue to return to the only true federal system that ever existed in America, and that Sir, are the Articles of Confederation, that you have been taught to believe were not working. So this flies in the face of your childish assumption that we somehow wish to subjugate our Black brothers. You HATE the Southern people and wish to keep them subjugated by continually beating them from an incorrect perceived moral high ground that you think the North holds. What we want is a return to common law under a federal system, wherein everyone is FREE to do as they choose as long as in doing so they do NOT infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. Sir, YOU are correct, I am an ideologue, I believe unwaveringly in LIBERTY for all of my fellow man, wherein you believe in TYRANNY.
Question number (1)...
A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
Answer...I do NOT care what 99% of Americans know, I am only concerned with conveying the truth to my fellow Southern Confederate Americans. What you Yankees think you know, what you Yankees believe is irrelevant to our cause. And yes, as result of your Governments INDOCTRINATION, as well as the ignorant such as you who THINK they know something who continually beat my people with a stick of guilt, as if the Yankee holds some sort of moral high ground which they do NOT, it is up to those of us who know the truth to provide it.
The fact is, and I CHALLENGE YOU ON THIS POINT AS WELL....The Confederate States of America government was NEVER surrendered, nor a peace treaty concluded between the CSA and the USA. Our President was abducted, and held in solitary confinement for two years, and refused to surrender our CSA government. Yankees touted that they were going to hold the trial of the century, but quietly freed our President, because the USA would lose all they had gained on the battlefield in a court of law wherein the world would be witness to the TRUTH of the Northern rebellion to the lawful authority of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. If you can prove otherwise, then by all means do so. Were our Confederate governments both State and central forced into exile? Of course they were.
As always, I will post the evidence, SOMETHING YOU HAVE YET DONE TO SUPPORT YOUR INCORRECT ASSERTIONS.
Since You Know so much about Tennessee, none of this will come as a surprise to you.
Isham Harris was elected governor of Tennessee before secession, held two terms, and was a lame duck at the time Tennessee was invaded and the Capitol fell to the Yankee insurrection, Robert Caruthers was the governor elect, yet because of the Yankee rebellion and occupation of Tennessee he was NOT allowed to take office. He remains listed as one of Tennessee's governors however.
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union.
Governor Johnson demanded that all of Nashville's city officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????
In the fall of 1864, Governor Johnson was elected Vice-President of the United States, and he was to be inaugurated on March 4, 1865.

A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions.

No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.
So now we see that the majority of the people of Tennessee were denied suffrage.
More evidence that our de jure government was forced into exile.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Again, who here is guilty?????
In this unconstitutional process, William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4, and he took office on April 5, 1865.

The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.

This election, limited to only pro-unionist which was held on December 18, 1869, favored a convention by a very large vote.
AGAIN....
WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????
Convention of 1870

The Convention met in Nashville on January 10, and elected General John C. Brown of Pulaski as its president. This act clearly violated Section XXIV, of the 1796 Declaration of Rights: ". . . that in all cases the military shall be in strict subordination to civil authority" by placing a military official in charge of developing a new government for Tennessee.
Again....
WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????
According to Military Government and Martial Law [William E. Birkhimer, LL.B., Major General Staff U.S. Army, Third Edition, 1914], ". . . the adoption of a constitution during the war [was] under military orders" (page 110).
The threatening acts of Johnson during his administration as military governor are shown in his actions toward the officials of Nashville. In Lincoln Plan of Reconstruction Charles H. McCarthy observes on page 17, "The mayor and the city council were ordered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States, and on their refusal were imprisoned."
WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????
Clearly the convention of 1869 operated under duress.

Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
Lincoln, and his co-conspirators Grant and Johnson knew they had to bar ex-confederates from involvement in formation the new government for their overthrow of civil government to be a success.

