Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[bripat9643]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE **** UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?

No one argued that they only did it for one reason.

Note that I said the one reason they did not do it was to free the slaves. You claimed that's why they did it.

 

[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.

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.

The rights of people are not meaningless propaganda. I am not surprised someone defending the civil war south would think that but I am shocked you admitted it.

This absolute devotion to the law is a rather comical position to take for an American considering how the nation was founded.

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

I didn't say it was meaningless propaganda, I said I could claim that.

Whether I have an "obsession" with the law is one issue. However, one thing I'm adamant about is that governments should follow the laws they make, otherwise they are nothing but pure tyrannies. Whether people should follow those laws is another matter. What you're saying is that you support tyranny.

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.

Bottom line: you're a thug who supports tyrannical government.

The south did wage war on the North but the North would have been justified in pretty much any action they took because the government of the South was in such blatant violation of their duty to protect the rights of people and democratic action failed.

The Constitution imposed no such duties on them and Lincoln had no authority to wage war on any state of the Union. If you're arguing that government should ignore the law, then you're just admitting you support tyranny. Any way you look at it, you're wrong.

The South did not wage war on the Union states. Every battle of the Civil War except one was fought on Southern territory. They were all defensive.

The real tyranny is the treatment of the slaves. It is not tyranny for any people or any government to defend the rights of people with force and abolish the government that seeks to continue these sins against their fellow people.

It is tyranny when those people are signatories to a document that says they are not allowed to invade their fellow signatories.

The union created a bond between the north and those subject to the evil of slavery.

You actually said something correct, but it doesn't justify Lincoln's war on the Southern states.

It is now July 4th, the day this nation was created in recognition of a truth that doesn't need to be written down to hold more power and authority than any law in the world. You may not like the rights of people and neither did the south, that is why they waged war to continue their evil.

Meaningless blather.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was not a war against states of the Perpetual Union, it was the suppression of an illegal attempt to end that Union. The Confederacy claimed to be a country, but that was in dispute and was not a fait acompli. It was simply a rebellion.
If one argues that war against a state of the Union is illegal, but that the Confederacy was another country, then there is nothing to forbid war against it.
If the motivation that kept rebellious troops in the field for years was the freedom to maintain the south (and, implicitly, slavery), are we not obliged to admit that the equal motivation for Union troops was to maintain their concept of freedom, which overwhelmingly did not include slavery?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Talk of secession or the attempt at secession IS treason, dipshit.

The original 13 colonies seceded from england. What say ye to that.?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.
.

Yes indeed. The South simply left. And for that lincoln invaded them and started a huge war. L was the traitor.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If one argues that war against a state of the Union is illegal, but that the Confederacy was another country, then there is nothing to forbid war against it.

But lincoln refused to say that. He would not concede the South was another country. He always maintained they were rebel americans.

 

[bripat9643]

Not surprising that a fucked up Rightie Racist homosexual hating jail shower soap dropping idiot would start a thread like this.

Talk of secession or the attempt at secession IS treason, dipshit.

Wrong dumbass. Read the Constitution.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Talk of secession or the attempt at secession IS treason, dipshit.

The original 13 colonies seceded from england. What say ye to that.?

Wanna go back to 13 colonies fighting against a monarchy, dipshit? Non sequitur.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fun to watch Suthrrrrn loving asswipes make fools of themselves on this thread. Carry on...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

If one argues that war against a state of the Union is illegal, but that the Confederacy was another country, then there is nothing to forbid war against it.

But lincoln refused to say that. He would not concede the South was another country. He always maintained they were rebel americans.

Whenever it was convenient, Lincoln treated the South like it was a foreign country, for instance, like when General Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground. On the other hand, he also treated it like it was still part of America. His modern defenders in this forum do the exact same thing.

 

[thanatos144]

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.
.

Yes indeed. The South simply left. And for that lincoln invaded them and started a huge war. L was the traitor.

The south started the war dip shit .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bombur]

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE **** UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?

No one argued that they only did it for one reason.

Note that I said the one reason they did not do it was to free the slaves. You claimed that's why they did it.

Both the north and south had a lot of motivations. High on the list for both was slavery. To argue otherwise is delusional. You can do it and I can laugh.

 

[Bombur]

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.

The rights of people are not meaningless propaganda. I am not surprised someone defending the civil war south would think that but I am shocked you admitted it.

This absolute devotion to the law is a rather comical position to take for an American considering how the nation was founded.

The north had war waged upon them simply because the south feared they would end slavery. The American south was evil and your only defense is that you think that the north put a stop to that evil in an illegal way so we should just ignore everything else.

Your hopeless ignorance is noted.

I didn't say it was meaningless propaganda, I said I could claim that.

Whether I have an "obsession" with the law is one issue. However, one thing I'm adamant about is that governments should follow the laws they make, otherwise they are nothing but pure tyrannies. Whether people should follow those laws is another matter. What you're saying is that you support tyranny.

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.

Bottom line: you're a thug who supports tyrannical government.

The south did wage war on the North but the North would have been justified in pretty much any action they took because the government of the South was in such blatant violation of their duty to protect the rights of people and democratic action failed.

