Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[martybegan]

I could be convinced if you could show me where I am wrong in my post #(79). Instead all you do is just say I am wrong.

Resuming that which was delegated is secession. The State resumes the powers it delegated to the Federal government. That means the State is no longer part of the Union. The Union now has no legal power over the State. Secession, Tenth Amendment.

Quantrill

That makes absolutely no sense.

Are you one of those sovereign citizen types as well?

 

[Quantrill]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Are you one of those sovereign citizen types as well?

More bullshit. It doesn't matter what makes sense to you. What happened is what we are talking about.

You have nothing but your words. Go to post #(79) and show me where I am wrong.

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

More bullshit. It doesn't matter what makes sense to you. What happened is what we are talking about.

You have nothing but your words. Go to post #(79) and show me where I am wrong.

Quantrill

It says nothing about secession. Anything you imply is made up in your own head.

 

[Quantrill]

It says nothing about secession. Anything you imply is made up in your own head.

Sorry dumbass. It is secession.

What does 'delegate powers to' mean?

What does 'reassume powers' mean?

Why does Virginia in her ratification statement say, '...the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."?

Why does New York ratification statement say, "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective State governments, to whom they have granted the same...."

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

Sorry dumbass. It is secession.

What does 'delegate powers to' mean?

What does 'reassume powers' mean?

Why does Virginia in her ratification statement say, '...the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."?

Why does New York ratification statement say, "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective State governments, to whom they have granted the same...."

Quantrill

It means delegate powers under the Constitution. You have to be part of it to be delegated to.

That statement is nullified by the supremacy clause, and the results of the Civil War.

Again, you can try, but if the rest of the States don't agree, it's going to go down to a fight.

There is NO procedure for secession in the Constitution. So either you have to fight your way out, or you have to have the agreement of the rest of the States remaining in the Union.

 

[Quantrill]

It means delegate powers under the Constitution. You have to be part of it to be delegated to.

That statement is nullified by the supremacy clause, and the results of the Civil War.

Again, you can try, but if the rest of the States don't agree, it's going to go down to a fight.

There is NO procedure for secession in the Constitution. So either you have to fight your way out, or you have to have the agreement of the rest of the States remaining in the Union.

Yes, but what does 'delegate' mean?

What does 'reassume powers' mean?

Why does Virginia and New York's ratification statements say they can 'reassume' those powers delegated?

No, the Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with secession. The ratification statements of each state are what brings the State into the Union. The declarations of secession take them out of the Union.

It's not a question of 'if you can try it'. It's a question of legality.

Please answer my above questins next time.

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but what does 'delegate' mean?

What does 'reassume powers' mean?

Why does Virginia and New York's ratification statements say they can 'reassume' those powers delegated?

No, the Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with secession. The ratification statements of each state are what brings the State into the Union. The declarations of secession take them out of the Union.

It's not a question of 'if you can try it'. It's a question of legality.

Please answer my above questins next time.

Quantrill

Those Statements are meaningless if they go against the Constitution themselves.

There is no legal route to secession in the Constitution. None. Either you fight your way out or negotiate your way out. It still requires the consent of those remaining in the Contract if you don't want it to come to arms.

 

[Quantrill]

Those Statements are meaningless if they go against the Constitution themselves.

There is no legal route to secession in the Constitution. None. Either you fight your way out or negotiate your way out. It still requires the consent of those remaining in the Contract if you don't want it to come to arms.

You lie. The statements of ratification are very legal. How are they not legal? Was ratification required to bring a State into the Union? The declarations of secession are very legal. How are they not legal?

You don't have to like it. But that's the way it is. And your bullshit doesn't change it.

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

You lie. The statements of ratification are very legal. How are they not legal? Was ratification required to bring a State into the Union? The declarations of secession are very legal. How are they not legal?

You don't have to like it. But that's the way it is. And your bullshit doesn't change it.

Quantrill

They have no legal standing. They just are statements of intent.

And again, the question was answered by the Civil War.

 

[Quantrill]

They have no legal standing. They just are statements of intent.

And again, the question was answered by the Civil War.

Then the individual States were never a part of the Union.

Bullshit. The question of the legality of secession was not answered by the War Between the States. The question of secession settled by War was. But not the legality.

The Yankees had their chance to prove the legality of their military victory with the trial of Jeff Davis. But, military victory and legality are two different things. Then when they saw they shit all over themselves in bragging how they were going to show the world what they do with traitors and secession, they had to eat those words and let ol Jeff go.

They didn't want the world to see the North was the traitor to the Constitution. The North was responsible for some 800,000 deaths and destruction.

You see? Probably not. You military victory proved you had the power. It did not prove you acted in accordance to the Constitution and legality.

That's why we are no longer united under the Constitution. We are united by the Yankee bayonet.

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

Then the individual States were never a part of the Union.

Bullshit. The question of the legality of secession was not answered by the War Between the States. The question of secession settled by War was. But not the legality.

The Yankees had their chance to prove the legality of their military victory with the trial of Jeff Davis. But, military victory and legality are two different things. Then when they saw they shit all over themselves in bragging how they were going to show the world what they do with traitors and secession, they had to eat those words and let ol Jeff go.

They didn't want the world to see the North was the traitor to the Constitution. The North was responsible for some 800,000 deaths and destruction.

You see? Probably not. You military victory proved you had the power. It did not prove you acted in accordance to the Constitution and legality.

That's why we are no longer united under the Constitution. We are united by the Yankee bayonet.

Quantrill

Nope.

The question of one sided secession was answered. If you want to do it, you have to fight for it.

Take your southern revisionism and cram it up your probably well used ass.

 

[Quantrill]

Nope.

The question of one sided secession was answered. If you want to do it, you have to fight for it.

Take your southern revisionism and cram it up your probably well used ass.

Yup. If what you said in post #(149) is true, no individual State ever was part of the Union. If their ratification statement didn't bring them into the Union, then they were never part of the Union.

You now resort to just your usual shit statements which mean nothing. You can't refute the legality of secession so you just have to say things as though that makes it so.

I showed you where Yankees had the opportunity to prove before the world that secession was traitorous with the trial of Jeff Davis. Which they bragged they would do. Then they had to eat crow and watch Jeff Davis go free once they recognized it was they that was full of shit.

And you ignored it, naturally. Because all you have are your own empty words.

Quantrill

 

[martybegan]

Yup. If what you said in post #(149) is true, no individual State ever was part of the Union. If their ratification statement didn't bring them into the Union, then they were never part of the Union.

You now resort to just your usual shit statements which mean nothing. You can't refute the legality of secession so you just have to say things as though that makes it so.

I showed you where Yankees had the opportunity to prove before the world that secession was traitorous with the trial of Jeff Davis. Which they bragged they would do. Then they had to eat crow and watch Jeff Davis go free once they recognized it was they that was full of shit.

And you ignored it, naturally. Because all you have your own empty words.

Quantrill

More revisionism.

It's pathetic.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A key fact to keep in mind is that there were very few cases of violence against blacks and few problems of any kind under Lincoln's mild, merciful, and reasonable reconstruction program, a fact that Northern Democrats and moderate Republicans did not hesitate to point out to the Radical Republicans when the Radicals' draconian reconstruction terms were being debated.