A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void. Also, if a party's manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternatives, the contract is voidable by the victim [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
Your next question....
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
SO YOU PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU, IT IS FOR MY PEOPLE WHO WILL LEARN THE TRUTH. YOU ONLY THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT OUR CAUSE. I HAVE JUST PROVIDED YOU WITH THE TRUTH, AND I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT, THAT YOU WILL TRY TO DENY IT, YET AGAIN AS I HAVE STATED.......
.I do NOT care what 99% of Americans know, I am only concerned with conveying the truth to my fellow Southern Confederate Americans. What you Yankees think you know, what you Yankees believe is irrelevant to our cause. And yes, as result of your Governments INDOCTRINATION, as well as the ignorant such as you who THINK they know something who continually beat my people with a stick of guilt, as if the Yankee holds some sort of moral high ground which they do NOT, it is up to those of us who know the truth to provide it.
And again I CHALLENGE YOU PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL,....
CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or AAMENDMENTTHERETO THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN UNLAWFUL, OR ILLEGAL ACT.
Rogue9, YOU CITE, Article IV section.3. as your defence, this only shows you for the Pseudo intellectual ignorant that you are. You understand NOTHING of YOUR own 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution!
"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."
YOU NEED TO READ AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN SCOTUS OPINION IN POLLARDS LESSEE V HAGAN.
ONCE A STATE IS FORMED FROM A U.S. TERRITORY, IT BECOMES A SOVEREIGN, AND GAINS MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE LAND, SHORES, AND SOIL UNDER THE WATERS. THE U.S. WHICH HELD ONLY TEMPORARY MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION, CEDED ALL LAND AND MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION WITHIN THE NEWLY FORMED STATE.
Sir, The States ARE NOT PROPERTY OF THE United States!!! The territories before a State is formed is property of the United States, once it is formed into a State it gains all rights of sovereignty.
You have only continued in the embarrassment of yourself, and every YANKEE you represent.
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
In closing, again.....
I CHALLENGE YOU two PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS,....
CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or AMENDMENT THERETO THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN UNLAWFUL, OR ILLEGAL ACT.
One last thing...
Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain. As for the google BS opinion that you posted...well, it is just that BS.

 

[James Everett]

...
....

I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:

...
The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..

lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the "south didn't want to Import anymore" slaves in 1860...
That was a real knee slapper.

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

Rotagilla, Sir, thank you, and do not allow these idiots to get to you, YOU ARE DOING A FINE JOB, SHOWING THEM FOR THE IGNORANTS THAT THEY ARE. My hats off to you Sir.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

The development of Constitutional, case, and statute law continued after 1791, guys.

Neither of you clearly are an expert on the Constitution, Lincoln, or the Civil War.

You really should read Rogue9 and paperview with much humbler, contrite souls and far less pride.

If you pulled this stuff in real history writing, you would fail.

 

[James Everett]

The development of Constitutional, case, and statute law continued after 1791, guys.

Neither of you clearly are an expert on the Constitution, Lincoln, or the Civil War.

You really should read Rogue9 and paperview with much humbler, contrite souls and far less pride.

If you pulled this stuff in real history writing, you would fail.

Again, I cite fact, backed by proof, YET every YANKEE such as YOU simply make statements backed by NOTHING. YOU SIR, are clearly no expert on anything rather than being a follower, a cheerleader of the ignorant. I just posted the same challenge that I have posted over and again, yet none of you can answer the challenge. Further, I have just posed, and shewn YOU that ROGUE9 is ignorant by attempting to cite Article IV section 3 as being a law concerning secession. Rogue9 clearly has no understanding of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, as I have just evidenced. Yet you state that we really should listen to this person???? Are you not the same person who continually called for this "Paperview" to enter the discussion to teach me something as well? All we got from this person was the equivalent of an 8 year old boy making fart noises with his armpit. Please forgive me if I smiled when you posted....
"You really should read Rogue9 and paperview with much humbler, contrite souls and far less pride."
Your mentors have been soundly defeated by one simple challenge, that neither can rise to. Oh. and one more thing...Everything I posted is true history, and I will challenge you to prove otherwise.
The fact is that nothing here is relevant other than the law, and none of you can cite that law, everything else here is simply side bar discussion, and a simple pissing match created by you and your mentors to avoid the one relevant issue...THE LAW.

 

[James Everett]

For two beers and Rogue9, I forgot to add.....
In this unconstitutional process, William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4, and he took office on April 5, 1865. This is the same William (Parsons Brownlow who fired into his own loyal "unionist" legislature to coerce them....
Although the state was under military rule, Brownlow’s hand-picked Tennessee Legislature still had to give the appearance of approving the Reconstruction Acts in order to avoid Union enforcement.
The representatives, however, outright refused to do so. Seizing property without due process was unconstitutional and the representatives refused to give Brownlow such a tool to use indiscriminately. Brownlow was furious with them and sent the State militia out at midnight to round them up and bring the representatives at gun point to the Capitol building.
Brownlow ordered them to call themselves to order and pass the Reconstruction bill. Angered and upset at being herded like a bunch of prisoners into the Capitol – they defiantly refused to pass any illegal statutes that seized property without due process. Brownlow turned furious and openly ordered the militia to fire on the representatives. After the soldiers fired a few rounds at the group, the legislature, in fear for its collective lives, passed the Reconstruction Act and began one of the darkest eras of Tennessee history. In the election of 1867, Brownlow issued an order that forbade the wives and children of former Confederate soldiers to vote in the election. That tactic allowed Brownlow to reduce voter turnout by as much as 95 percent – ensuring his political machines would carry the election.
Again we see...The majority of the people of Tennessee were denied suffrage.
Proof again that our government was forced into exile.....
On the marble banister in the Capitol, you can still see the bullet marks where Brownlow ordered the militia to fire on the legislature. They have never been repaired and remain as a reminder of the event.
The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.
I CHALLENGE YOU two PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS,....
CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or AMENDMENT THERETO THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN UNLAWFUL, OR ILLEGAL ACT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you can post all the evidence you want, but if your interpretation is not logical to that evidence and that narrative then you will always fail. Rogue9 demonstrated exactly why you are a neophyte blinded by a confirmation bias before you even begin. Please, you embarrass yourself in front of those who know this subject far better than you.

