Were the Confederates traitors

[Unkotare]

Dred Scott was a USSC ruling too.

Which was overturned by the Civil War Amendments.

Texas v. White has never been overturned.

 

[Unkotare]

I understand. I'm new but learning.

Quantrill

You're half right.

 

[Quantrill]

You didn't even read it, did you?

Read what? I'm waiting for you to present the Surpreme Court decision where secession was argued before the Supreme Court.

Also, you did note the date didn't you? 1869. That is 8 years after 1861.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Which was overturned by the Civil War Amendments.

Texas v. White has never been overturned.

No, the Reconstruction Amendments after the War. In other words, those Amendments were forced on the nation due to their military victory.

The Constitution was against the North. Which is why after theri military victory, they had to change the Constitution. But in 1861, the South was doing nothing wrong.

Texas vs. White settled nothing concerning secession. Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Read what? I'm waiting for you to present the Surpreme Court decision ...

The entire ruling, including arguments, the dissenting opinion and citations is all right there if you bother to read it, which you clearly haven't.

 

[Unkotare]

No, the Reconstruction Amendments after the War. In other words, those Amendments were forced on the nation due to their military victory.

The Constitution was against the North. Which is why after theri military victory, they had to change the Constitution. But in 1861, the South was doing nothing wrong.

Texas vs. White settled nothing concerning secession. Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court.

Quantrill

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.6-4/ALDE_00000388/

 

[rightwinger]

Were those guns and cannon trained to gain any territory outside the limits of the confederate states?

Gettysburg?

 

[Unkotare]

"The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States."

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford; 3/6/1857; Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford; Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2010; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267...

www.archives.gov

Don't forget that last part.

 

[Unkotare]

ALL of the UNITED States was the UNITED States before, during, and after the traitorous rebellion. There never was a "confederate states." That fiction was never recognized by any nation in the world. The criminals were actually let off too easily.

 

[Quantrill]

The entire ruling, including arguments, the dissenting opinion and citations is all right there if you bother to read it, which you clearly haven't.

Im asking for a ruling by the Supreme Court where secession was argued before the Supreme Court. I'm not interested in the outcome of the Texas vs White case.

Show me where Secession has been argued before the Supreme Court, and it's ruling.

Again, did you note 1869 is 8 years after 1861? In other words, Texas vs. White means nothing concerning secession.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

In Texas v. White (1869), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, establishing the United States as an "indestructible" union composed of "indestructible states".

 

[Quantrill]

The Confederacy was formed to create a nation that would ensure slavery existed forever.

To do that they abandoned the nation they helped to create.

The Confederacy was 40 percent slave and is one of the most reprehensible nations ever formed.

It is not something to be celebrated

No it was't. Slavery was the issue and the agitation, but the Southern States had more reasons than slavery to secede.

And, if the slave states wanted to ensure slavery existed forever, why didn't they stay in the Union and accept the Corwin Amendment. The original 13th Amendment which promised the South that they could keep slavery forever in the South if they just didn't secede.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

In Texas v. White (1869), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, establishing the United States as an "indestructible" union composed of "indestructible states".

No, that was just a statement by Chase, not a Supreme Court ruling on secession.

And how does 1869 have anything to do with 1861?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

{{meta.fullTitle}}

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White | Civil War, Secession, Union | Britannica

Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from the

www.britannica.com

 

[Unkotare]

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

 

[Unkotare]

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Foxfyre]

The founding fathers were traitors to the British Empire.

The confederates were traitors to the United States of America.

See the difference?

No. There was no difference.

The Founding fathers I am pretty sure to a man would have said the southern states had every right to leave a government they believed was oppressive and did not represent them and govern themselves just as the Founding fathers took that position with England.

The founding fathers believed in unalienable rights and that government should serve the people rather than the people serve the government.

That's a major difference between Republicans/MAGAs/Patriots and Democrats today.

The former believe the government should serve the people. The Democrats believe the people should serve the government.

If the south was traitorous in opposing and refusing to accept what was a bad government for them, then so are Democrats traitors in opposing and working to derail and sidetrack the current government.

 

[Unkotare]

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

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Whose 'we'? Are you asking for help?

It's not false because you say it's false. I have showed you that secession was legal by the Constitution and the State ratification and secessation statements, and Jeff Davis 'no trial' which was a testimony to the legality of secession. The North knew it would lose the case in a court of law. They knew they would be the ones seen as guilty of some 800,000 lives and the destruction.

You in turn have showed nothing but you saying so.

Quantrill

You have shown us your opinion, nothing more.

It was not legal then, it is now not legal either.

You're saying so means nothing.

Is secession legal today in the US?

Short answer: No, secession is not legal in the United States today.

The Supreme Court settled this in 1869 with the landmark case Texas v. White, ruling that unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The Court stated that the Union is “perpetual” and that states cannot leave it on their own. The only legal paths to secession would be:

• Revolution (i.e., overthrowing the government—which is illegal)
• Consent of the other states (which has never happened)

Why It’s Still Debated​

• Some argue that secession could be a natural right, akin to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that people can “alter or abolish” their government.
• Movements like Calexit in California or Texit in Texas have tried to revive the idea, but they’ve never gained legal traction2.

Legal Scholars Weigh In​

• Experts say that even with today’s polarization, secession isn’t viable. The U.S. is too interwoven economically, legally, and socially for any state to realistically break away.
• As one law professor put it: “Americans should be more concerned with a possible invasion from Grand Fenwick than a realistic effort by any state to secede”.

So while the idea of secession pops up in political rhetoric, it’s not legally recognized—and any attempt would face enormous constitutional, legal, and practical barriers.

justica.com