Were the Confederates traitors

[Quantrill]

They were part of the Union. They attacked that Union and undermined it. Traitors.

Wrong again. The South seceded. Went away peaceably. The North would not allow it.

Concerning Fort Sumter the North performed the first act of war when Anderson moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Sumter which he was not supposed to do. Agreement had been made that there would be no change in the position of arms and troops until the negotiations of the forts was over.

Anderson moved his troops to the better defensive postion of Sumpter. That was an act of War. S. Carolina asked the President to send them back. He refused. Then later the Star of the West ship was sent to reinforce Sumter with men and arms and supplies. Another act of war.

In other words, the firing on Fort Sumter was not the act of war that started that war.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White (1869) - Constituting America

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union. More specifically, is the Union bound together through the consent of the States or the coercive power of the United States government. The...

constitutingamerica.org

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White (1869) - Constituting America

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union. More specifically, is the Union bound together through the consent of the States or the coercive power of the United States government. The...

constitutingamerica.org

Wrong again. The South seceded. Went away peaceably. The North would not allow it.

Concerning Fort Sumter the North performed the first act of war when Anderson moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Sumter which he was not supposed to do. Agreement had been made that there would be no change in the position of arms and troops until the negotiations of the forts was over.

Anderson moved his troops to the better defensive postion of Sumpter. That was an act of War. S. Carolina asked the President to send them back. He refused. Then later the Star of the West ship was sent to reinforce Sumter with men and arms and supplies. Another act of war.

In other words, the firing on Fort Sumter was not the act of war that started that war.

Quantrill

What ridiculous, childish lies.

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White (1869) - Constituting America

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union. More specifically, is the Union bound together through the consent of the States or the coercive power of the United States government. The...

constitutingamerica.org

 

[Quantrill]

Texas v. White (1869) - Constituting America

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union. More specifically, is the Union bound together through the consent of the States or the coercive power of the United States government. The...

constitutingamerica.org

Show me a Supreme Court decision where secession was argued before the Supreme Court. A statement by Chase in Texas vs White is not a Supreme Court decision. They want it to be because they had to let Jeff Davis go free and so tried to sneak an opinion in another case. Typical.

The North had the chance to argue secession in the courts with trial of Jeff Davis. They crawfished knowing they would lose and didn't want to be seen as guilty of that war. And Chase was a presiding judge in that case. Thus he sneaked in a statement in the Texas vs. White case to give some sort of validity to the illegality of secession.

Again, and what does 1869 have to do with 1861?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Texas v. White (1869) - Constituting America

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union. More specifically, is the Union bound together through the consent of the States or the coercive power of the United States government. The...

constitutingamerica.org

What ridiculous, childish lies.

Show me where the lie is.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

"TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union."

 

[Quantrill]

"TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union."

The Supreme Court decision in Texas vs. White concerned payment of bonds. That was what was argued before the Supreme Court. Not secession. A statement made by Chase doesn't mean secession was argued before the Supreme Court.

Again, what does 1869 have to do with 1861?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL., 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is one of the most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, because it addresses the nature of the Union.

 

[Unkotare]

"Yes, Texas v. White was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869 that established that the United States is an "indestructible union" of "indestructible states," and that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the Union."

 

[Quantrill]

"Yes, Texas v. White was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869 that established that the United States is an "indestructible union" of "indestructible states," and that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the Union."

No it didn't. Texas vs. White just established that Texas didn't have to pay back money to the Federal govt. That was the Supreme Court decision.

That doesn't make Texas vs White a Supreme Court decision on secession. Just because Chase wanted it as proof in a case for Texas vs White didn't settle the question of secession.

Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

"the Court used this dispute to settle the constitutional question of secession, ruling it unconstitutional."

 

[Correll]

I love the irony

What irony?

 

[Quantrill]

"the Court used this dispute to settle the constitutional question of secession, ruling it unconstitutional."

Of course they did because they knew they would never get it any other way. If what they say is true, then they never would have freed Jeff Davis. They would have tried him for treason and found him guilty and hung him, which is what they wanted.

But the law was against them and the prosecutors knew it. They knew Jeff Davis would be found not guilty, and secession vindicated, and the North guilty. So they let Davis go free, which they never would have done if they could prove the illegality of secession.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Of course they did because they knew they would never get it any other way. If what they say is true, then they never would have freed Jeff Davis. They would have tried him for treason and found him guilty and hung him, which is what they wanted.

But the law was against them and the prosecutors knew it. They knew Jeff Davis would be found not guilty, and secession vindicated, and the North guilty. So they let Davis go free, which they never would have done if they could prove the illegality of secession.

Quantrill

Some of the most illogical nonsense ever. ^^^

 

[Oddball]

Of course they did because they knew they would never get it any other way. If what they say is true, then they never would have freed Jeff Davis. They would have tried him for treason and found him guilty and hung him, which is what they wanted.

But the law was against them and the prosecutors knew it. They knew Jeff Davis would be found not guilty, and secession vindicated, and the North guilty. So they let Davis go free, which they never would have done if they could prove the illegality of secession.

Quantrill

You've just confronted the Great Wall of Cognitive Dissonance.

You can change the mind of 50 dispassionate intellectually honest men with one fact...You can't change the mind of the single idiot savant with 50 facts.

 

[Unkotare]

.....You can't change the mind of the single idiot savant with 50 facts.

Or say, a dozen or so links and quotes?

 

[rightwinger]

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

Lost Cause nonsense
Slavery was the primary issue everything else could have been handled in Congress

Read VP Stevens Cornerstone Speach

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

 

[Quantrill]

Some of the most illogical nonsense ever. ^^^

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

"The post-Civil War treason prosecution of Confederate president Jefferson Davis...was seen as a test case on the major constitutional question that animated the Civil War: the constitutionality of secession. The case never went to trial, however, because it threatened to undercut the meaning and significance of Union victory....In the aftermath of the Civil War, America was engaged in a wide-ranging debate over the legitimacy and effectiveness of war as a method of legal adjudication. Instead of risking the 'wrong' outcome in the highly volatile Davis case, the Supreme Court too the opportunity to pronounce secession unconstitutional in another case, Texas vs White (1869), in a single, perfunctory paragraph." (statement in opening page)

"And so the momentous constitutional question that had animated the Civil War was never actually argued before the Supreme Court. Chief Justiced Chas's pronouncement on secession was perfunctory." p. (316)

Quantrill

 

[Oddball]

Or say, a dozen or so links and quotes?

Or say, sitting around denying semantics and the precise meanings of words?

Check that plank in your own eye, Dudley.... Both Orwell and Rand told us all about you.