 

[Rotagilla]

YankeeROGUE9,
I do not see the names of every American citizen at the bottom of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution either. If as I stated it was not approved by the States legislatures then it was done in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Claims to be a nation of laws, if this articles was violated then you have a de facto government. Article XIII did not allow for the whole of the people to alter one word in the Articles of Confederation, it is specific....
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Do you see the signatures of the state governors at the bottom of the Constitution? The bills from their legislatures?
YANKEE Rogue9,
You state
"The Articles government was not working; that was the entire point of the Convention in the first place. "
The Articles were in place for six years, and were actually amendable via the confirmation of alterations by each State legislature. They were not working ONLY for the intentions of the Nationalists that you YANKEES have such a love affair with, who wanted a government NOT of liberty for the people, but a government of power granduer and splendor to rival that of England's monarchy, this is why YOUR U.S. is in a perpetual state of war, and hegemony. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution did NOT work as we see it took one of history's bloodiest wars to enforce its TYRANNY, (LINCOLN'S REBELLION VIA THE NORTHS VIOLATION OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT) . It is still NOT working for the purpose of Liberty, it is working however to the purpose of tyranny. As for East Tennessee, when Your Lincoln called for troops to make war on the Southern State, East Tennessee rejected the union at that point. You dont know spit about Tennessee, YANKEE. I DO! My family has been here since it was a wilderness. Again, the United States was a Confederacy of States under the Articles, there was NO national aspect. The whole of the People were NOT party to it, and could NOT have legally altered one word in it. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to be a treaty, otherwise it is a de facto government in violation of the LAW under the Articles. As far as Admiralty law, and common law,The passport of such read differently one states that the individual is a U.S. Citizen, the other an American citizen. You can google and post contradiction all you want, however, you as I have clearly witnessed in our exchanges, have little understanding of law, or history. Now I have a question for you...
Have you settled on a definition for YOUR CONstitution that works for you? Once you claimed it to be a compact, and when I gave you the proper definition, you then claimed it to be a charter, then I gave you that definition. What is it to become in your feeble mind next in order to fit your feeble position?
And last but in NO way least, YOU CANNOT WIN THIS DEBATE, UNTIL YOU CAN CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT. YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID THE ONLY THING THAT CAN WIN THE DEBATE FOR YOU. CITE THE LAW YANKEE BOY!!!!

Wow.

Now that that's out of the way...

If the Articles government was working so well, why was a convention called to alter it? Answer me that; it'll be interesting.

As for your citation, I say again:

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.

There. What in the hell do you think that means? Did they just write it in there for giggles?

Now for miscellany: East Tennessee did in fact overwhelmingly reject secession in both referendums, it did in fact hold a separate convention after the (rigged) June 8th referendum which voted to break away from Tennessee and rejoin the Union, and it was in fact answered with brutal military occupation when it presented its resolutions to the Tennessee legislature. The whole of the people do in fact have a right to alter their government; since you contend otherwise I can only conclude that you are a statist. I happen to have my passport, and it says I'm a citizen of the United States, which is entirely correct per the 14th Amendment. And I haven't been redefining the Constitution; I argued within the compact/contract theory you espouse to show how you're just as wrong within its context as you are under the actual case, but you're too dense to even realize what happened. Almost nothing you've said is right.

"All good, though...It'll get sorted one day."

We can actually agree on that one. One day, either the last remnants of racists/confederates in the south will die of old age (with each passing generation they lose support among even their own children) or the "South will rise again" only to be smashed by the military. The first Civil War lasted about four years. The next one (if it happens) will last about four hours. You don't have the numbers, you don't have the technology, and you especially don't have the strategy or intelligence.

That's what the greeks said...that's what the romans said...that's what the british said...that's what the french said...that's what the russians said in 1917...and again in the '80's.
All nations/empires collapse eventually...the more corrupt, the more violent the resistance.
All it took was 3% of the population willing to fight to beat the best army in the world at the time found this nation...
Cling to your fantasies of the mighty military crushing citizens....it won't happen, though.

