The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[EdwinAMartin]

^^^^^^^^^^

What's that definition of insanity, again? lol

 

[Quantrill]

Unkotare

Secession was never argued before the Supreme Court. There was never any Supreme Court ruling on secession.

Texas vs White was not a ruling on secession.

Where was secession argued before the Supreme Court?

Quantrill

Please answer the question. Show me how secession was argued before the Supreme Court.

Plus, if you believe Texas was never out of the Union, then the Reconstruction Amendments are null and void. That includes the 13th and 14th amendments. And reconstruction was illegal.

Now what?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Or just not terribly committed.

Again, jury of guys who lost arms and legs in the Union Army.

Done.

Again, you're full of shit. You haven't read anything about the efforts of the lawyers in working on Jeff Davis trial. Your one liner opinion is just another shit statement you are so known for. Yet, you have a 'history degree'....you say.

Oh, a packed jury. A jury that is going to give a guilty verdict before the trial is even held. Oh yes, that is the Yankee way. They did it when they hung Wirtz of Andersonville. They did it when they hung those connected with Lincolns assassination.

But, now, the true courts are open. No military bullshit tribunal. And look....they can't get a guilty verdict against the most hated man in the North. Unless they pack the jury. Lie and deceive is the Yankee way. You are your fathers son.

Deception, lies, manipulation, traitor. The Yankee way.

Quantrill

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Unkotare



Please answer the question. Show me how secession was argued before the Supreme Court.


Quantrill

lol he can't.

As for the Amendments, when 'free' blacks refused to go back to the plantations and make the carpetbaggers rich, Grant and the Republican occupation governors refused to enforce them by 1867, so they were effectively dead letters. anyway.

The Chase Court was also infamous for its corruption.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you're full of shit. You haven't read anything about the efforts of the lawyers in working on Jeff Davis trial. Your one liner opinion is just another shit statement you are so known for. Yet, you have a 'history degree'....you say.

There's just not much point going into the weeds about how Samuel Chase was deliberately tanking the case or how Davis' lawyers managed to get delay after delay.

They should have just hanged the bastards.

Oh, a packed jury. A jury that is going to give a guilty verdict before the trial is even held. Oh yes, that is the Yankee way. They did it when they hung Wirtz of Andersonville. They did it when they hung those connected with Lincolns assassination.

absolutely.

Worked just fine at Nuremberg. Put a whole bunch of Nazis at the end of ropes, where they belonged.

Wirtz was guilty. the Lincoln Conspirators were guilty.

Davis was guilty.

 

[JoeB131]

lol he can't.

As for the Amendments, when 'free' blacks refused to go back to the plantations and make the carpetbaggers rich, Grant and the Republican occupation governors refused to enforce them by 1867, so they were effectively dead letters. anyway.

The Chase Court was also infamous for its corruption.

Wow, you Southern Inbreds won't take responsibility for anything, will you?

You tried to break up the union.
You imposed Jim Crow after the war.

Own up to your own evil.

 

[Quantrill]

Wow, you Southern Inbreds won't take responsibility for anything, will you?

You tried to break up the union.
You imposed Jim Crow after the war.

Own up to your own evil.

No, the North tried and did destroy the Union.

We followed the Yankee lead with its Northern black codes. Wow, you Yankee inbred don't take responsibility for nothing...do you?

You need to own up that the North was traitor, not the South.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

There's just not much point going into the weeds about how Samuel Chase was deliberately tanking the case or how Davis' lawyers managed to get delay after delay.

They should have just hanged the bastards.


absolutely.

Worked just fine at Nuremberg. Put a whole bunch of Nazis at the end of ropes, where they belonged.

Wirtz was guilty. the Lincoln Conspirators were guilty.

Davis was guilty.

The point is that they wanted Jeff Davis hung. As I showed you, this was going to be the test case to show the world that treason is odious and evil. Hanging Jeff Davis would be hanging treason and secession from the tree.

But, the mob rule, military courts, didn't get their way. The civilian courts were back. The rule of law would now apply. Jeff Davis knew it. He wanted his day in court. He refused a pardon because he wanted his day in court. Jeff Davis knew it, and now the Yankees knew it. They were the ones on trial. They were the ones that would be hanging from the tree for treason.

Yes sir, that Davis trial proved the South was right and the North was traitor. 'Please Jeff Davis...just go home'.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Quantrill]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Show me in Texas vs White where secession was argued before the Supreme Court.

