Where do you stand on State succession?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course not because the states that can not afford there own bills want to still get money from the states that can--like Texas.

And all the other red states.

And it’s un-Constitutional.

Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede?

Here:

Texas v. White (1869).

 

[BlindBoo]

Lincoln caused the destruction, moron. He gave the orders to occupy Fort Sumter and to invade Virginia.

Major Anderson relocated his command to Sumter under President Buchanan soon after South Carolina seceded. The move was approved by then Sec. of War. It was months later that Jefferson Davis ordered Gen. Beauregard to shell the fort if Anderson refused to surrender the Fort. That was in response to Lincoln's attempt to resupply the Fort with provisions only. The re-supply ships had not reach the Fort when the first shots were fired.

Refusing to remove federal troops from the territory of South Carolina was an act of war. So was the attempt to resupply it. Those ships had to intrude on the territorial waters of South Carolina to resupply it.

Hitler used the same technique when he sent troops into the Danzig corridor, and Polish troops then fired on them. Hitler claimed the Poles fired first, so they were the aggressors. Hitler was a dedicated student of Lincoln's methods.

Nope, the act of war was shelling the fort. The troops at the fort were already under siege when Lincoln took office. Nice try with that lame overused Hitler card.

 

[BlindBoo]

And thousands died for that decision. People that would have lived if the country had split.

What will happen when the next secession movement begins? what will happen when half of the states get fed up with the federal government stealing their money and then wasting it?

this country is at a turning point. 2014 and 2016 will decide which way it goes.

I agree, it was a really stupid decision to try and secede from the Union like that.

LOL, nice try, but you either totally missed the point, or ignored it because you have no response.

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

 

[bripat9643]

Major Anderson relocated his command to Sumter under President Buchanan soon after South Carolina seceded. The move was approved by then Sec. of War. It was months later that Jefferson Davis ordered Gen. Beauregard to shell the fort if Anderson refused to surrender the Fort. That was in response to Lincoln's attempt to resupply the Fort with provisions only. The re-supply ships had not reach the Fort when the first shots were fired.

Refusing to remove federal troops from the territory of South Carolina was an act of war. So was the attempt to resupply it. Those ships had to intrude on the territorial waters of South Carolina to resupply it.

Hitler used the same technique when he sent troops into the Danzig corridor, and Polish troops then fired on them. Hitler claimed the Poles fired first, so they were the aggressors. Hitler was a dedicated student of Lincoln's methods.

Nope, the act of war was shelling the fort. The troops at the fort were already under siege when Lincoln took office. Nice try with that lame overused Hitler card.

Wrong, nimrod. Your Hitler logic only fools brainwashed drones like yourself. They weren't "under" siege. They were free to leave whenever they wanted to.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree, it was a really stupid decision to try and secede from the Union like that.

LOL, nice try, but you either totally missed the point, or ignored it because you have no response.

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

Lincoln ordered their deaths. That fact is indisputable.

 

[bripat9643]

And all the other red states.

And it’s un-Constitutional.

Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede?

Here:

Texas v. White (1869).

ROFL! You mean the court Lincoln packed with his sycophants said it was illegal?

Furthermore, I asked where does the Constitution say it, not what some political hacks had to say on the subject.

You have to be a truly brainwashed drone to believe that decision is valid.

 

[BlindBoo]

Refusing to remove federal troops from the territory of South Carolina was an act of war. So was the attempt to resupply it. Those ships had to intrude on the territorial waters of South Carolina to resupply it.

Hitler used the same technique when he sent troops into the Danzig corridor, and Polish troops then fired on them. Hitler claimed the Poles fired first, so they were the aggressors. Hitler was a dedicated student of Lincoln's methods.

Nope, the act of war was shelling the fort. The troops at the fort were already under siege when Lincoln took office. Nice try with that lame overused Hitler card.

Wrong, nimrod. Your Hitler logic only fools brainwashed drones like yourself. They weren't "under" siege. They were free to leave whenever they wanted to.