You aren't a student of history, I see...but your anti southern bias leaks through..
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next phases this country will go through...

Don't be afraid..it's just the natural course of citizens versus corrupt governments...and the gvmts always lose eventually.

Now you're making up numbers. Roughly 30% of the colonists resisted British rule, and they had the heavy military assistance of the French Empire. Keep your delusions, though; they're amusing.

we aren't discussing how many "resisted" (whatever THAT means) british rule...we were talking about how many actually fought...deflection and distractions don't work on me, son...

Go look it up yourself, scooter, that way you'll remember it longer and it'll save you the time of posting "nuh uh" as your standard rebuttal....estimates range from 3 to 16% of the colonists actually had the guts/balls to fight the british...go look it up...

 

[paperview]

White Supremacist trolls who live in an alternate reality deserve no respect, nor replies.

The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.

 

[James Everett]

Okay then, show what is illogical about a law that does not exist, hence cannot be violated.
How is it illogical to state that a law that does NOT exist cannot be broken?
Is the Yankee so far gone that he can no longer find logic because words have no set definition any longer,there can somehow exist a union by force and still be considered a union, and not a tyranny? The man in Ohio then was truly married to the three women he abducted and held against their will, after all each did willingly accept a ride from him: Right? The word is really does have several differing definitions? A dog is a cat? A tree is a rock? A State can exist without the sovereign power of the self determination of its citizens? A federal system does exist when the States governments have no representation within the general government? Who is being illogical here? You are living in an illusion...
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
Now you have made an indication that in the evidence posted, my interpretation "is not logical to that evidence"
Please expound!!! What is illogical about my interpretation?
Every YANKEE seems to make gratuitous assertions, yet never backs anything up with factual evidence.

 

[Rotagilla]

This has been a very interesting thread. Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post. I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way. You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar. He does not; he is an obvious ideologue. You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread. He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.

James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor. I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however). You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue. Which of the following is more likely?

A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.

Which is it? Are you the smartest person out of 317 million? Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?

My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.

you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.

Not Southerners; just you.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.

Cannon fire is peaceful? Also, Lincoln didn't invade Charleston (at least, not that early in the war); what the hell are you talking about?

Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.

And more volunteers than the Army could process, too.

The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.

[citation needed]

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.


"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

 

[Rotagilla]

White Supremacist trolls who live in an alternate reality deserve no respect, nor replies.

The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.

the south tried to legally and peacefully secede...as has been proven repeatedly above...type "nuh uh" all you like..make disparaging comments...mock..call names..do whatever you think it will take to cause a distraction....The facts remain.

Let's return to proven facts and get away from your personal anti democratic/anti freedom bias and discuss the actual quotes...you managed to cause a distraction and evade that earlier. Why don't you try to refute these quotes and leave your personal bias and prejudices out of it.

lincoln said;


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.
This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it.
Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.

More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.

Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848

lincoln's first inaugural address;
March 4, 1861

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


Declaration of independence



When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Rotagilla]

Rotty, which is it? Are you and your friend James the two smartest people in America and almost everyone else is wrong? Am I in the internet presence of a 200 point IQ?

Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

[paperview]

....
we aren't discussing how many "resisted" (whatever THAT means) british rule...we were talking about how many actually fought....

Yeah, remember how that Operation American Spring...billed as the Second American Revolution!!11!!! turned out.


Dun dun DUN!

 

[Rotagilla]

....
we aren't discussing how many "resisted" (whatever THAT means) british rule...we were talking about how many actually fought....

Yeah, remember how that Operation American Spring...billed as the Second American Revolution!!11!!! turned out.


Dun dun DUN!

Why are you trying to change the subject now?
Painted into a corner?

 

[James Everett]

White Supremacist trolls who live in an alternate reality deserve no respect, nor replies.

The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.

Paperview, a question is never settled by violence or disregard of law. Someone employes violence to take your property, in violation of law, does not mean your property is his. The former Soviet "Union" though the Balkans, and the Ukraine. etc may have been occupied for a time, the issue was NOT settled.

 

[James Everett]

"Operation Spring"
That was a political party within your own political system. We are operating outside of YOUR political system. We have no use of marches and protests.

 

[James Everett]

White Supremacist trolls who live in an alternate reality deserve no respect, nor replies.

The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.

Again....I was invited to this message board by one of your own....(Woodrow Major), such invitation does not constitute trolling. Next, you simply continue with your childish mud slinging, and bringing up racism, without facts, or evidence. As they say the guilty dog.........

 

[Rogue 9]

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"

..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."

~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.

 

[James Everett]

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"

..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."

~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.

What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!