Show me the Supreme Court decision declaring secession Constitutionally illegal.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^

 

[Quantrill]

^

I can read just fine. I didn't see it anywhere where secession was being argued before the Supreme Court. If it's there, show me where.

Then after secession has been argued, show the decision of the Court.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

I can read just fine. I didn't see it anywhere where secession was being argued before the Supreme Court. If it's there, show me where.

Then after secession has been argued, show the decision of the Court.

Quantrill

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

 

[Quantrill]

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

All you have shown is what someone else has said. Just like, that is what you say.

I am asking you to show me where secession has ever been argued before the Supreme Court.

You keep saying 'Texas vs White'. Ok. Was 'Texas vs White' about the legality of secession to be argued before the Supreme Court? What was argued before the Supreme Court in 'Texas vs White'?

And if it is there, the legality of secession, show me the decision of the Supreme Court concerning secession. Give the quotes of that decision.

And, as I said before, which you ignored, if Texas never left the Union, then the Reconstruction Amendments are illegal. That includes the 13th and 14th amendments. Do you agree?

If you disagree, why?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

... if you believe Texas was never out of the Union, then the Reconstruction Amendments are null and void. That includes the 13th and 14th amendments. And reconstruction was illegal.
...

Wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

^^

 

[Quantrill]

Wrong.

Your answer proves you are full of shit. You didn't respond to my most recent post, #(314), but instead reverted back to my post #(302)

You did this, no doubt, because you can't answer post #(314). Your 'google' mentality has left you high and dry. You're just a lying piece of shit that tries to project 'google knowledge' as your knowledge.

So again, my post #(314). Please answer my questions.

All you have shown is what someone else has said. Just like, that is what you say.

I am asking you to show me where secession has ever been argued before the Supreme Court.

You keep saying 'Texas vs White'. Ok. Was 'Texas vs White' about the legality of secession to be argued before the Supreme Court? What was argued before the Supreme Court in 'Texas vs White'?

And if it is there, the legality of secession, show me the decision of the Supreme Court concerning secession. Give the quotes of that decision.

And, as I said before, which you ignored, if Texas never left the Union, then the Reconstruction Amendments are illegal. That includes the 13th and 14th amendments. Do you agree?

If you disagree, why?

Quantrill

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

^^^

 

[JoeB131]

No, the North tried and did destroy the Union.

We followed the Yankee lead with its Northern black codes. Wow, you Yankee inbred don't take responsibility for nothing...do you?

You need to own up that the North was traitor, not the South.

Quantrill

yeah, you do seem a little brainwashed.. Not sure what bizarro world you live on

You're making Unkotare look sensible.

 

[Quantrill]

yeah, you do seem a little brainwashed.. Not sure what bizarro world you live on

You're making Unkotare look sensible.

You and Unkotare are one and the same. You say things but can't answer questions. When you can't answer the questions, you don't know what you're talking about.

Tell me about those Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War.

Show me how secession was argued before the Supreme Court. When was the legality of 'secession' submitted to the Supreme Court to be heard.

How can a State be forced to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments in order to be admitted back into the Union, if they are not out of the Union?

If Chase's one simple statement is considered a Supreme Court decision, the 13th and 14th amendments, and all the Reconstruction amendments are illegal. Which means that is what should be argued before the Supreme Court. The legality of the Reconstruction period. The legality of all the Reconstruction amendments.

Quotes From (Secession On Trial), Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, 2017).

"Most Court observers found Chase's analysis baffling--so much so that they were not certain on first reading whether Texas v. White had upheld military Reconstruction or struck it down." (p. 319)

"The Macon Weekly Telegraph criticized Chase for hypocrisy in finding that the state of Texas had never left the Union and yet was rightfully subject to Reconstruction." (p. 319)

"The New Hamshire Patriot marveled at the Court's ability to view Texas as a state and a nonstate at the same time." p. (320)

Jefferson Davis was set free in December of 1869. The trial to settle the question of secession and treason never happened. Texas vs White was just 5 months later, April of 1869. It's not hard to see what Chase was trying to do. He couldn't get the legal victory for the War in Jeff Davis's case. So he tried to justify it in the Texas vs. White case, giving it some sort of Supreme Court validity. But it doesn't. The constant manipulation of law by the North, shows how guilty they were/are.

Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court. And it should be. The 13th and 14th amendments are either legal or illegal. Reconstruction was/is legal or illegal.

Quantrill