The Constitution imposed no such duties on them and Lincoln had no authority to wage war on any state of the Union. If you're arguing that government should ignore the law, then you're just admitting you support tyranny. Any way you look at it, you're wrong.

The South did not wage war on the Union states. Every battle of the Civil War except one was fought on Southern territory. They were all defensive.

The real tyranny is the treatment of the slaves. It is not tyranny for any people or any government to defend the rights of people with force and abolish the government that seeks to continue these sins against their fellow people.

It is tyranny when those people are signatories to a document that says they are not allowed to invade their fellow signatories.

The union created a bond between the north and those subject to the evil of slavery.

You actually said something correct, but it doesn't justify Lincoln's war on the Southern states.

It is now July 4th, the day this nation was created in recognition of a truth that doesn't need to be written down to hold more power and authority than any law in the world. You may not like the rights of people and neither did the south, that is why they waged war to continue their evil.

Meaningless blather.

The DOI and the basis for which we started a nation is not meaningless blather. Your understanding of the law is questionable but that particular point of ignorance is fairly meaningless compared to your failure to recognize the tyranny that was slavery and the fact that the South committed treason to defend that evil institution.

Our creator imposed those duties by the way. You can only deny the authority of the rights of people so many times before it is clear to everyone that you don't actually believe what the DOI said.

 

[there4eyeM]

The colonies had not agreed to a perpetual union with England.
The United States, the Perpetual Union, could not be 'left'. Certainly, rebellion is always a human option. Defending against rebellion is the natural response of a nation. Moving troops within its borders to do so is unremarkable. The Union did that and suppressed the uprising.

 

[bripat9643]

The South did not wage war on the Union. You have it precisely backwards. Lincoln waged war on the South. That was an act of treason. It was also evil. The fact that you approve demonstrates that you're evil.
.

Yes indeed. The South simply left. And for that lincoln invaded them and started a huge war. L was the traitor.

The south started the war dip shit .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

When did the South invade another state?

 

[bripat9643]

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE **** UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?

No one argued that they only did it for one reason.

Note that I said the one reason they did not do it was to free the slaves. You claimed that's why they did it.

Both the north and south had a lot of motivations. High on the list for both was slavery. To argue otherwise is delusional. You can do it and I can laugh.

Wrong. The Yankees didn't give a crap about the slaves. Lincoln even said so.

 

[mgh80]

MR DINGLE BERRY , SIR:


DID THE NORTHERNERS KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES PRACTICE SLAVERY AT THE TIME THEY UNITED, CIRCA 1787?


SO WHY DID THE FORM A UNION WITH THEIR IMMORAL COUNTERPARTS?


DID WASHINGTON DC REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE EXCISE TAX PAYMENTS PAID BY THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY USED BLOOD MONEY?


SHUT THE **** UP.


.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in this nation's history was slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That doesn't mean we can simply ignore the fact that the south not only fought through democratic means to continue this practice but actually went to war with their fellow countrymen with the express purpose of defending this evil institution. That they preferred betrayal, death, and destruction before defending the God given rights of people. That the union was preserved and the evil institution of slavery was eventually destroyed by the hard work and sacrifices made by the north.

The sins of the South make the problems we had with King George seem petty.

AGAIN, DID SOUTH CAROLINA THREATEN TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER HIGH TARIFFS?


DID THE NORTHERN STATES INCREASE THE TARIFF FROM 15 to 37% in 1861?


DIDN'T THE SOUTHERN STATES DEPEND ON IMPORTS PRIMARILY FROM SELLING COTTON TO THE UK?

No one argued that they only did it for one reason.

Note that I said the one reason they did not do it was to free the slaves. You claimed that's why they did it.

Both the north and south had a lot of motivations. High on the list for both was slavery. To argue otherwise is delusional. You can do it and I can laugh.

Why did the North still have slavery during the Civil War?

Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada?

Why did some Northern states pass the 13th amendment well after many/most Southern states?

Why did Grant own slaves?

Why did Lincoln offer the Southern states the opportunity to cease rebelling, and if they did the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't turn into law?

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free slaves in the South, and not the North?

I'm not suggesting that slavery wasn't a justification Lincoln leveraged to get the North to support the war more (when MANY citizens in the North were willing to let the South go)...I'm suggesting that it wasn't the main reason initially for the war.

 

[there4eyeM]

As slavery was intimately part of the economy of the south, even if we say economics was the cause, slavery is implicated. Without slavery, production would have required paying wages and would have developed internal markets in the south. Wealth would have been redistributed by market forces. There would never have been a rebellion or war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?"

They don't.

They correctly understand that it's ridiculous, unwarranted, and un-Constitutional.

 

[there4eyeM]

If one argues that war against a state of the Union is illegal, but that the Confederacy was another country, then there is nothing to forbid war against it.

But lincoln refused to say that. He would not concede the South was another country. He always maintained they were rebel americans.

Lincoln is not debating here; you are. You say the 'South' was another country and then claim the Union could not constitutionally engage in war against a foreign country. It is your self-contradiction that is addressed. Jefferson cultists seem to have an obsession with the idea that anyone who sees the Civil War differently from they is a 'Lincoln cultist'.