Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[ShootSpeeders]

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

.

The DOI is not part of the constitution and has no more legal authority than the bible. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

While we're talking about the DOI it also says this

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;"

That's right - independent states just like the states of europe.

 

[Bombur]

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

.

The DOI is not part of the constitution and has no more legal authority than the bible. THINK

You are right the DOI is not part of the Constitution, it establishes the basis in which people could create a Constitution and therefor establish legal authority. The rights and duties established in the DOI don't have nor need legal authority. No legal authority can establish or take away the rights and duties established in the DOI.

 

[bripat9643]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

I am not liberal but it is treason. Treason against the people who will die for Thier selfish reasons

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bombur]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with. The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.?

Would say it avoids treason by not having to fight to become independent.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Think the US would be better off letting those states that want to become autonomous and secceed.

I'd like to be able to travel the world someday on an American passport. As it stands now, no ******* way. But if I could do so on a 'autonomous state of America' that isn't pissing everybody off then sure.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Think the US would be better off letting those states that want to become autonomous and secceed.

I'd like to be able to travel the world someday on an American passport. As it stands now, no ******* way. But if I could do so on a 'autonomous state of America' that isn't pissing everybody off then sure.

Going to Germany for a week next summer. Would not travel under any other passport

 

[bripat9643]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

 

[thanatos144]

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What am I being dishonest about?

 

[Bombur]

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

Almost everything you say is either ignorant or illogical or both. You are right on one point, it doesn't matter what some other scrap of paper says. The principles laid out in the DOI are simply a recognition of reality and different than legal authority where the written law is the source of the authority.

Slavery was evil and the south waged war against their fellow countrymen who fought to end their tyranny and their blatant violation of the rights of people. There are few nations more worthy of scorn than the American south and few righteous men more worthy of praise for defending the rights of people than Abraham Lincoln. To hear you cry about tyranny is a dose of ignorant irony that is fascinating to see, even if it demonstrates a severe deficiency in our educational system.

It is a bizarre world where the slave owners and their defenders think they are the victim.

 

[thanatos144]

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What am I being dishonest about?

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What am I being dishonest about?

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

 

[thanatos144]

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What am I being dishonest about?

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What am I being dishonest about?

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I do? Which ones?

 

[bripat9643]

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Your argument fails to address mine logically. You are claiming I am wrong and then justifying that claim based on a statement of fact that I agree with.

There's nothing illogical about that. Where you go wrong is in thinking your statement proves your point. It doesn't. It proves exactly the opposite.

The DOI doesn't have legal authority. The ideas expressed in the DOI proceeds and trumps any and all legal authority. They even proceed the DOI itself which is simply a recognition of the rights of people and the justification any government has in establishing legal authority.

So you don't want government to act based on the law? Then what principle should it act on, your whim? The basis of law is that it gives government the moral authority to act. If government acts outside of the law, then by definition it is acting without any moral authority whatsoever. It doesn't matter what some other scrap of papery says.

You are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and confusion which I am trying to help you out of. You are stuck defending evil and are using ignorant and illogical points of view to maintain your indefensible position. The great thing is that even the South understood that by basing his arguments on the DOI, Lincoln established an absolute authority over the South. They saw the writing on the wall and committed treason to defend their evil.

The only thing I'm stuck on is the foundation of civilization: that government that doesn't follow the law is tyrannical and immoral. The law can also be tyrannical, but following mere whim is far worse. You defend Lincoln acting on mere whim simply because those whims happen to coincide with yours. You're nothing but a thug, and so was Lincoln.

Almost everything you say is either ignorant or illogical or both. You are right on one point, it doesn't matter what some other scrap of paper says. The principles laid out in the DOI are simply a recognition of reality and different than legal authority where the written law is the source of the authority.

You can claim it's "reality" all you like, and I can claim it's meaningless propaganda. However, the one thing we both agree on is that it's not the law, and if government doesn't follow the law then you have lawless government, which means you have a tyranny. That's what you're arguing for: tyranny.

Slavery was evil and the south waged war against their fellow countrymen who fought to end their tyranny and their blatant violation of the rights of people. There are few nations more worthy of scorn than the American south and few righteous men more worthy of praise for defending the rights of people than Abraham Lincoln. To hear you cry about tyranny is a dose of ignorant irony that is fascinating to see, even if it demonstrates a severe deficiency in our educational system.

It is a bizarre world where the slave owners and their defenders think they are the victim.

Wrong. The Yankees weren't fighting to end slavery. They didn't give a damn about the slaves. Some were fighting only because they were drafted. Some were fighting to impose oppressive tariffs on the Confederate states. Some were fighting simply because they thought it was an adventure. Some were even fighting because they believed Lincoln's bullshit about "saving" the union. The one thing none of them were fighting for was to end slavery.

 

[thanatos144]

You are worse then a progressive. They are at least honest in thier hate

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What am I being dishonest about?

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I do? Which ones?

Confederates of course. You worship racist evil democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

What am I being dishonest about?

Your hatred for America. But we all know you do hate it since you worship democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I'm a registered Republican, numskull.

And yet you worship democrats.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I do? Which ones?

Confederates of course. You worship racist evil democrats

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Despising Lincoln doesn't equate to "worshipping" Confederates, moron. There was nothing admirable about Lincoln's war on his own countrymen. Nothing.`