Fort Sumter, fortification, built 1829–60, on a shoal at the entrance to the harbor of Charleston, S.C., and named for Gen. Thomas Sumter; scene of the opening engagement of the Civil War. Upon passing the Ordinance of Secession (Dec., 1860), South Carolina demanded all federal property within the state, particularly the forts of Charleston harbor—Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and Castle Pinckney. On Dec. 26, 1860, Major Robert Anderson removed his U.S. army command of about 100 men from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, a stronger defensive site. Gov. F. W. Pickens of South Carolina had the other two forts, along with the Charleston arsenal, seized, and upon the refusal of President James Buchanan to order Anderson's evacuation, had guns trained on Fort Sumter. On Jan. 9, 1861, an unarmed merchant ship sent to reinforce the fort's garrison was driven back by the South Carolina forces.

Read more: Fort Sumter | Infoplease.com Fort Sumter | Infoplease.com

Next........

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here:

Texas v. White (1869).

The concept of a Constitution is a real mystery to you, Saul...

 

[thanatos144]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

I say I dont support stupidity that would cause war and needless american deaths because spoiled assholes couldn't get Ron Paul elected.

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL, nice try, but you either totally missed the point, or ignored it because you have no response.

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

Lincoln ordered their deaths. That fact is indisputable.

Clearly Lincoln's decision to keep the Union intact by force if necessary played a role. However, had the South not seceded, the decision would not have been necessary would it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clearly Lincoln's decision to keep the Union intact by force if necessary played a role. However, had the South not seceded, the decision would not have been necessary would it?

If Washington uses force to keep states, it is not a "Union," but rather an "Empire."

Lincoln dissolved the Union.

 

[Redfish]

I agree, it was a really stupid decision to try and secede from the Union like that.

LOL, nice try, but you either totally missed the point, or ignored it because you have no response.

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

 

[thanatos144]

LOL, nice try, but you either totally missed the point, or ignored it because you have no response.

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

No that would be the confederate traitors attacking Sumter because Lincoln didn't want slavery in the new territories...I know faced with the truth about this you will deny it and close your eyes because you have to ignore that slavery was the whole reason the south seceded in the first place and that it was a evil government that the world is better off without.

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL, nice try, but you either totally missed the point, or ignored it because you have no response.

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

The Rebels forced his hand by seceding before he even took office. Turned out to be a disaster for the South.

 

[BlindBoo]

Clearly Lincoln's decision to keep the Union intact by force if necessary played a role. However, had the South not seceded, the decision would not have been necessary would it?

If Washington uses force to keep states, it is not a "Union," but rather an "Empire."

Lincoln dissolved the Union.

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

Just like run away slaves were "let back" on the plantation?

Lincoln ended the Union.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

Just like run away slaves were "let back" on the plantation?

Lincoln ended the Union.

Psssft. The South could have won if Gen. Lee had just kept away from major engagements. Live to fight another day, and to get formal recognition from a foreign power. By 1877 the North was tired of the Occupation (10-12 years, hmmm that reminds me of someplace.....) and let the South go back to it's old power structure.

 

[kaz]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

But as soon as Americans elect a new Justin Bieber, someone like Ted Cruz or Chris Christie, America will be back on the right track again, right?

Snarky and wrong. Typical leftist comment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

Just like run away slaves were "let back" on the plantation?

Lincoln ended the Union.

Yup, Lincoln created the nation.

 

[Redfish]

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

No that would be the confederate traitors attacking Sumter because Lincoln didn't want slavery in the new territories...I know faced with the truth about this you will deny it and close your eyes because you have to ignore that slavery was the whole reason the south seceded in the first place and that it was a evil government that the world is better off without.

the issue was state's rights, slavery was blamed because it would stir up passions on both sides.

The civil war was NOT fought over slavery, it was fought over states rights and whether the federal govt could dictate to the states. The feds won and look what we have today----------17 trillion in debt, millionaire senators, a welfare state, loss of individual freedoms, and incompetent leaders.

yeah, the feds won but the people lost. Slavery was coming to an end anyway. But thousands died to speed it up.