Where do you stand on State succession?

[Redfish]

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.

I hope you are being sarcastic

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Yup, and Gore created the internets.

.

 

[SwimExpert]

Lincoln started the war, asshole.

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union not abolish slavery. Secession started it.

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.

Truth time:

Davis ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter, not Lincoln.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

That's not true. The states all entered into a perpetual union with each other, and ratified a constitution that explicitly gives the federal government power to use military force to suppress insurrections.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

That's not true. The states all entered into a perpetual union with each other, and ratified a constitution that explicitly gives the federal government power to use military force to suppress insurrections.

Really?

Link to a historical source proving the allegations.

.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Let's see. If 100% of the citizens who reside in Texas - for example - decided to leave the union, I'd support it with these provisions:

1. Every passport or form of identification provided by the United States held by every citizen of the Texas Republic be surrendered and held by the State Department, and every Texas citizen be denied entry into the United States for life;

2. All federal benefits due to every citizen of Texas be null and void. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA Benefits, Railroad retirement, Federal government retirement, etc.; and all real property owned by any resident of Texas within the United States of America be taken and become the property of the United States or the State in which it is located.

How fascistic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious has absolutely no evidence that the union was not indivisible.

It is solely his belief, such as bripat's belief, and assertion that such is so.

paperview's objective facts and evidence for years have shown the idiocy of the two who can't give up being idiots on the subject.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You not only don't let people leave, but if they are sick of your ass, you want to try to destroy them on their way out? You must be a delightful person just to know.

He also wants to treat them far worse than foreigners are treated. The federal government wouldn't think of stripping any foreigner of any property he may own in the USA.

It's happened in the past. The Traitor R. E. Lee and his family once owned Arlington Cemetery. Read some history, you won't then appear to be such a moron.

You didn't finish your reading, it seems: Custis Lee (Robert E. Lee's son) sued for it...and won. He sold it back to the government for $150,000. (Adjusted for inflation: $3.1 million.)

Thanks for that hanging curveball!

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious has absolutely no evidence that the union was not indivisible.

It is solely his belief, such as bripat's belief, and assertion that such is so.

paperview's objective facts and evidence for years have shown the idiocy of the two who can't give up being idiots on the subject.

Parting Company

By Walter E. Williams

December 31, 2013


Here’s a question that I’ve asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people’s lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no. My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate way."

.

 

[Iceman]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union not abolish slavery. Secession started it.

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.

Truth time:

Davis ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter, not Lincoln.

Military occupation is aggression. The Union started the war by sending military supply ships into foreign waters, violating the sovereignty of South Carolina and the Confederacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He also wants to treat them far worse than foreigners are treated. The federal government wouldn't think of stripping any foreigner of any property he may own in the USA.

It's happened in the past. The Traitor R. E. Lee and his family once owned Arlington Cemetery. Read some history, you won't then appear to be such a moron.

You didn't finish your reading, it seems: Custis Lee (Robert E. Lee's son) sued for it...and won. He sold it back to the government for $150,000. (Adjusted for inflation: $3.1 million.)

Thanks for that hanging curveball!

It was not a suit, but a settlement of a claim.

 

[SwimExpert]

Really?

Link to a historical source proving the allegations.

.

What the hell....

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Lincoln ended the Union.

Yup, Lincoln created the nation.

I hope you are being sarcastic

You give him far too much credit...he's just STUPID.

 

[Iceman]

Really?

Link to a historical source proving the allegations.

.

What the hell....

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal?

Save your breath, it doesn't. But even if it does violate laws, so what? The whole point of secession is to create a new legal system. The Founding Father broke all kinds of laws, and committed treason when they took up arms against the British Empire.

 

[SwimExpert]

Military occupation is aggression.

It was US federal property. It's not "occupation" to have soldiers in your own military facility.

The Union started the war by sending military supply ships into foreign waters, violating the sovereignty of South Carolina and the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was never a legitimate entity. South Carolina was always a part of the United States, and engaged in insurrection against the federal government. It is as simple as that. Hey, if that's what they wanted to do, then that's what they wanted to do. But to say that the US federal government started it is ridiculous.

 

[SwimExpert]

Where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal?

No such thing is needed. The Union is perpetual. Nothing in the constitution grants the right of secession to the states.

The whole point of secession is to create a new legal system.

Gee, ya think, Captain Obvious?

The Founding Father broke all kinds of laws, and committed treason when they took up arms against the British Empire.

Yes, they did. They were terrorists who took up arms against their government. Thing is....they won. Which brings us back exactly to what I said many pages ago. Secession can only be achieved via consent of the several states, or revolution. The south's revolution failed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can show me where the Constitution forbids secession. Ready................GO!

 

[Contumacious]

Really?

Link to a historical source proving the allegations.

.

What the hell....

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Thank you for admitting that you assertion was pure bullshit.


That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States


.

 

[Iceman]

Military occupation is aggression.

It was US federal property. It's not "occupation" to have soldiers in your own military facility.

The Union started the war by sending military supply ships into foreign waters, violating the sovereignty of South Carolina and the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was never a legitimate entity. South Carolina was always a part of the United States, and engaged in insurrection against the federal government. It is as simple as that. Hey, if that's what they wanted to do, then that's what they wanted to do. But to say that the US federal government started it is ridiculous.

Doesn't matter, troops within foreign territory without the nation's consent is occupation. It doesn't matter if they stay on base, on "their property".

Thanks for stating the obvious, the United States didn't view them as legitimate, well no shit Sherlock. That doesn't matter in this context. The British didn't view the Continental Congress as a legitimate entity after the Boston Tea Party, but when they sent troops here and fired the first shots at Lexington and Concord, they were the aggressors. Just as the United States was the aggressor by sending military vessels into the waters of the Confederacy.

 

[SwimExpert]

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can show me where the Constitution forbids secession. Ready................GO!

It does not need to forbid secession.