Where do you stand on State succession?

[bripat9643]

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.

Lincoln ordered union troops to trespass on Confederate territory, a clear act of war.

 

[percysunshine]

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

Lincoln ended the Union.

Yup, Lincoln created the nation.

He created the Empire and turned us all into subjects.

That would make Obama Darth Vader...right?

 

[Freewill]

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.

You have a curios definition of the word "forced." How was he forced? Did someone hold a gun to his head?

As I said previously, your definition is that same as my older brother when he told my mom he was "forced" to punch me in the face because I wouldn't let him play with my toys.

He was forced when the south took up arms against the federal government, it became a revolution. If they had not taken up arms, or Lee would have fought a defensive war the outcome could have been very different. If you want to blame someone for losing the CW then I would say those rich aristocrats that talked the poor man into charging into canister and Lee would be whom I would blame.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Except the Constitution doesn't use the word "perpetual" anywhere, and three states who ratified the Constitution reserved the right to secede. Any right one state has, all states have.

Furthermore, secession isn't an insurrection, and Congress didn't approve the use of troops to invade Virginia. Lincoln did that with an executive order, just like Obama does all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You have no proof that it was. In logic, no one is obligated to prove a negative.

 

[bripat9643]

Military occupation is aggression.

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

It is if that facility is in a foreign country and the government of that country told you to get the hell out.

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.

Meaningless horseshit.

South Carolina was always a part of the United States, and engaged in insurrection against the federal government. It is as simple as that.

ROFL! Sorry, but South Carolina existed long before the United States came into being.

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.

It's indisputable fact.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You must follow the theory that everything not expressly permitted is illegal. that's the totalitarian view of the Constitution. However, the 10th Amendment reserves that right.

BTW, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. It only defines the obligations of the federal government.

[

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.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says permission from the other states is required. That's obviously a fabrication you and the rest of the Lincoln cult pulled straight from your ass.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It does if you want it to forbid secession.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The treaty did not establish the United States. That was established by a future document.


Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

The articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was ratified. If it wasn't null and void, then how could the Constitution be valid? The two documents conflict with each other.

 

[bripat9643]

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".

Except, it wasn't foreign territory.

If it wasn't foreign territory, then what business did Lincoln have laying waste to vase swaths of it and murdering tens of thousands of U.S. citizens?

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.

In other words, anything that doesn't agree with your goal just doesn't matter.

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.

You are ignoring a fundamental point. The colonists won their war.

So might makes right? Is that your "fundamental" point?

 

[bripat9643]

That government certainly wasn't perpetual, lol. The Articles of Confederation are irrelevant, lol.

Apparently you're quite ignorant of history and law. The constitution restructured the government. The constitution did not dissolve the Union to create a new one.

The bottom line is that the Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was ratified. You can't claim both documents had the force of law simultaneously.

 

[bripat9643]

The government wasn't under the Articles of Confederation during the Civil War, so who cares? The title of a dead document isn't legally binding. Even if it was, so what?

The states entered into a perpetual union. That union did not cease to exist when the constitution was ratified. To this day, that union continues to exist, and continues to be perpetual.

You keep repeating this idiocy over and over even though it's been refuted several dozen times already.

 

[bripat9643]

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

You have a curios definition of the word "forced." How was he forced? Did someone hold a gun to his head?

As I said previously, your definition is that same as my older brother when he told my mom he was "forced" to punch me in the face because I wouldn't let him play with my toys.

He was forced when the south took up arms against the federal government, it became a revolution. .

The South didn't take up arms against the federal government. The south simply tried to defend itself from a foreign invader. The federal government made all the initial hostile moves.

If they had not taken up arms, or Lee would have fought a defensive war the outcome could have been very different. .

Lee did fight a defense war until 1863. But that is totally irrelevant. Once a country invades you, all measures you take against it are justified.

If you want to blame someone for losing the CW then I would say those rich aristocrats that talked the poor man into charging into canister and Lee would be whom I would blame.

It doesn't matter who was to blame for losing it. The fact is that Lincoln was a warmonger and a tyrant.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is a totally fair comparison, both are foreign occupations without consent.

No. The Confederacy was never a legitimate country. The United States was not occupying anything, other than the United States.

Wrong, war starts when one country invades another. The United States invaded the Confederacy by sending military vessels into Confederate waters and having a base in Confederate Waters without their consent, the Confederacy responded. The United States started the war.

The Confederacy was never a legitimate country. It was nothing more than a club states who were in a state of insurrection.

Again, so what, they lost, it doesn't make secession right or wrong, secession just is.

I never said anything about whether it's "right" or "wrong." Personally, I feel that any state who wants out should be given the blessing of the rest of the states to go about their merry way, with the only stipulation that they immediately pay to the US treasury an amount proportionate to the public debt, as the state's population is to the larger US population. But the fact of the matter is that is not possible except though consent of the states, or through revolution. Secession never happened. It was tried, but it failed.

Sometimes secession movements secede, sometimes they don't. The point I was making is, both the British Empire and the US were the aggressors and started the respective wars.

The colonies started the Revolutionary War. They went to war to gain independence from their government.

 

[SwimExpert]

Perpetual means not changing

It also means continual, unending.

 

[SwimExpert]

The articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was ratified. If it wasn't null and void, then how could the Constitution be valid? The two documents conflict with each other.

Show me where in the constitution it says that the United States was dissolved.

 

[bripat9643]

The articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was ratified. If it wasn't null and void, then how could the Constitution be valid? The two documents conflict with each other.

Show me where in the constitution it says that the United States was dissolved.

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution can't both be valid simultaneously, now can they? You didn't answer that question.

 

[Iceman]

Perpetual means not changing

It also means continual, unending.

The US won't last forever. And who cares what the title of the Articles of Confederation is? It means nothing. The title of some dead document didn't and doesn't stop people from seceding evidently.

 

[Freewill]

You have a curios definition of the word "forced." How was he forced? Did someone hold a gun to his head?

As I said previously, your definition is that same as my older brother when he told my mom he was "forced" to punch me in the face because I wouldn't let him play with my toys.

He was forced when the south took up arms against the federal government, it became a revolution. .

The South didn't take up arms against the federal government. The south simply tried to defend itself from a foreign invader. The federal government made all the initial hostile moves.

Who fired the first shot, the North or the South? Did Fort Sumter attack SC? No, the rich democrat aristocrats forced the poor southerner to fight their war to preserve slavery a billion dollar business.

If they had not taken up arms, or Lee would have fought a defensive war the outcome could have been very different. .

Lee did fight a defense war until 1863. But that is totally irrelevant. Once a country invades you, all measures you take against it are justified.

It is not irrelevant at all. Lee attacked the North and got his men killed and his ass handed to him. He lost the war at Gettysburg and if Meade had the balls the war would have ended then. Had he not lost his army he might have had an army to oppose Sherman's march. Gettysburg and Shiloh, the war was lost for the South. Look at most of the battles the side on the offensive almost always lost the most men. Not hard to understand when Lee sends 15000 poor southern men into canister fire.

If you want to blame someone for losing the CW then I would say those rich aristocrats that talked the poor man into charging into canister and Lee would be whom I would blame.

It doesn't matter who was to blame for losing it. The fact is that Lincoln was a warmonger and a tyrant.

BS, he freed the slaves. Anyone who supports slavery, Jefferson, is the tyrant. How one can think that freeing millions makes someone a tyrant is beyond understanding.

 

[Iceman]

And the union wasn't perpetual, it was discontinued for four years.