Were the Confederates traitors

[Hafar1014]

Today, the political left considers the rebels who participated in the American Civil War—also known as the War Between the States—as traitors.

My opinion is that people think this way because they are not true Americans; they are imperialists. They believe in the right to rule and own other people.

Our country is different from most others in the world in that sovereignty does not rest in a king or a government, but in the people. In our country, the people are sovereign.

In the United States, the people are organized in two ways: by states and as a collection of states forming a nation. The nation itself is sovereign. The government of the United States is sovereign because it derives its sovereignty from the people.

Likewise, the people of each state are sovereign, and the state governments are sovereign because they also derive their authority from the people.

I believe—though I’m likely in the minority—that the treason clause in the Constitution refers to individuals, not states. After all, the Founders did the same thing with the Declaration of Independence, and I don't believe they saw themselves as traitors. For the Declaration to be accepted, it had to be ratified by a majority of the states—each a sovereign unit. States cannot commit treason because they are sovereign, and the Founders, acting as agents of those sovereign states, were not traitors. I don't think the Founders saw themselves as traitors.

Likewise, the individuals who voted for secession were not traitors, because as a collective—acting as sovereign states—they were exercising a sovereign right.

You can’t be a traitor against yourself.

Then why were they granted amnesty

 

[Quantrill]

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Property Clause or the Territory Clause. It grants Congress the power to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United

I can always tell when I own your ass

It sure does say that. It's a damn shame that is not where I sent you. But it is helpful. That explains alot.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

They were not. No such "secession" was legal or legitimate. The "confederacy" never existed.

I have already proved secession was legal. You have not proved anything. Just because you say something doesn't mean it is so.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Says the would-be traitor who is clearly obsessed with the American Civil War.

I've alredy proved the South was not traitor. You have proved nothing. As always, just because you say something doesn't make it so. And that is all you do.

 

[Unkotare]

I have already proved secession was legal. ...

NO, you have not. Quite the contrary.

 

[Unkotare]

I've alredy [sic] proved the South was not traitor. ...

NO, you have not. Quite the contrary.

 

[Quantrill]

You have established your pro-slavery position. No need to keep repeating it.

You have established that you don't know what you're talking about. No need to keep displaying it.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v White PROVES secession was illegal and illegitimate.

The dictionary PROVES the so-called "confederates" were traitors.

Quantrill's posts PROVE he is pro-slavery and longs to be a traitor himself. Just lacks the balls to follow through.

 

[Quantrill]

Texas v White PROVES secession was illegal and illegitimate.

The dictionary PROVES the so-called "confederates" were traitors.

Quantrill's posts PROVE he is pro-slavery and longs to be a traitor himself. Just lacks the balls to follow through.

Repeating your lame arguments, which were proven false, doesn't make them so.

The only traitors in that War was the North. The only ones who went against the Constitution was the North. Prove to me the South went against the Constitution in 1861.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Repeating your lame arguments, which were proven false, doesn't make them so.
...

They are not arguments, they are facts.

 

[Unkotare]

... Prove to me the South went against the Constitution in 1861.
...

The Supreme Court already did.

You know, slavery isn't coming back. Just let it go.

 

[Robert W]

He didn't. You can't invade your own country.

It follows then based just on your remark that when Genereal lee and his troops were at Gettysburg, he never invaded since he was in his own country!!

 

[Quantrill]

They are not arguments, they are facts.

Your 'facts' doesn't make it so. Your words don't make it so. Your arguments are empty and lame as has been shown.

I think you're one of those insecure persons who gets some sort of self-worth in building a post count. Who thinks the more post count he has, the smarter he appears. Thus the need to repeat, repeat, repeat.

Your post count may look impressive, but once you open your mouth, that all fades away.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The Supreme Court already did.

You know, slavery isn't coming back. Just let it go.

Prove the Supreme Court already did.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Prove the Supreme Court already did.

Quantrill

I already have. About a dozen times. Slavery isn't coming back, Forrest.

 

[Robert W]

I already have. About a dozen times. Slavery isn't coming back, Forrest.

Unkotare is safe.

 

[Dante]

The Bidens? Obviously implicit.

The Clintons! The Obamas!

 

[San Souci]

Gas prices aren't lower. The borders are not closed. You can't fight crime with a convicted felon as president. We haven't had better trade deals. NATO countries have always paid, not all of them have been able to afford the 2 percent, and it doesn't look like we got rid of Iran's nuclear program. The left had done none of what you said. Cops wre killing citizens, which caused the protests. The burning was also done by right-wingers. The right has done the bitching and you are protecting a criminal in the white house.

Lib Lies--PPPFFFFTTTT!

 

[longly]

When I first started this thread, I had no intention of discussing slavery—or even the Civil War, for that matter. My original aim was to explore the exceptionalism of our system.

In most systems around the world—most governments, most nations—what determines right and wrong is the barrel of a gun. But here, as I see it, we're different. We're supposed to be different. We're governed by principles, and one of those principles is that the people are sovereign. Power—the right to rule—comes from the people.

A sovereign entity, such as a state, cannot commit treason, just as a king cannot commit treason. Treason is an offense against the sovereign. And by definition, a sovereign has no peers—no one at or above their level. So if the people are sovereign, there is no one for them to commit treason against.

As the thread progressed, it seems to me that the question of whether America is exceptional breaks down along political lines. I might be wrong, but from my perspective, the right tends to see America as exceptional, while the left does not. I've even heard in past threads some on the left refer to America as "stolen land."

That raises an interesting point. If America is stolen land, how can one ethically participate in its economy? Wouldn’t that make you the recipient of illegal gains? When the police catch someone with stolen property, that person doesn’t get to keep it—it’s confiscated and returned to the rightful owner.

So if you truly believe America is stolen land, then staying here and participating in the economy is immoral. Your house, your home—they are stolen property. You cannot possess them, because the person who sold them to you had no right to do so. They belong to the rightful owners—in this case, Native Americans. Therefore, you should return them.

You cannot even earn a paycheck, because your employer doesn’t own the business he operates. He has no right to profit from stolen land, and no right to pay you to help him do so. If you believe America is stolen land, then logically, you should leave.

 

[Quantrill]

I already have. About a dozen times. Slavery isn't coming back, Forrest.

No, you haven't. And where did I ever say slavery would come back.

Quantrill