Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[Liminal]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

Yawn.

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

Yawn.

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

 

[Liminal]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

Yawn.

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

Read a book.....what a horrible suggestion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

Yawn.

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

Read a book.....what a horrible suggestion.

Translation:
You know you cannot substantively address the argument put to you.

 

[Bombur]

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

We are now going around in circles. We already discussed that the basis of action is not the Constitution. That the Constitution is created to secure rights of people. That based on the nature in which we founded our nation we not only established a government but a basis for which we have the right to establish a government.

The people of the union have the authority to overthrow those governments of the South for their failure to secure the rights of people. There is no need to create a law that establishes this authority as it is a right that proceeds the establishment of a government of laws.

 

[Liminal]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

There isn't, they were improvising....just like the Confederates. You know, like when the Confederacy suspended habius corpus, before Lincoln did. Or maybe like when the Confederacy instituted universal military conscription, before the Union did. Or maybe like when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, initiating hostilities. They obviously didn't think about that one first, they were just winging it, making it up as they went along.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

We are now going around in circles. We already discussed that the basis of action is not the Constitution.

And so, the federal government making war against the members of the United States is both illegal and unconstitutional.
Interesting how you try to support tyranny with a moral argument.

 

[RicO'Shea]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

And how did England look at the colonies when they sought their independence? They viewed them as treasonous. The very IDEA that a state has the right to leave the union--via a vote within that state or any other way--is an attack on the Constitution and a treasonous philosophy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

There isn't, they were improvising....just like the Confederates. You know, like when the Confederacy suspended habius corpus, before Lincoln did. Or maybe like when the Confederacy instituted universal military conscription, before the Union did. Or maybe like when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, initiating hostilities. They obviously didn't think about that one first, they were just winging it, making it up as they went along.

Firing on Sumpter was a mistake, many of them admit that.
Absent any aggression by the south, however, what does the post-secession Union do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

And how did England look at the colonies when they sought their independence? They viewed them as treasonous.

This is because war came first, and so the charge of treason was valid.

The very IDEA that a state has the right to leave the union--via a vote within that state or any other way--is an attack on the Constitution and a treasonous philosophy.

Secession does not necessitate war, and so secession is not inherently treasonous.
Let alone the simple idea of same.

 

[there4eyeM]

The government has the right to put down insurrection. Some leaders in the southern states fomented exactly that, and raised troops to resist legal authority. Any government would move to suppress that.

 

[Bombur]

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

We are now going around in circles. We already discussed that the basis of action is not the Constitution.

And so, the federal government making war against the members of the United States is both illegal and unconstitutional.
Interesting how you try to support tyranny with a moral argument.

That is like complaining that the founding father's were breaking King George's law and therefor were supporting tyranny and just making a moral argument.

It is pedantic nonsense but I am happy to just watch you make that argument for everyone to see because it is so blatantly flawed.

 

[Liminal]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

Yawn.

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

Read a book.....what a horrible suggestion.

Translation:
You know you cannot substantively address the argument put to you.

Just when I thought there might be an honest discussion going on here. Oh well, I guessed wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yawn.

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

Read a book.....what a horrible suggestion.

Translation:
You know you cannot substantively address the argument put to you.

Just when I thought there might be an honest discussion going on here. Oh well, I guessed wrong.

Its hard to discuss your posts when they only suggest I read a book.
Since you refuse to substantively address the argument I laid, out, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Here's how I look at secession: What ever state you live in, that's my country too. You and the other temporary residents of that state don't have my permission to dismember my country, and you never will. You didn't build that, you merely stand on the shoulders of generations of Americans who did.

First off, countries come and go, and there's no reason to believe America will be any different. America might exist for quite some time into the future, but forcing people to maintain it exactly like it is now, is tyrannical.
If the majority in a given state believe they can put together something better than they have now, they should be allowed that opportunity.
Sounds to me like, you would have been on the British side 239 years ago.

 

[there4eyeM]

Did I miss someone pointing out exactly where and when, date and place, Perpetual Union clearly ended?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

We are now going around in circles. We already discussed that the basis of action is not the Constitution.

And so, the federal government making war against the members of the United States is both illegal and unconstitutional.
Interesting how you try to support tyranny with a moral argument.

That is like complaining that the founding father's were breaking King George's law and therefor were supporting tyranny and just making a moral argument.

No. It isn't.

 

[Liminal]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

There isn't, they were improvising....just like the Confederates. You know, like when the Confederacy suspended habius corpus, before Lincoln did. Or maybe like when the Confederacy instituted universal military conscription, before the Union did. Or maybe like when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, initiating hostilities. They obviously didn't think about that one first, they were just winging it, making it up as they went along.

Firing on Sumpter was a mistake, many of them admit that.
Absent any aggression by the south, however, what does the post-secession Union do?

I guess you can speculate on what might have happened.

 

[M14 Shooter]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

There isn't, they were improvising....just like the Confederates. You know, like when the Confederacy suspended habius corpus, before Lincoln did. Or maybe like when the Confederacy instituted universal military conscription, before the Union did. Or maybe like when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, initiating hostilities. They obviously didn't think about that one first, they were just winging it, making it up as they went along.

Firing on Sumpter was a mistake, many of them admit that.
Absent any aggression by the south, however, what does the post-secession Union do?

I guess you can speculate on what might have happened.

Just when I thought there might be an honest discussion going on here. Oh well, I guessed wrong.